Let them run, or hold them.

God forbid any potential criminals come in here and read this thread. They would be emboldened to new heights of criminality. If even the gun nuts would just let a BG walk, what's to fear from anyone? Criminal mindset becomes: Hell, I can try and steal stuff (or worse) and the worst thing that will happen is I just walk. What's the downside?
Click to expand...

If a criminal knowingly and unlawful enters an occupied dwelling, his biggest concern is not being held at gunpoint. His intent undoubtedly extends beyond stealing "stuff." The downside? Getting shot in self defense. Not for ignoring a "command" but for getting into a situation in which the occupant had to do so and was justified.

Would that distinction embolden you to "new heights of criminality?"

[Are you really going to let him just walk?] Would ANYONE tolerate the same of the police?
Click to expand...

No, not at all, but the police are trained and paid to arrest a criminal using carefully established department policy and procedure, and the officers are protected against civil suits. The civilian is not.

Police officers (plural) will use force-physical force--to get the perps in cuffs and into their cars.

Do you think they would shoot? Not likely! Read Garner v. Tennessee. The old "fleeing felon" rule is no longer operative.

If the guy turns and starts to walk away, are you going to shoot him in the back? Why yes... if someone refuses a command to hold, perhaps the idea is to shoot them.
Click to expand...

Probable outcomes: your arrest, trial, conviction, incarceration, and loss of your gun rights forever, for committing a felony...

Plus civil suits and large settlements against you for wrongful death or injury.

Don't even think about it.

For all you know, they'll make a run at you once you've shown no willingness to actually USE the defensive weapon you are holding.
Click to expand...

Make sure they know your willing to use your weapon for defense, but if you shoot someone to keep him from leaving, how would you characterize it as a "defensive weapon" As BillCA says, he remains a danger until he is gone.

Heed the good advice of Hkmp5sd:

Main point is that you use your gun to stop an immediate threat. If the guy is running away, he is no longer an immediate threat and you have no legal right to shoot him. An attempt on your part to detain him may result in your arrest for armed kidnapping.

Don't try to be a hero. Be a good witness for the police and go home alive. Do exactly what BILLCA recommended above.

If you want to detain BGs at gunpoint, join the police force.
Click to expand...
 
Saying on the internet, which will be found, that you will ignore legality is a very good plan for your trial. If you study police cases - you find they are sued over and over for the level of force to be used. Assume it will happen to you.

This discussion is a good ad for well run FOF classes. Do a simulated burglary or street incident where the BG just turns and walks out of your house or someone is peeing your gas tank. Hold 'em at gun point - so they don't comply. Now what?

It is fun to be a role player for someone in that situation. I just did that in a simulated convenience store incident. The GG had the drop on me and I didn't comply - just stood there and raved - So, shoot me, tough guy. Gonna shoot a disabled vet hard on his luck!!!

In front of a bunch of witnesses. BTW, I had a rubber knife but I didn't approach the GG, just ranted. Without approach, the Tueller case would be hard to prove and cop cases show that the Tueller story isn't universally accepted by the DA or civil courts.
 
Did I just read that a forum member does not intend to abide by the law?
Click to expand...

Please. What you read was that a forum member was going to be guided by his own conscience regardless of what the then current law might say. I'd be surprised if 2% of the population even KNEW what the law in their STATE even said, let alone the fact that the law in every state is different, let alone that the law in any given state changes periodically -- that doesn't keep them from acting, they just act as best they can using their own moral compass, good or bad as it may be. Whether it's legal in FL but not in NJ (or wherever) really shouldn't be the guidepost used by someone in such a situation.

I'd have to understand the law before I could defy it, correct? I posted on here a question regarding hollowpoints in NJ and still am not clear what the answer is. My wife is a lawyer (though not specializing in criminal offenses or firearams) and she can't make much sense of it either. Hence my blanket suggestion to treat everyone you encounter during and after an incident very carefully, including the police. Don't take it from me, this is straight from Ayoob. Last I checked, the FIFTH amendment was still in place. EVERYONE should assume, regardless of how well they know the law, that the prosecutor may be out to get them, and not be so quick to bear witness against themselves. For all you know, something was passed a week before your incident and now what you thought was okay is now illegal. It's been known to happen.

