PDA

View Full Version : Handcuffs a no-no?


hogdogs
June 4, 2009, 04:54 AM
So in areas where you have the right to use any level of force to stop a violent felony could you use hand cuffs on the felon... LEGALLY?
Given the opportunity to have a set of full quality pro cuffs and the safe position to cuff it would give the person with gun etc. the ability to concentrate better on callin 911 etc.

If the BG complies with orders to avoid being shot, I would have them splayed out on their face no matter hot pavement fire ants or any other uncomfortable spot this takes place. If they could be cuffed up I might consider moving them to a safer spot.
Just curious at this wee hour waiting the final "death throes" of the coffee maker... Well there we go...
Brent

Dingoboyx
June 4, 2009, 05:10 AM
a whole lot of drama......

False imprisonment for one....
If the BG gets the better of you, you might be the one wearing them :o

& the worst thing, getting them off your missus... she might get cranky :D
oh, and the bad guy might not be impressed with all the pink feathers and fluff on them either :eek::D

BTW Brent.... how come you are thinking of handcuffs as you are getting ready for bed? [evil snicker]

hogdogs
June 4, 2009, 05:33 AM
Up from bed VERY EARLY!!!
I was given a set of Smith and Wesson cuffs in a belt holster by a feller that I hosted on a hog hunt. I was curious as to the legality of their use on a felon by a citizen. I wouldn't attempt to cuff them from any position other than tem on their face and only if the missus took control the gun or even Junior (19). It would suck if they chose to cease compliance due to fire ant stings etc. and get them self shot for it. It was a random thought I had and felt the T&T regulars may have opinion (who woulda thunk TFL'ers would have opinions to voice:rolleyes:) to put forth... I am not itching to go out cuffin' all the crack dealers either!:D
Brent

BlindMansBluff
June 4, 2009, 05:36 AM
1. possibility of charges such as false imprisonment and kid napping come to mind.
2. um why wouldn't some one at gun point comply with any orders you give, even to stay still
3. I am wondering where these thoughts come from it leaves me highly curious

hogdogs
June 4, 2009, 05:39 AM
Blind man, They routinely fail to comply with law enforcement officers by running from them from the get go or bolting away once grabbed even.
I figure it is safer legally to not use them even if it makes me safer.
Brent

ZeSpectre
June 4, 2009, 06:02 AM
A few thoughts.

Handcuffing someone who is putting up even the slightest resistance is very difficult.

Handcuffing -properly- so that they are not too tight and not too loose is very difficult under stress.

Improperly applied cuffs can cause all kinds of additional injuries and leave you WIDE OPEN for some heavy duty lawsuits (aside from charges related to illegal detention)

If one should decide to ignore the above listed thoughts, keep in mind that many (most) of the handcuffs out there are not "up to spec" for real world use so you want to research heavily before even considering using cuffs you might have.

Finally, if you are going to carry cuffs. Learn how the pro's hide a spare cuff key and have one with you, in your car, etc. Also learn how to uncuff yourself with your spare key.

That's about all my fuzzy brain will come up with right now.

hogdogs
June 4, 2009, 06:13 AM
Ze, While I am no pro... I have cuffed many hogs in the woods and yes it is difficult to undertake at times. We used to use (still will at times) cuffs as a quick hobble method on dog caught hogs until we started using hog hobble ringed straps...
I am also aware of sub-grade knock off cuffs. Had a set strip open one side when we put a hog in the pen and we had to get in there with the dogs to get the other side open which resulted in a dog getting cut.
These I was given are full pro grade S&W brand.
Brent

THEZACHARIAS
June 4, 2009, 06:24 AM
If theres someone else in the house, it would probably be easier (and safer) to have them call the cops so you can hold the guy there and not even have to touch him. Being in arms reach to put handcuffs on someone also puts them within arms reach of turning the tables on you.

OldMarksman
June 4, 2009, 06:35 AM
I think there's a distinction between using force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony and detaining a suspect. The latter would seem to fall into the realm of citizen's arrest.

Attorneys with whom I have spoken recommend against making citizen's arrests.

hogdogs
June 4, 2009, 06:46 AM
In florida a citizen can use any force needed to stop and detain a person engaged in a violent felony. Also if I were ever to draw on a person robbing me etc. the compliance I need to see is hands up and face flop while I call the cops. This goes for any level of force I use, hands, knife, gun, hammer... anything. I doubt I would ever feel a need or comfort from carrying cuffs. Shame junior showed an interest in them when we took the guy huntin' and he gifted them to junior, since they will just be a trinket in the house...:rolleyes:
Nice neather "half holster" too.
Maybe I will buy me a fake badge and play "undercover copper" with momma... On second thought her "resisting arrest" might lead to me getting a black eye, broke nose and fat lip... She would fight more than yer average 6'4" 250 pound thug!:D
Brent

rampage841512
June 4, 2009, 07:29 AM
Detaining someone at gun point is going to fall prey to claims of false imprisonment and/or kidnapping as well as using handcuffs would. If you are holding a BG against their will that's the risk you take. I think if I could detain someone safely I would, but it's going to depend on the circumstances/crime attempted etc.

absolute0
June 4, 2009, 07:55 AM
No way is this a good idea for a civilian (like me) to even consider.

No way.

skydiver3346
June 4, 2009, 08:25 AM
Interesting question there. First of all, I have a nice set of S&W handcuffs that I keep in my drawer. But the bottom line is, you have to get very close to the bad guy to use them, (that could be dangerous).

I am not worried about false imprisonment (by using handcuffs) of a person who has broken in my home and/or threatened me and my family. To hell with their rights once they have done that. It just would depend on the particular situation, if I would ever use handcuffs or not. Maybe the best thing is to just keep your weapon trained on suspect until the police arrive? That is if you haven't already shot them already for breaking in your home.....

