How do you hold someone at gunpoint?

[BloodEclipse]

Ok so lets say you are a defense atourney. You get a case about a guy, that shot and killed an intruder. He is completely truthful with you. He says I heard a bump, saw a man and just shot him. You ask was he armed? I do not know I just shot. IMO that's bad, if you have a jury full of Nazi anti-gunners you better pray. That's just my opinion. I mean if the guy just bumb rushes me, I'm going to shoot. If he gives threats, I'm not going to shoot him. He will have three choices.

1. Run like a *****
2. Get on the f'n ground, and let the cops take him away.
3. Keep advancing, after being warned he will be shot. Then get a bullet or two center mass.

Again just my opinion!

Just saying "Castle Doctrine"
BTW do you work security? In a mall?

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Just saying "Castle Doctrine"
BTW do you work security? In a mall?

No I was a Federal LEO, in the Coast Guard. We did a lot of boardings. We where tought to draw anytime you felt threatend. However you did not shoot first without first telling them to stop, then telling them stop or you will shot, and then you shoot. Unless they pull a gun. or try to run at you with a knife etc. Situation that where an immediate threat. If not you are going to get eaten up in court. So I'm not going to take that chance as a civilian, unless my life is in danger. I'm not going to shoot someone, just because there in my place. When I do not have a full picture, of the situation. I mean if I see no weapons, he is not making threating remarks, or trying to advance. I really do not see it as a rational act to do so. However I will have my gun drawn so I can react quickly. If a cop shot an unramed subject, that made no advances. How well do you think things would go? So as a civilian, im not going to do just that! Now if I had a family, and lets say they make a break for my childs room. If I could get a clean shot, without taking a chance of hitting my child. That to me is different. Because I then consider him/her a threat, and I would be protecting my child. However I have no kids to worry about. Do not say we are talking about protecting your life, and property. Because that's an officers job. Oh, nice do you work security. That was really funny LOL. Seriousaly, are you going to act with a childish remark. Hmmm guess another case, of you do not agree so you are wrong. Well this sub forum, has some people need to get over themselves. I'll go back to the land of the sane now. Whats it matter to you, how I conduct myself in my own home anyways?

 

[BloodEclipse]

If a cop shot an unramed subject, that made no advances. How well do you think things would go?

If the unarmed subject was in the cop's house I would expect it to go just like it would any other citizen under the law. The fact someone is in your home univited, is not the same as shooting someone off of your property who is unarmed.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

If the unarmed subject was in the cop's house I would expect it to go just like it would any other citizen under the law. The fact someone is in your home invited, is not the same as shooting someone off of your property who is unarmed.

So if someone was in your house, and you saw no weapons on them. They made no immediate threats to you, or your family. You are just going to shoot them? I do not know everything about the castle doctrine. However could you show me, where it says shoot an unarmed person, or a situation where you see no visible weapons. Plus they are not making any immediate threats? In other words, they are just standing there like a dear in headlights because you have a gun pointed at them.

 

[BloodEclipse]

So if someone was in your house, and you saw no weapons on them. They made no immediate threats to you, or your family. You are just going to shoot them? I do not know everything about the castle doctrine. However could you show me, where it says shoot an unarmed person, or a situation where you see no visable weapons. Plus they are not making any imediate threats? In other words, they are just standing there because you have a gun pointed at them.

This was my earlier response.

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.

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.

 

[Indecision]

Point my gun at them from a safe distance and tell them not to move, react accordingly for the rest of the situation. Too many variables.

 

[EMTaco]

How legal would it be to shoot his truck (pull a Richard Pryor "you ain't leavin' in this motha f*@#er!") as he (or she) is leaving the driveway. and then hold him at gun point in his truck until police arrived?

Doubt I would try this, but in the heat of the moment with adrenaline, fear and anger going... who knows, just another "what if" to throw on the pile.

-K

100% ILLEGAL...no immediate threat = no justification of force!

 

[EMTaco]

As far as the restraint thing goes...I'd vote no unless you're a leo. They train in it. We don't (and practicing with furry handcuffs doesn't count!) IMHO, getting within contact distance of a subject without the proper training/backup/knowledge is asking for trouble. At ten feet, with him on his stomach, I'm in control. Without backup (and that involves a weapon pointed in MY direction while restraining the BG) I can't necessarily keep my weapon EFFECTIVELY aimed at the subject...which gives him opportunity.