Anyone that would trade in their morals & ethics for laws written by politicians may as well hand over their very souls while they're at it. If our founding fathers thought like this, we'd still be a colony of the United Kingdom.
 
Last edited:
My point was that I'm not a lawyer and not going to be dragging out the lawbooks or checking the internet for the current regs if someone is in my house. I'll do what I think is best at the time, guided by my own conscience, knowing that I'll have to live with the decision.
Click to expand...

The point is to be aware of the law before an incident. Having some knowledge of what is legal can guide you. Also, it is easy to talk about conscience but what we usually see in some forum debates are the emotional vs. the rational. A sense of territorial violation overcoming a hard look at the consequences of a shoot.

Can you shoot someone who got up from raping your daughter or your son or you? Maybe it would be good to know that. How can that knowledge hurt?

But rape is emotional and clouding the issue for the discussion. How about the guy holding your prized possession and runs towards the door? Might it be good to understand if you could shoot him in the back?

Anyway - make your own path - be aware of the consequences of choosing the emotional over the rational.
 
Anyone that would trade in their morals & ethics for laws written by politicians may as well hand over their very souls while they're at it.
Click to expand...

Do not take this as argumentative.

It is true that our laws are written by legislators, who are politicians.

It is also true, however, that most of our laws that pertain to self defense and related subjects (with the exception of those that limit gun ownership) have been carefully thought out and have evolved over centuries, and are based on ethical standards that most of us believe in.

The English Common Law held that murder was wrong. It also recognized that homicide committed in an act of proper self preservation was justifiable. But the question was how to distinguish between wrongful or reckless homicide and lawful self-defense, and to prevent the defendant from wrongly using that justification. Hence, the duty to retreat was specified. That did not apply within the home ("a man's castle"). And while it was permissible to use force to protect property, that meant reasonable force--deadly force was not permitted.

For the most part all of our state laws on this subject today are primarily rooted in those long-standing legal and ethical principles, though some detailed changes have been made over time, and the castle doctrine has not been codified in all states.

The only area that I know of (perhaps a legal scholar might help here) in which our current laws are more favorable to the suspect than the original common law in states with strong Castle laws is in the area of the use of deadly force by the police to stop fleeing suspects. I don't think that (the effects of Garner v. Tennessee) is a bad change, but an attorney friend disagrees.

These foundational laws were established, tested, and modified over an extended period by judges, on the basis of ethics, common sense, and prior judicial decisions.

So, the legal considerations that prevent an American citizen today from avoiding punishment, should he decide to shoot someone to prevent the potential commission of future crimes, are not the result of "laws written by politicians", nor are most of the other concepts in our criminal codes. Rather, they are rooted in long and well-tested legal and ethical traditions.

My moral compass would never lead me to fire a gun at someone simply because I thought he needed to be taken into custody. I learned a long time ago that there is such a thing as due process, and that that process does not include my deciding guilt or innocence, passing sentence, or executing that sentence.

I hope you find this worth while.
 
Can you shoot someone who got up from raping your daughter or your son or you? Maybe it would be good to know that. How can that knowledge hurt?
Click to expand...

Not saying I would or wouldn't, but how could you let the law determine whether or not you'd kill someone? Isn't this something that you yourself better be okay with one way or another?

Think about it. Are you going to shoot someone because the law says you can? Are you not going to shoot someone who you think NEEDS shooting because the law says you cannot?

I would hope that anyone who shoots someone would find it important enough to do so whether or not it was legal or not -- taking a life should be that big of a deal. At the end of the day, a human pulls the trigger. Don't you want that person to be responsible for their actions and not say 'the law said I could, so I did'?
 