A_McDougal
June 4, 2009, 08:31 AM
A courtroom hurdle is proving that you weren't looking for an excuse to use your defensive carry weapon. That hurdle rises if you are carrying handcuffs (or a police scanner, lockpick set, bottle of chloroform, etc).

In your home, sure. But even then you could more easily justify having zip ties - which have legitimate around-the-home uses.

Wagonman
June 4, 2009, 08:39 AM
Maybe I will buy me a fake badge and play "undercover copper" with momma... On second thought her "resisting arrest" might lead to me getting a black eye, broke nose and fat lip... She would fight more than yer average 6'4" 250 pound thug!


Alright, I am sending you a bill for a new laptop-----I just sprayed coffee all over it. :D:eek:;)

Not a good idea with the cuffs. There might be a law against civilians having such items. Look into it.

+1 on ZeSpectre's points

ArcticNemo
June 4, 2009, 08:52 AM
When working as a security guard, I was to provide my own cuffs. I only used them once off duty, on a meth freak who stabbed me after I rebuffed his panhandling attempt on the way home from work ($2 paring knife). My fault letting him get too close. I'm glad I had a less lethal option, and even more glad that I had training in takedown and cuff use.
If you wish to carry cuffs on a regular basis, check local statutes, and get trained in their use. Learn how to apply, adjust, and double-lock them. Carry a spare key in your wallet, or somewhere you will always have it with you.
Takedown training is key, be aware that you will be putting yourself at greater risk by approaching or combatting a subject.

Dingoboyx
June 4, 2009, 08:53 AM
Prolly better off, if you want the BG to stay where he is, you better pistol whip him (If you have a Glock, he should be unconcious after about the 9th hit) :D otherwise, a 1911 a couple of hits should do it.... a decent size revolver, one hit should suffice :D

Wow Brent, easy for you, just get SWMBO to sit on him while you call the cops ;)

If you have him cornered, you could always have the chainsaw at a slow idle, with the occasional chain spinning rev.... and do your best 'psycho' look at him, then hand him the phone and HE can call the cops :eek::D

frmboybuck
June 4, 2009, 08:57 AM
In the fire service we call the wackers....

KingEdward
June 4, 2009, 08:57 AM
assuming BG isn't dead or unconscience... employing handcuffs for any reason
means physical contact with BG which should also mean a frisking and having an extra body or two available to help control resistance.

On almost any episode of COPS when a BG resists being cuffed, it always takes two trained people to get it done. And many shows, more than two.

And they all are trained and have sidearms.

I'll say no thanks to using cuffs. Too much Mr. Murphy coming into play.

rantingredneck
June 4, 2009, 09:05 AM
My own personal opinion..........

If we get to the point where the BG has ceased hostilities and is still mobile (meaning he ain't dead or too wounded to move), and he decides to put his shoe leather to good work heading in the other direction away from me and mine......so be it.

It's not my job to arrest and detain, just to protect me and mine. If he complies and faceplants himself in my foyer and waits for the boys in blue (actually grey here in the county) then all the better, but we ain't wrestling over it. If he runs, I'll give a good description and direction of travel, but I'm not giving chase or cuffing him.

OldMarksman
June 4, 2009, 09:41 AM
I am not worried about false imprisonment (by using handcuffs) of a person who has broken in my home and/or threatened me and my family. To hell with their rights once they have done that.


Of course, it matters not a whit what the homeowner thinks about the rights of an intruder...... that will be entirely up to the courts. And yes, the intruder has rights to due process under the law.

Maybe the best thing is to just keep your weapon trained on suspect until the police arrive?

And what would you do should the perp choose to depart? If you think the answer is "shoot", you had better consult an attorney.

Personally, from the standpoint of risk, I think I want them out. I don't want them to get the upper hand, and I don't want to take the risk of a negligent discharge.

That is if you haven't already shot them already for breaking in your home.....

Uh Oh! Do you actually think you can "shoot them for breaking in your home"?

The state will not impose the death penalty for that, nor can you.

You may use deadly force if necessary to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [yourself] or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" (Florida Statutes, Chapter 776, 776.012, Use of force in defense of person).

You are "presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm ... if the person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred" (Florida Statutes, Chapter 776, 776.013, Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm).

That presumption may be rebuttable.

None of that above really means that you are justified in any way using deadly force as a punishment for a break-in. Of course, the anti gun community has argued otherwise, because they disapprove of the statutes that relieve the citizen of the duty to retreat and of the additional burden of proof for justifying self defense, and they would like to see the law repealed.

Here's a pretty good explanation of the relevant Florida statute:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5643580&postcount=63

The statute says a PRESUMPTION is created. Generally, in statutory interpretation, that means that the burden of proof is simply shifted. Instead of you having to prove you were in fear of your life/bodily harm, the state would have to prove that you were not. Presumptions are REBUTTABLE. That means an intrepid prosecutor who wants to make a career for himself could go after you if you shot this hypothetical intruder in the back on his way out. Just for reference, the law changed in 2005. There are 5 cases on Westlaw since 2006 about this very issue, and that is at the appeals level. (at least one of the cases is about how the new law should be implemented to "offenders" who acted before the new law went into effect). That does not even count the number of cases that showed up at the trial court level, which frankly I am unwilling to go to the trouble of determining.

In Florida, if you shoot someone who is not a threat leaving your home, you are really taking a giant risk. You are banking on prosecutorial discretion, and you may not get it. And frankly, you may not deserve it.

At the very least, if you shoot someone on the way out of your home. Don't say a damn word to the police without your attorney present. Call an attorney immediately. Do what the attorney says. Don't even say anything to 911, other than, "a man has been shot at XXXX address, please respond immediately."