 

[Armed & Christian]

From what I understand, restraining a BG puts you in the hot seat, as the perp can claim that he had a change of heart, *tried* to leave, and desperately *wanted* to leave--but you prevented him from doing so.

 

[BloodEclipse]

From what I understand, restraining a BG puts you in the hot seat, as the perp can claim that he had a change of heart, *tried* to leave, and desperately *wanted* to leave--but you prevented him from doing so.

So are you suggesting it better to just shoot them?

 

[GuyRelford]

This scenario points out the very interesting relationship among Indiana’s statutes on “self-defense,” “citizen’s arrest,” and “pointing a firearm."​

First, as several posters have pointed out, Indiana’s “Castle Doctrine” statute, IC 35-41-3-2, allows the use of deadly force, with no 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.” Unlike the general self-defense situation outside the home, a person does not have to be under a threat of “serious bodily injury” in order to use deadly force to “prevent or terminate” an illegal entry into his or her home.​

But the OP presented a somewhat different scenario – deadly force was not used. The homeowner merely detained the BG at gunpoint. This is what creates the interplay between Indiana’s statutes on “citizen’s arrest” and “pointing a firearm.”​

Under IC 35-33-1-4,​

“(a) Any person may arrest any other person if:​

(1) the other person committed a felony in his presence;​

(2) a felony has been committed and he has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed that felony; or
(3) a misdemeanor involving a breach of peace is being committed in his presence and the arrest is necessary to prevent the continuance of the breach of peace.

(b) A person making an arrest under this section shall, as soon as practical, notify a law enforcement officer and deliver custody of the person arrested to a law enforcement officer.
(c) The law enforcement officer may process the arrested person as if the officer had arrested him. The officer who receives or processes a person arrested by another under this section is not liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.”

Here, you have at least one felony (“residential entry” under IC 35-43-2-1.5) being committed in the homeowner’s presence (and probably “burglary” under IC-43-2-1 as well) . That allows the homeowner to conduct a citizen’s arrest. But how much force can the homeowner exert in making that arrest? That is covered in an entirely different statute, IC 35-41-3-3(a):

“(a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:​

(1) a felony has been committed; and​

(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.

However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.”​

“Section 2 of this chapter” is the general self-defense statute that includes Indiana's "Castle Doctrine," which we’ve covered. So, in this scenario, the homeowner is justified in using force to conduct the arrest under IC 35-41-3-3, including deadly force to the extent it is "necessary to prevent or terminate . . . [the] unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling” under 35-41-3-2. ​

But again, what about just holding him at gunpoint – without using “deadly force”?​

That is covered in IC 35-47-4-3:​

“Pointing firearm at another person​

Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:​

(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or​

(2) IC 35-41-3-3.

(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.”​

As we’ve discussed, IC 35-41-3-2 is the self-defense statute - which includes Indiana's "Castle Doctrine" that justifies the use of deadly force under this scenario, and IC 35-41-3-3 is the “use of force” statute that covers “citizen’s arrests.” As a result, IC 35-47-4-3 allows the homeowner to point his firearm at the BG during the citizen’s arrest.

As always – this isn’t intended to be legal advice – just my view of the law.​

 

[misconfig]

Not sure if there is a "proper" way, as a student of Krav Maga, I've learned that distance is the gunman's best friend. In Krav Maga, you're taught to get as close as you possibly can to the attacker.

If you have a reasonable distance, you'll have time to react.

 

[bigiron]

Ok so lets say you are a defense atourney. You get a case about a guy, that shot and killed an intruder. He is completely truthful with you. He says I heard a bump, saw a man and just shot him. You ask was he armed? I do not know I just shot. IMO that's bad, if you have a jury full of Nazi anti-gunners you better pray. That's just my opinion. I mean if the guy just bumb rushes me, I'm going to shoot. If he gives threats, I'm not going to shoot him. He will have three choices.

1. Run like a *****
2. Get on the f'n ground, and let the cops take him away.
3. Keep advancing, after being warned he will be shot. Then get a bullet or two center mass.