My moral compass would never lead me to fire a gun at someone simply because I thought he needed to be taken into custody. I learned a long time ago that there is such a thing as due process, and that that process does not include my deciding guilt or innocence, passing sentence, or executing that sentence.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your argument, really I do. I'm curious, then, what you think of the actions of those who, when faced with a threat simply pulled their weapon and fired, not necessarily knowing whether or not the BG would have otherwise left peacably?

Two examples come to mind:
(1) the Delaware drug store shooting versus a clearly armed BG (thread on here recently locked, so let's be careful here); here the BG had the tactical advantage of having the weapon trained on an innocent and was prepared to do harm, though it's questionable if he would have
(2) example from current American Rifleman: woman with kids sees BG enter her house, she grabs a handgun and shoots him (he escapes wounded); it's not clear that the BG had any weapon or intent to do harm

In either case above, it could be argued that shots should not have been fired. It could (and probably will) be a legal hassle for #1; for #2, it's doubtful (even people on this board can't agree about #1, to the extent the other thread was locked).

I don't see how either person acted with respect to the law rather than with respect to what they felt they needed to do at that point in time. I don't know what state #2 took place in, but I doubt her response would have differed based on state law.
 
For all you know, they'll make a run at you once you've shown no willingness to actually USE the defensive weapon you are holding.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by willingness to use your weapon?

The moment they make a run at you you would have a valid argument for the use of deadly force. If they are walking away they are not a threat.

No one is saying to let your guard down and relax while he is walking away.
 
not necessarily knowing whether or not the BG would have otherwise left peacably?
Click to expand...

In either case above, it could be argued that shots should not have been fired.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. It is not what the guy might "otherwise" do. It is what the guy is doing right now. In the case of the drug store shooting, the guy was pointing a gun at someone, threatening to shoot them. For the safety of the pharmacist and security guard, he needed to be stopped immediately. That justifies using deadly force. The law does not require you to show your gun and give the guy the opportunity to surrender or leave. It says you may do whatever is necessary to stop the individual from being a threat.
 
In general Joe Horn here in Texas had it right. "Move! You're Dead!" Followed by shotgun blasts when the thieves moved.
 
Judgement call according to the situation. there's a big difference in my mind between stopping a rape or kidnapping and stopping some redneck from beating me w/baseball bat b/c I looked at his girlfriend. the first two are going to be held, baseball bat dude just learned a valuable lesson and may leave.
 
Are you going to shoot someone because the law says you can?
Click to expand...

NO! David Armstrong often says something to the effect that it's not just a matter of whether you can shoot, but also of whether you should shoot.


Are you not going to shoot someone who you think NEEDS shooting because the law says you cannot?
Click to expand...

I most certainly will not shoot someone on the basis of my thinking that he "needs shooting," particularly when it would be illegal! The citizens of the state have not vested in me the powers of judge, jury, or executioner. Rather, they have given those powers to others, who would almost certainly find me guilty of some variety of murder, and impose sentence accordingly.

And of course, there would be the most serious issue of severe civil liability.

Here are some things that are worthy of your most careful study:

http://www.useofforce.us/

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

These are rather lengthy but anyone with a gun should read them and study them.

I also recommend The Ayoob Files and In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob.

Finally, it might be well worth the investment to invest in an hour or two of consultation with knowledgeable criminal attorney in your state. The return could be incalculable.

I do hope you find these discussions helpful. Be aware, however, that posts that would seem to indicate a lack of respect for the law or for human life may, as Glenn Meyer pointed out (and so, by the way, has Mas), prove most unhelpful to the poster later on, and they can be used against us by those who do not favor private gun ownership or carry.
 
Last edited:
You're oversimplifying my commentary. I've never said that what I would do was directly opposite what the law said I could do. What I did say is that what I would do is not determined by what the law says I could do. There is a difference. 99% of the time, my own personal morals & ethics would probably line up with the law. That last 1%, however, will depend on what is right, regardless if the arbitrary law at the time matches up with it or not. I'm a human with a soul first, and a citizen second.

If you were in the same situation in two different states, one where shooting is legal and one where it is not, would you truly act differently? Perhaps you just wouldn't shoot in either case, and that's fine. But that isn't the question.