Here's a link to the laws per se:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/titl0776.htm

BuckHammer
June 4, 2009, 10:22 AM
In before the lawyers! Wait a second... Darn it! Missed it by just a little...

Seriously though, I doubt you would need to worry about it. I can't imagine a home invader sticking around for the police to arrive, or standing still while you cuff him. I don't see any point in trying to keep them from leaving, since getting them out of the house should be the goal. Just call the police and focus on remembering what he looked like.

csmsss
June 4, 2009, 10:45 AM
I would personally consider any intruder who, once down on the floor, attempted to rise in any manner, a threat to my own and my family's lives and handle the situation accordingly. Therefore, I see no reason whatsoever to handcuff or otherwise physically restrain him/her. Anything you do which puts you closer to the bad guy than absolutely necessary is a very bad idea, in my view.

ilbob
June 4, 2009, 11:04 AM
I had some training from my security guard days on using cuffs.

I decided it was better not to even try.

Its a whole lot harder than it looks on TV if the suspect puts up even a tiny amount of resistance. It is virtually impossible for a single person to cuff a seriously uncooperative suspect.

Save the cuffs for the bedroom. :)

If you insist on cuffs, buy a good pair. The guy that taught my security guard class had a standing deal in all his classes. You and he both put up $20. You get to handcuff him behind his back. If he can't get out of them within 60 seconds you get the money, otherwise he gets it. Did not apply to S&W or Peerless brand cuffs. He made $20 in just about every class. cheap cuffs are relatively easy to defeat mechanically due to poor construction.

jg0001
June 4, 2009, 11:37 AM
Once again all the namby pamby's come out of the woodwork saying "don't try to detain, at all, or else"...

Someone breaks into your home, you get the tactical advantage, and ??? Well, exactly WHAT are you supposed to do then? Tell them to leave? Do nothing? Say nothing? What?

I don't see how you're not supposed to make even the most modest attempt at telling them to get on the ground while you await the cops. Sure, if they don't comply, that's another matter. But you still aren't saying exactly what you would do if not try to detain via some kind of threat, implied or otherwise.

What it comes down to is SOMEONE is going to be taking charge of the situation, and it may as well be YOU deciding how things play out and not the bad guy.

[none of the above is particular to using cuffs or not; I'd say that if you expected to wait a long time for police to arrive, handcuffs may be better than shaky hands pointing a gun -- though you probably don't want to have to put them on the BG yourself]

Slopemeno
June 4, 2009, 11:43 AM
Prone them out, cover them, call the cops.

Dingoboyx
June 4, 2009, 12:22 PM
And covering them with your gun, grab your cell phone camera or digital camera and take a few 'not so happy snaps' of them, so if they get away, you have a nice 'snap' of them to give to the cops :D

Hey, I just thought of something! Take their photo, then steal thier watch, wallet and cell phone or anything else valuable.... then kick them out & tell 'em next time you'll shoot :D

Saves alot of hassle:cool:

Dingoboyx
June 4, 2009, 12:31 PM
It would be quite funny (apart from the danger bit) if someone broke in, you bail him up, one holds the gun on him firmly face planted on the floor, the other cuffs him, hog tied (Knees tied together, legs bent up at the knees (cable/zip ties are good))..... when the cops arrive, you are sitting there watching TV, coffee in one hand, toast & jam in the other...... you just point at him squirming on the ground.... and tell the cops "there he is, he interupted my SWMBO's favorite show on the tube, she got cranky and sorted him out for you" :D

The cops would get a shock :eek::cool:

David Armstrong
June 4, 2009, 12:49 PM
Don't cuff people. It is hard to do right without training and still dangerous to do with training. And as others have said, why? Why do you want to keep the BG around? Why do you want to expose yourself to more danger? Why do you want to take the unnecessary chance with the legal issue? There is absolutely no upside, just lots of downside.

spacemanspiff
June 4, 2009, 12:54 PM
Zespectre nailed it.
Opens you up to civil and possibly criminal charges.

If you are justified in it, keep in mind that it is not easy to get cuffs on a person. Ever wonder why you see four or five police officers on one suspect to put the cuffs on? Its because its necessary!

Also keep in mind that if you do cuff someone, their safety is now YOUR responsibility.

ilbob
June 4, 2009, 01:07 PM
I urge anyone that thinks cuffing someone as a restraining measure is a good idea, should get a friend who will let you try it on them.

Even with minimal resistance, most people will be unable to cuff someone, short of braining them. Just squirming around makes it very difficult. Unless you have actually tried this on a resisting person, you cannot imagine how difficult it can be.

hogdogs
June 4, 2009, 01:18 PM
HEY... I know what I'm doin' i watch 2 episodes of COPS everyday!:D:rolleyes:
Seriously though I would go after it with alot of forethought (likely wouldn't try it with forethought in play)... A person holding the gun on them could be bad as they would likely be shot in the back or back of the head if they resist...
Brent

Shadi Khalil
June 4, 2009, 01:29 PM
1. possibility of charges such as false imprisonment and kid napping come to mind.
2. um why wouldn't some one at gun point comply with any orders you give, even to stay still
3. I am wondering where these thoughts come from it leaves me highly curious

1) I agree with you on that, if it were in a public place, say a street corner etc.

2) Turn on one of the ten different channels that are having cops marathons, you'll see ten dummies run form police at gun point.

3) I think these thoughts come form having a pair of cuffs and wondering if he could legally use them.

I think that if the cuffing happened at your home you could avoid allot of the problems that could arise in a public place. I can see how its a good idea. I spend allot of time at my mom and dads who live about 30 minutes away. They live in a real big house on a decent size piece of property (3 acers, allot for the area). If someone broke in and I was able to detain them, cuffs would be a God send. The house has so many rooms, windows, entrances and exits, if there was more than one they would have plenty of room to wiggle. Having one cuffed gives me more room to wiggle as well. Maybe I'll get a pair of cuffs!