Again just my opinion!

i see your point of view and i value your opinion. as both of us have come from LE we both have had similar training. while carrying out our duties as officers of the court or the government, we have SOPs we have to follow in accordance of the law. in my home i am protected by the castle doctrine and have the legal right to protect what is mine. every situation is different just like all of our viewpoints. i have three small kids and a wife whom i have to protect. by doing what some call the right thing(i.e. giving verbal commands to stop and such) i see me giving away my tactical advantage given other variables(other BGs or the fact that maybe i hesitate and he gets the upper hand). in that situation i have taught myself to not think past identifying the threat. i don't want to shoot one of my kids or wife so i will flash the streamlight to identify and then send one shot of #4s to paralyze and then a second round ball slug into the subject to terminate and then re-assess. by this time LE is on the way. my own opinion is this, keep this threat alive and anything could happen and the risk for me is too high knowing the other people in the house. if i were home alone, i will not act differently. if you come in unwanted, you are my enemy and i have to assume you mean harm and to discount that threat could be lethal on my part. we'll all never agree on our different doctrines, but one thing we can agree on: lets not break into each others homes and we will all live to discuss other cool topics like new carry weapons and women.....and beer! be safe.

 

[finity]

Do not say we are talking about protecting your life, and property. Because that's an officers job.

Nope. It's your job to protect your own life UNTIL the officers get there.

LEO's & non-LEO's have different roles. As a non-LEO I am not required to give ANY WARNING whatsoever before I use deadly force as long as that force is authorized by law.

 

[SirRealism]

Do not say we are talking about protecting your life, and property. Because that's an officers job.

Hmm, I guess that makes me an officer.

 

[redneckpastor]

i ll just say that i hate to see when BG breaks into a house and someone stops him, points a gun at him and then some how the BG gets the upper hand and harm is done!
If you break into my house, GAME OVER! i shoot to stop the threat!

Not going to fire a warning shot in my house, his warning was the window or door he broke into! And when he cross that line, he left his rights there as well!

and about the whole police protecting you... WRONG!! it is your job to protect you! even if you disagree... seriously, what is the response time , even if its great, you still have a BG in your home with uncertain motives! Logically its you VS them! Cops arrive they can take it from there but till them i am defending myself and my family by any means!

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Nope. It's your job to protect your own life UNTIL the officers get there.

LEO's & non-LEO's have different roles. As a non-LEO I am not required to give ANY WARNING whatsoever before I use deadly force as long as that force is authorized by law.

What I meant, is it is also an officers job to do so. Meaning is someone breaks in, and is not an imediate threat. Detain them, until the police arive.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

i ll just say that i hate to see when BG breaks into a house and someone stops him, points a gun at him and then some how the BG gets the upper hand and harm is done!
If you break into my house, GAME OVER! i shoot to stop the threat!

Not going to fire a warning shot in my house, his warning was the window or door he broke into! And when he cross that line, he left his rights there as well!

and about the whole police protecting you... WRONG!! it is your job to protect you! even if you disagree... seriously, what is the response time , even if its great, you still have a BG in your home with uncertain motives! Logically its you VS them! Cops arrive they can take it from there but till them i am defending myself and my family by any means!

I agree with what you are saying. The point I was trying to make is this. If someone breaks in my place. I will not shoot them, if they do not threaten me with a weapon and I can contain them until the police arive.

 

[bigiron]

i see alot of guys or gals taking chances here hoping this BG stops and follows orders and doesn't have a buddy in the kitchen when you yell. for me, to many variables for a confrontation and no way i'm standing in my living room with a BG on the ground waiting for city police to arrive. it they are on a call north of town i could seriously be waiting 5 minutes or more. i'll police the inside of my home, i'll let the police have the outside. by the way, those of you who believe chambering a round with a shotgun will likely scare away an intruder, i hope you're right and you have the time. making noise gives away you position and if for some crazy reason it doesn't fully chanber that round and "smoke stack" or something, have a back-up plan.

 

[mammynun]

Not commenting on the legal issues as they all depend on the specific scenario...

I was taught that the best position to detain a person was to have them kneel on their hands; very difficult to move aggressively from that position. try it yourself.