How do you hold someone at gunpoint?

[SilentWarrior1]

#1 I would want to assess the situation first, with the business end of my Glock or my AR towards the BG, of course.

2# I would be loud enough to wake up every MF'er in my building, seeing as I live in an apartment. Having been an a Range NCO in the Army, I can be VERY loud, clear and concise.

Originally Posted by Scutter01

Unless, of course, you're planning to secure him with rope, belt, zip ties, cuffs, etc. Then, by all means, stand or kneel on his neck while you do so.

FWIW, PLEASE don't attempt to do this unless you A) are trained to handle this procedure B) have someone to CYA or C) Both.

[BloodEclipse]

If they are in my house they are a threat to me and my family.
If it happens that I have not shot them and get them under control (spread eagle on the floor) they will remain that way untill LEOs arrive. Any attempt to move from this position would consitute aggression and it would be dealt with quickly.

[Ri22o]

Originally Posted by BloodEclipse

If they are in my house they are a threat to me and my family.
If it happens that I have not shot them and get them under control (spread eagle on the floor) they will remain that way untill LEOs arrive. Any attempt to move from this position would consitute aggression and it would be dealt with quickly.

I agree. Any uninvited guest in my house is, and will be, considered a threat and will be dealt with accordingly.

[JosephR]

I would do what I thought I had to do at the moment and what I knew I could do within the limits of the law.

Holding someone at gunpoint is never legal. It might be legal in your home but I doubt it. It is holding someone against their will with the threat of deadly force- not legal.

You are allowed to shoot them in if they are unlawfully in your home. I personally wouldn't shoot someone unless I felt threatened. If I felt threatened I wouldn't hesitate.

More than likely if I caught someone off guard in my home I'd point the gun at them and tell them to "freeze" or "don't move or I'll blow your head off" or something similar. I'd call the police. But, if the person moved towards the door without moving towards me in a non threatening manner, I wouldn't shoot them.

You need to think about what a jury will let you live with AND what you'd be willing to live with. The intruder will more than likely have a family so there's always the possibility of a lawsuit.

[sjstill]

Originally Posted by SilentWarrior1

FWIW, PLEASE don't attempt to do this unless you A) are trained to handle this procedure B) have someone to CYA or C) Both.

This needs a big 'ol +1!

[mosesiscarryingapdw]

The correct answer to "How do you hold someone at gunpoint" is "when they are face down, hemorrhaging blood, and the police and ambulance are on their way."

[baldmax]

Indiana has the Castle Doctrine:

If you can get past the train metaphor (which is hard because they really do their best to beat it to death), this year-old article from the NRA has a good summary of which states enacted laws that eliminate the duty to reasonably retreat from an intruder in your home. As of October 2006,

Castle Doctrine [was] the law in Alabama, Arizona, [Florida,] Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota.

I note that contrary to my naive political expectations, California, Michigan, Oregon, and Texas are all suspiciously absent from that list. But not to fear! In the past year, eleven more states have adopted some version of the Castle Doctrine as law:

[As of October 4 2007], the Castle Doctrine has become law in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Missouri and Maine. . . . By far, the popular concept in those states has been the “stand your ground” approach that permits a homeowner to fire upon invaders at first sight.

Found it here:

The Castle Doctrine: A State-by-State Summary « tekel

[Ri22o]

Originally Posted by baldmax

Indiana has the Castle Doctrine:

If you can get past the train metaphor (which is hard because they really do their best to beat it to death), this year-old article from the NRA has a good summary of which states enacted laws that eliminate the duty to reasonably retreat from an intruder in your home. As of October 2006,

Castle Doctrine [was] the law in Alabama, Arizona, [Florida,] Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota.

I note that contrary to my naive political expectations, California, Michigan, Oregon, and Texas are all suspiciously absent from that list. But not to fear! In the past year, eleven more states have adopted some version of the Castle Doctrine as law:

[As of October 4 2007], the Castle Doctrine has become law in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Missouri and Maine. . . . By far, the popular concept in those states has been the “stand your ground” approach that permits a homeowner to fire upon invaders at first sight.

Found it here:

The Castle Doctrine: A State-by-State Summary « tekel

So, what exactly is the Castle Doctrine? Your post was basically a copy of the provided link.

[pmpmstrb]

Castle Doctrine in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Wiki we have a "stand your ground" doctrine which is one level up from a the Castle doctrine.

Other states have a stand-your-ground clause, or no duty to retreat policy which expressly relieves the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. In states where Castle Law is included as a part of a larger personal-self-defense law, there may be a duty to retreat if the altercation happens in a place outside the home; even though there is no duty to retreat if the altercation happens at the home.
Stand-your-ground laws (sometimes called shoot-first laws by critics) are statutes that allow the use of deadly force to defend against forcible unlawful entry or attack. These bills significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from an invader or assailant in certain cases before resorting to the use of "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another." [3]
In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated-
The doctrine of 'retreat to the wall' had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs, and even knives, as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced men, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[4]
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.[5]

[pmpmstrb]

Indiana Code 35-41-3

Here it is in black and white

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and (B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.