Dingoboyx
June 4, 2009, 01:41 PM
you could always keep a few sets of cable/zip ties assembled like cuffs, around 'just in case' :D

Even if you can't cuff their hands together, you can cuff them TO something (so they cant charge at you.... without bringing the sofa with them) :D

Mannlicher
June 4, 2009, 03:42 PM
hogdogIf the BG complies with orders to avoid being shot, I would have them splayed out on their face no matter hot pavement fire ants or any other uncomfortable spot this takes place. If they could be cuffed up I might consider moving them to a safer spot.

show the BG your CCW badge first, and he might just go quietly. :)

Glenn E. Meyer
June 4, 2009, 04:00 PM
If you get a BG at gun point and tell them to put on cuffs or turn around and they don't do either but just stand there - who thinks you can pull the trigger then?

Just stands there. Next move for you.

BTW, Policeone ran a story on how many officers got bopped when they have one cuff on, their hands occupied and you just gave the BG a nice impact weapon to apply to your noggin. And they are trained to do such. Still get bopped at times.

publius
June 4, 2009, 04:04 PM
definitely not outside of your home. inside your home i would be hesitant b/c you are putting yourself in a situation where you have to come into contact with the bad guy and either holster your weapon or lay it down. bad idea. tell him to get on the floor splayed out and explain the repurcussions of trying to get up and wait for the cops.

TailGator
June 4, 2009, 04:19 PM
>If you get a BG at gun point and tell them to put on cuffs or turn around and they don't do either but just stand there - who thinks you can pull the trigger then?<

"Not I," said the chubby short guy in the Gator shirt.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 4, 2009, 04:27 PM
Get on the Floor - NOW!

1. NO
2. Doesn't move
3. Starts to talk in some strange language.
4. Starts to take a whiz on your couch.

People don't necessarily comply.

Next move - again.

On #4 - seen this simulated in two different FOFs - if it happens in real life, maybe one of our LEO friends know. Dave? Wagonman?

mskdgunman
June 4, 2009, 04:29 PM
I vote a big no on cuffs. In the event a BG you don't have to shoot decides to comply and hang around for you to cuff him, now, unless you have a second person around who knows what they're doing, have to holster your weapon and move to within grabbing distance of the BG to try and cuff him. Any cop will tell you that if people are going to resist, it's often as that first cuff ratchets home and reality sinks in then the fight is on at close quarters. The BG could end up with your gun and you could end up in your own cuffs...or worse

Most people don't realize how hard it is to cuff a person (even a small one) who really doesn't want to go to jail. When you see the dog pile of cops on some guy trying to get him cuffed, thats the reason. For a lone officer trying to cuff a suspect who is violently resisting, the options are few. Tie the guy up and wait for back up or wear him down to wear he can't resist any longer.
For cuffing a proned out BG we will generally use two officers, one to cuff and one to cover.

In a SD situation, if the BG complies and prones out, find cover and keep an eye on him while calling the cops. If he gets up and runs, stay put. Keep the cuffs for momma:D

KingEdward
June 4, 2009, 04:34 PM
if he's at gun point, then to not get shot he can do one of two things....

1) just stand there and keep his hands up (or lie down is fine)

2) turn and leave

reaching for a pocket or behind the back or coming forward toward me after
a warning will mean shots fired.

And he will have been informed of such.

an escaped TN convict was found hiding in a woman's home and she confronted/held him at gunpoint. He didn't move until authorities arrived.

She simply told him, I would rather not shoot you, but if you move, I'll shoot
you.

I would think similarly.

honkylips
June 4, 2009, 04:38 PM
When police cuff somebody, they are detaining or taking them into custody. When you handcuff somebody, you are kidnapping them. Very few exceptions there.

Handcuffing is very dangerous (you can't handcuff somebody from afar). Keep you and yours safe and leave the cuffing to the pros.

Glenn E. Meyer
June 4, 2009, 04:39 PM
That's the nuance. If you tell him not to move as movement is threatening then you might have a self-defense case. However, if he is running out the door - that's going to be a toughee.

But telling him to move when he isn't directly threatening and he doesn't - that's hard to justify a shoot unless he is sitting on you.

oldkim
June 4, 2009, 05:02 PM
Don't put any thought into putting handcuffs on as a civilian.

There is no need to get that close to a BG.

It's like the movies you see where the idiot goes and let's the BG in. Your yelling at the screen, "Don't do it!"

DON'T DO IT!

ilbob
June 4, 2009, 05:21 PM
Someone breaks into your home, you get the tactical advantage, and ??? Well, exactly WHAT are you supposed to do then? Tell them to leave? Do nothing? Say nothing? What?

What ever tactical advantage you had goes out the window if you try to cuff him.

I encourage you to try handcuffing a subject who is even passively resisting. It is not a safe or easy thing to do, even for a well trained person who has done it many times before.

Hkmp5sd
June 4, 2009, 05:45 PM
Someone breaks into your home, you get the tactical advantage, and ??? Well, exactly WHAT are you supposed to do then? Tell them to leave? Do nothing? Say nothing? What?


I'd tell him not to move.

If he obeys, fine. We wait on the cops.

If he runs for it, fine. The cops can go chase him. My goal is to keep me and the family safe. If I can do that without shooting someone, great. Run-away, run-away.

I have absolutely NO intention of getting close enough to him to allow a physical confrontation between us. Distance and obstacles are good things.

wayneinFL
June 4, 2009, 06:49 PM
No normal criminal is going to let you put cuffs on him.