Anyone on here can say they'd only do what is legal, but that's truly B.S. when the situation turns dire in a heartbeat. They'd do what they think is right, and if they're lucky, their choice will be one that is also legal. The law isn't exactly perfect, you know... if it was, it wouldn't be different across the 50 states.

Would you rather have a person of high moral conviction (whose convictions you agreed with) or someone knowledgeable in the law as your neighbor?
 
For the safety of the pharmacist and security guard, he needed to be stopped immediately.
Click to expand...

Would OldMarks agree here? Not only would he be playing the judge, jury, and executioner he doesn't want to play, but it is EASY to argue (and has been) that the mere act of confronting the BG increased the chances dramatically of someone getting shot. Has the security guard lost that shootout, who knows who else may have been shot. The fact that the security guard was a former LEO is irrelevant beyond the point that he had the nerve to act decisively.

OldMarks, I'd really like your take on the 2 scenarios I listed in a prior post up on this page.
 
Judgement call according to the situation. there's a big difference in my mind between stopping a rape or kidnapping and stopping some redneck from beating me w/baseball bat b/c I looked at his girlfriend. the first two are going to be held, baseball bat dude just learned a valuable lesson and may leave.
Click to expand...

Quoting you above, "the first two are going to be held" - or else what? That's the real question, no? [Assuming your presence with the weapon stopped the assault, but didn't require you to immediately shoot the BG to do so.]
 
http://www.useofforce.us/
http://tinyurl.com/defselfdefcase
http://tinyurl.com/lpitjotuof
[I tinyurl'd the ones that were ridiculously long, in case anyone wants to be able to easily copy these and send them around without them being truncated]
Click to expand...

Excellent stuff OldMarksman. Everyone should read it. I think you'll find much of what I said is already in line with this, especially the below. I'll be sure to review it all and also make sure my wife (who is a lawyer, though not a criminal lawyer) is up to spec on this issue. More than anything, I repeat the below because everyone needs to know that once the incident is over, the police are not your friend and you are a very poor witness against yourself. If what you did was truly innocent, you'll be just as innocent once you get a lawyer to consult you. If there is anything that could put you in a bad light, it could be magnified by your post incident overly emotionally charged mouth with someone out to get you. And you should assume that someone is always out to get you. If you're wrong, no big deal. Ayoob's own best comment on this was something I read recently -- provide enough info so that it's clear that you are the victim, but no more. Applies more so to incidents in public than in your home. i.e. if the incident occurs in a parking lot, you don't want someone else just saying you pulled a gun on them and the police having nothing else to go on, esp. if the other person isn't armed*

From one of the links provided by OldMarksman:
When the police arrive, identify yourself. If you used a weapon and still have it on you, tell them so in non-threatening manner. Do not be alarmed if they handcuff you. Cooperate but tell the police only those facts that are necessary for them to know immediately (e.g., point out injuries, witnesses, etc.). To be safe, say nothing more at all; you are under a great deal of stress and the adrenaline is pumping, which may lead you to say things you do not mean. Explain this to the police and tell them that you will not make a statement or answer questions until your attorney is present. (Here is an outstanding and compelling run-down of the reasons why not to talk to the police, whether innocent or guilty, presented by an attorney and an active-duty officer.) Do not apologize or verbally express remorse for what happened; remember, your actions were justified.
Click to expand...

The "HERE" bit is a link to this:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html

Best part from the first video in the above: "everything you tell the police can and will be used against you -- it cannot be used to help you - ever" (around 9:15 into it)

Bottom line -- if you've exercised your 2nd Amendment to protect yourself during an alteraction, be prepared to use the 5th Amendment to protect yourself thereafter.
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for OldMarksman to tell me exactly what he would do if someone broke into his home. If they surrendered immediately on seeing you had a gun, then what? Do you not keep your gun out while you wait for the cops? Or, do you insist that the BG leave your premises immediately and just hope that the police can find him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top