If he does I'd be very suspicious. He is either:

1. Very compliant, so compliant you don't need to put cuffs on him anyway.

2. Waiting for a chance to make his next move. Think about this: you're cuffing someone you think was so dangerous that you had to use lethal force. Your life was in danger from this guy. Now you're going to put away your gun and approach him with cuffs? You're going to get within arms' reach and give him a chance to get weapons like your gun and handcuffs. Don't forget those handcuffs will turn into a mace with one end hooked on.

There are also liability issues, but they've been covered pretty well.

Cuffs are a bad idea. Have the guy prone out with his face down, and stay behind him. Or make him drop his pants.

hogdogs
June 4, 2009, 08:12 PM
well it appears I will just buy the badge and go after momma with the cuffs... Gotta use 'em on sumthin!
Yes I agree it is very hard to cuff the unwilling, Junior and I would go at each other each with a pair, he with youthful strength and flexibility, and weight advantage. I with treachery, skill and a determination advantage... He ended up with a front tooth chipped pretty bad and me left explainin' it to momma... I woulda rather shared the doghouse with the farting bulldog but couldn't open the doors in them cuffs she had me in... after a couple days I got used to them though:o
It was just a curious thought at an early hour...
"Mrs.hogdogs, I am officer Brent and I am afraid I am gonna have to cuff ya and ask you a few questions..." I may have to work on the ice breaker line me thinks!:D
Brent

DiscoRacing
June 4, 2009, 08:30 PM
in wisc... false imprisonment for sure.... been there done that

hogdogs
June 4, 2009, 08:38 PM
I was almost run off the road with my wife on my harley by a drunk driver...
I followed the guy to the county equipment repair shop. Guy runs inside, I grabbed his open beer and keys out of his car and wait for the cops to show up. Deputy not only refuses to take my complaint, but also threatens me with burglary of a conveyance and unlawful detainment.
Brent

skydiver3346
June 4, 2009, 09:23 PM
:barf: Of course you are trying to sound like an attorney and make good points from your your comments, (on what I should do if someone broke into MY home).

However, (at the time I discover a stranger in my home in the middle of the night) I'm really not too interested in the Florida Statues, presumption of guilt, statutory interpertations, and especially your last statement: "The intruder has rights under the law"???? :barf:

What the hell about me and my family's rights? Don't we have rights? Of course, I would hope they would leave before having to shoot someone but that may not happen (before I decide to protect myself, family and possessions).

People who make comments like you just made: I really wonder what YOU would personally do, if someone actually broke in your home in the middle of the night, (brew them a pot of coffee)?

Hmmmn, YES I WOULD PROBABLY STILL SHOOT THEM if I felt threatened and I felt the situation had crossed the line. I'm not that concerned (at that particular time) about legal eagle advice (as it is my butt on the line and not yours).

As my best friend (a police officer) told me years ago, "anyone who breaks into your home in the middle of the night, is there for one of three reasons".
1. To rob you
2. To hurt/rape you
3. Maybe both!

Think about it......... :rolleyes:

chemgirlie
June 4, 2009, 09:58 PM
"The intruder has rights under the law"????
Yep. Until he is convicted after having gone through due process he has the same rights everybody else does.

I would rather not shoot anybody, but if I had to I would. I would stay away from any situation that could put me in a situation where I violated the law. I wouldn't want my daughter growing up knowing mommy's in prison.

I wouldn't be kind or polite to the intruder, but I also wouldn't want to put myself in a bad situation where I can end up being prosecuted.

Wagonman
June 4, 2009, 10:06 PM
Get on the Floor - NOW!

1. NO
2. Doesn't move
3. Starts to talk in some strange language.
4. Starts to take a whiz on your couch.

People don't necessarily comply.

Next move - again.

On #4 - seen this simulated in two different FOFs - if it happens in real life, maybe one of our LEO friends know. Dave? Wagonman?


Active resister = I can use strikes and direct mechanical means (ASP Baton) and I think OC spray to gain compliance. But, I have to make the arrest you don't.

I don't have the continuum available at home so I can't give chapter and verse.

That said, handcuffing someone who doesn't want to be is a PITA and needs at least a couple of Coppers. I would not advise taking prisoners---If they want to leave let em. Be ruthless in your defense but know when to stand down.

skydiver3346
June 4, 2009, 10:13 PM
:
I understand what you are trying to say and surely, nobody wants to take someone's life (for any reason). However, what is your little girl going to do, (if something was to happen to you when a bad guy breaks in your home one night)? While you are trying to make sure his "rights" are not violated, he may sure as hell have other ideas, (I'm sure he has other ideas and it won't be about your rights, or he would not have broken in your home).

In my personal opinion, when a dirt bag like that physically breaks in your home, he loses his rights once he is inside your residence. There is not a lot of time to try and figure it all out. You should be armed and ready to defend yourself and your family. Hopefully that does not ever happen (I hope you don't) but it pays to be careful and prepared. Live another day and let the authorities figure the rest of it out. This is not a business or street corner we are talking about here: IT IS YOUR HOME and that is your castle in my book.

chemgirlie
June 4, 2009, 10:32 PM
I would absolutely defend myself, and I wouldn't have a problem shooting somebody in defense. Assuming the BG is in a situation where he's no longer a threat (on the floor looking at the carpet with hands on head) I won't be approaching him or getting any closer than I need to.

Unfortunately this day in age we have to make sure we cover our collective tushes from litigation. I'd rather just stand there and wait for the LEOs to arrest the BG properly, as I have zero experience doing so on somebody who will cooperate, let alone somebody who has intentions of hurting me.

In my personal opinion, when a dirt bag like that physically breaks in your home, he loses his rights once he is inside your residence.
The thing is personal opinions don't matter during a trial.

OldMarksman
June 4, 2009, 10:35 PM
However, (at the time I discover a stranger in my home in the middle of the night) I'm really not too interested in the Florida Statues, presumption of guilt, statutory interpertations,...

Perfectly natural to feel that way at that time...but after the fact, those will be the only things that anyone will be discussing, and they will be very, very important to anyone who has used deadly force. They will determine his future.

...and especially your last statement: "The intruder has rights under the law"????

Don't get me wrong. I don't have any sympathy for any violent criminal actor. It's just that none of us can overstep and pass sentence on him. We can defend ourselves, and he may die by our hands, and that may be justified, but we cannot, by shooting when we are not threatened, decide to deny him due process, without ending up on the wrong side of the law ourselves.

What the hell about me and my family's rights? Don't we have rights? Of course, I would hope they would leave before having to shoot someone but that may not happen (before I decide to protect myself, family and possessions).

In every state including yours and mine, you have the right to protect yourself and yours as necessary, and that includes the use of deadly force.

I really wonder what YOU would personally do, if someone actually broke in your home in the middle of the night, (brew them a pot of coffee)?

I've had it happen three times, and each time I was ready to shoot. Very ready. Fortunately they all elected to depart before I had to.

Hmmmn, YES I WOULD PROBABLY STILL SHOOT THEM if I felt threatened and I felt the situation had crossed the line.

Seems reasonable. Just make sure you don't "cross the line" yourself, should the treat dissipate.

I'm not that concerned (at that particular time) about legal eagle advice (as it is my butt on the line and not yours).

Yet, indeed it is yours. But it's a very good idea to understand the laws relating to the use of deadly force...beforehand.

As my best friend (a police officer) told me years ago, "anyone who breaks into your home in the middle of the night, is there for one of three reasons".
1. To rob you
2. To hurt/rape you
3. Maybe both!

You and I could think of a few other conceivable reasons, but those are no doubt the reasons for the presumption set forth in the Florida statutes.

So, one or more people break in unlawfully and with force. You do not have to retreat, and you do not have to come up with any evidence other than the fact of the break in as a basis for a reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger. You can shoot if you have to. You are shooting to protect yourself and your family, and not to execute them for breaking into your home.

But should the evildoers suddenly become wiser, less courageous, or kinder or gentler and choose to depart, any evidence to that effect would paint an entirely different picture.

The risk there, in a home invasion situation, lies most probably in forensic evidence, in any inconsistency in your story over time, or in other testimony that you didn't expect.

Best to let the wheels of justice grind on them rather than on you, when that happens.

RINGKINGS
June 4, 2009, 11:08 PM
thinking outside the box:
dont go near BG
throw the handcuffs to BG from a safe distance(while covering with weapon)
tell BG to cuff himself (preferably to some heavy unmovable object)
1. if he does it your a little safer
2. if he doesnt do it....so what... he is still covered
3. he handcuffed himself so you are less liable

BillCA
June 5, 2009, 12:14 AM
I'm with those who say forget handcuffing anyone if you can avoid it. I have the training, I've done it alone and with several others helping. If they resist, it's a royal PITA. If they resist with determination, people usually get hurt (mostly them in the long run).

If you want to buy a set of handcuffs for whatever reason, buy the S&W's or Peerless brands. Just keep in mind they don't fit tiny wrists or really huge ones either.

Inside your home you're unlikely to face "false imprisonment" charges if your state authorizes citizens to stop crimes from being committed in their presence. Still, getting close enough to handcuff someone isn't a good idea.

If the intruder capitulates at gunpoint, the decision is yours whether he leaves or stays. That decision may be based on various factors, including how far away he is from a door. If he's halfway through the house, I'm not marching him to the door.

Get on the Floor - NOW!

1. NO
2. Doesn't move
3. Starts to talk in some strange language.
4. Starts to take a whiz on your couch.

People don't necessarily comply.

Next move - again.

¡No te muevas! ¡Manos arriba, muerto homre!¹

There is sufficient light in my home, even at night, that if he looks in my direction he will know that I'm armed, pointing a gun at him and partially behind a barricade. If he turns away and is not heading towards an exit, I can say stop in about 8 languages. I can certainly articulate a logical chain of thought that indicates an increased danger at that point. But I'll let my lawyer do the arguing.


¹ Roughly: Do not move. Hands up, dead man.

Tucker 1371
June 5, 2009, 12:32 AM
Just so we're all clear, if a person you don't recognize is in your house at a strange hour and is armed you shoot first ask questions (or give orders) later, right?

I can understand yelling at an unarmed man (who I am 99.99% sure is unarmed) because nobody (or at least I hope nobody) wants to kill someone they don't have to. But if it isn't clear that he's unarmed or he is clearly armed I am pulling the trigger, then thinking about handcuffs (or probably not) and etc.

muerto homre!

hombre muerto, Spanish grammar is backwards from ours (i.e. Laguna Seca = Lake Dry but we would say Dry Lake) I'm sure he'll get the idea anyway though.

BuckHammer
June 5, 2009, 01:01 AM
thinking outside the box:
dont go near BG
throw the handcuffs to BG from a safe distance(while covering with weapon)
tell BG to cuff himself (preferably to some heavy unmovable object)
1. if he does it your a little safer
2. if he doesnt do it....so what... he is still covered
3. he handcuffed himself so you are less liable
I like that idea.

Hook686
June 5, 2009, 02:38 AM
How do you know that someone is a felon ?

hogdogs
June 5, 2009, 07:30 AM
I am not concerned if they are a felon... short of a not guilty or plea down they will be a felon after committing a felony against me...
Brent

pax
June 5, 2009, 07:52 AM
Everyone: please take a moment to read through a couple of articles.

The first: www.useofforce.us

The second: www.corneredcat.com/Legal/AOJ.aspx

If you prefer to learn things in dead-tree format, take a look at Massad Ayoob's classic book, In the Gravest Extreme. And if you have the money and time to do so, take an LFI-1 class from him or at least the JUDF portion of that class.

Or surf over to www.armedcitizensnetwork.org and read through the back issues of their e-Journal, then join up and receive three excellent educational CDs explaining how to stay on the good side of the law when defending your life and the lives of your loved ones.

There's an incredible number of folks posting here who are misinformed or simply uninformed about the laws that govern the legal use of lethal force in the United States. Please, for your own sakes -- do your homework. The life you save might be your own.

pax

Dingoboyx
June 5, 2009, 08:21 AM
Don't forget, before you cuff mrs HD, you will have to thuroughly frisk her first :eek:, then you can cuff her :D

skydiver3346
June 5, 2009, 08:21 AM
You say that this has happened to you three times??? :confused:

Then you of all people should understand what I am saying. You must live in Florida too as you keep referring to Florida statutes. I really am only concerned about two things in my life when someone breaks into my home:
1. Protecting me
2. Protecting my family

That's it, period. I don't believe there is a jury in this state who would convict me for having to shoot a bad guy for putting my family at risk in the middle of the night. That is the bad guy's decision and my reaction to his decision. In Florida, you home is your castle and if the bad guy decides to leave (before any gunfire) that is great. If he decides to surrender and lay down (until the police arrive), that is great. I sure a heck do not want to take someone's life. However, my primary job is to protect my family and I am not too worried about violating the dirt bag's rights, etc. We are living in the wrong country and/or wrong century if I would be sent to prision for defending my life and my family's life.

I think that you "think" too much about the bad guy and what could possibly happen to you as a result of taking him out. This could cause you big problems one day (and I sure hope that never happens to you or your family).
Your rights are being violated by someone breaking in your home. Your life is being put to the test! You personally, do NOT know what the criminal mind will decide to do (if they are caught by you). Not good....

Tell ya what: "You do what you think is best and I will do what I think is best and the chips will fall where they may"......;)

BillCA
June 5, 2009, 09:04 AM
hombre muerto, Spanish grammar is backwards from ours (i.e. Laguna Seca = Lake Dry but we would say Dry Lake) I'm sure he'll get the idea anyway though.

Thanks GSUeagle... I was in a hurry when I typed that. *doh*

How do you know that someone is a felon ?
Um.... if they have unlawfully entered your occupied home, it is usually called burglary. Most states define burglary as a felony. Thus, you are confronting someone in the act of committing a felony crime -- a felon.
Be sure to know and understand your own state's laws.

In any shooting event, at home or in public, you had best be able to articulate (to your attorney at least) what it was that put you in fear for your life. This will be especially true if the deceased was unarmed and/or was weighed down by excessive lead deposits.

OldMarksman
June 5, 2009, 09:12 AM
I really am only concerned about two things in my life when someone breaks into my home:
1. Protecting me
2. Protecting my family


Same for me.

That's it, period. I don't believe there is a jury in this state who would convict me for having to shoot a bad guy for putting my family at risk in the middle of the night.

The law allows you to shoot to protect yourself and your family.

That is the bad guy's decision and my reaction to his decision. In Florida, you home is your castle and if the bad guy decides to leave (before any gunfire) that is great. If he decides to surrender and lay down (until the police arrive), that is great. I sure a heck do not want to take someone's life.

Yep.

However, my primary job is to protect my family and I am not too worried about violating the dirt bag's rights, etc. We are living in the wrong country and/or wrong century if I would be sent to prision for defending my life and my family's life.

And again, yep.

To the extent that the above describes your thoughts, we are in complete agreement.

I think that you "think" too much about the bad guy and what could possibly happen to you as a result of taking him out. This could cause you big problems one day (and I sure hope that never happens to you or your family).

I don't think about him in that regard. Where what could happen to me becomes an issue is in the interpretation of the following words:

I am not worried about false imprisonment (by using handcuffs) of a person who has broken in my home and/or threatened me and my family. To hell with their rights once they have done that. It just would depend on the particular situation, if I would ever use handcuffs or not. Maybe the best thing is to just keep your weapon trained on suspect until the police arrive? That is if you haven't already shot them already for breaking in your home.....

The law permits a citizen to use deadly force in self defense and has for 4000 years. It does not permit a citizen to administer justice in a case where someone has threatened but is no longer threatening, or to punish him for breaking into his house. That's up to the courts.

That's what I mean when I say that the intruder has rights under the law. You may defend against him and he may die, but beyond that, it's up to the justice system to administer justice to him.

Should a citizen engage in that course of activity and should the evidence so indicate, he won't be a lot of use to his family in terms of providing for them or protecting them afterwards. He will have become the criminal.

The most obvious example that comes to mind is that of the pharmacist in Oklahoma. We don't know all of the facts, but it appears that he shot a crook when he didn't have to.

The original question was about whether to use handcuffs. People who know how to use them have advised against it.

My comment was that I will not, under any circumstances I can think of, ever involve myself in a citizen's arrest, nor would I ever consider using deadly force against a fleeing suspect.

I can tell an assailant in the house to stop advancing, and if he does not comply, blam, if I have to. But if I command someone to lie down, stand still, turn around, etc. I have absolutely no way of making him do so.

Beyond the obvious criminal and civil risks, and the risks of a negligent discharge, there are the risks that one of them might get the upper hand, that while I'm waiting the driver or another participant may come around to see what's taking so long and use his gun on me, and that someone else--peace officer or passer by--may see me pointing a gun at someone and shoot me.

No, I want 'em gone. I'm perfectly content to have them leave and let the long arm of the law chase them down. Who knows--could be I won't even have to testify.

It has occurred to me that a stationary digital camera activated by a switch might provide something additional for the police and prosecutors.

Take a look at the material Pax posted.

By the way, I live in Missouri. The OP lives in Florida, as do you. Our laws read differently, but I am advised that the intent is the essentially same regarding home invasions.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 09:32 AM
On #4 - seen this simulated in two different FOFs - if it happens in real life, maybe one of our LEO friends know. Dave? Wagonman?
While I'm sure some places might allow it, I sure wouldn't like to be the test case for that in court. Going to have an awfully hard time explaining why it was reasonable or necessary to use deadly force against someone who is urinating, no matter what property they are urinating on. There is no threat of force against you, and the only danger might be the offensive odor.
Really, folks, let the BG go away. There isn't any reason to keep him around, and as any LEO will tell you a good general rule is that the longer you try to keep someone under control the more dangerous they get.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 09:45 AM
However, (at the time I discover a stranger in my home in the middle of the night) I'm really not too interested in the Florida Statues, presumption of guilt, statutory interpertations, and especially your last statement: "The intruder has rights under the law"????
Interested or not, one needs to consider all those things and more when contemplating anything except an immediate and unavoidable self defense situation. DGUs don't happen in a vacuum, they are just a part of a very big picture that includes laws, rights, political issues, and so on. Rather silly to use deadly force to protect your property, for example, if you are going to lose all your property because you used deadly force.
In my personal opinion, when a dirt bag like that physically breaks in your home, he loses his rights once he is inside your residence.
That is a nice opinion, but it is factually incorrect.

David Armstrong
June 5, 2009, 09:51 AM
thinking outside the box:
dont go near BG
throw the handcuffs to BG from a safe distance(while covering with weapon)
tell BG to cuff himself (preferably to some heavy unmovable object)
1. if he does it your a little safer
2. if he doesnt do it....so what... he is still covered
3. he handcuffed himself so you are less liable
You're still liable.

Tucker 1371
June 5, 2009, 10:24 AM
Just cover the guy and let someone else make the phone call. No worries about a lawsuit cause you A) didn't shoot him and B) didn't handcuff and supposedly "unlawfully imprison" him. Save the handcuffs for someone who will enjoy being in them :D.

BuckHammer
June 5, 2009, 11:04 AM
What is the record for most consecutive posts by one user? Just wondering...

hogdogs
June 5, 2009, 11:07 AM
I am sure a bunch... But often times consecutive posts are due to deletes by mods...
Brent

Wagonman
June 5, 2009, 11:29 AM
I sometimes post consecutively when I am replying to different posts.

NickySantoro
June 5, 2009, 11:34 AM
Anyone other than a sworn officer who attempts to handcuff someone deserves to leave the scene in considerably worse condition than when he arrived.

Tucker 1371
June 5, 2009, 12:24 PM
Not sure I agree with that Mr. Santoro. This is a legitimate option, you want to secure the guy so he doesn't 1) get away with B&E 2) so you're not forced to shoot and probably kill him.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. You don't know what the BG has on him or on his mind. It's definitely a lot more dangerous than just holding the gun on him and getting another family member to call the police.

guntotin_fool
June 5, 2009, 12:30 PM
Handcuffs are a problem waiting to happen,


Ever watch COPS? Ever see how many in shape, trained LEO's it takes to get the cuffs on a recalcitrant suspect? You are going to do this, alone, untrained, in your house? BS, you try, you are going to get at worst a beat down, and more than likely, the cuffs on you and him with your gun.


Its really easy. If he is in your house without permission and committing a felony, if you did not invite him in, if you are afraid that he is going to hurt you, you can SHOOT HIM. if you prefer NOT to shoot him, then tell him in small words to get the hell out or you will shoot him. If you wish, you might be generous and tell him lay down and spread them or you will shoot him. If he refuses, you can feel that he is figuring out how to hurt you, and you can SHOOT him.


Find me ONE SINGLE CASE where an honest law abiding home owner was ever charged or convicted for shooting a burglar or strong arm robbery suspect in their own home. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. If the person is being charged, it is because of other circumstance. IE a drug deal gone bad, or someone invited them in, but after 25 beers, when the invitee had worn out there welcome by hitting on the inviters GF, inviter shoots invitee, no thats not going to fly.

BUT if you are joe homeowner, watching TV at midnight when someone kicks your door open and starts demanding your money and you put three center of mass, or if you come in from the deck and charlie crackhead is in your Living room boosting your TV, and you pop him, your NOT going to jail. More than likely, the kind of guy who breaks into your home is going to have a record that has its own hard drive down at the Local PD. Its a simple fact, most crimes are committed by a very small percentage of the population. When you find yourself confronted in your own home by a invader, that is the lifestyle this person has chosen. More often than not, you will get a very private "attaboy" from the cops who show up. They will know his name without looking for ID, When the Cops say, "bad day to be you, Joe Bob," or "Tyrone", Or "Hector" to the body on your floor, relax, you did a good thing.


I get sick and tired of people thinking that if you do not follow a prescribed set of steps in exactly the right order, you are going to spend your life behind bars if you shoot. NO you are not, IF you are a good law abiding Citizen and your worst "crime" to date has been a speeding ticket driving home from church to catch the rest of the first half of the football game. If you have some drug history, or a few D&D charges from your years of being a jack ass, you might have some trouble, but if like most americans, your worst thing was a traffic citation, or you got caught stealing the rival high schools mascot and you had to pick up trash for two weekends, NO you are not going to jail for shooting a hoodlum in your house.

Handcuffs are a problem for anyone except the Law, and maybe a few who have wives who like that sort of thing. other than that, All I see out of it is a lawsuit.

#18indycolts
June 5, 2009, 12:38 PM
Find me ONE SINGLE CASE where an honest law abiding home owner was ever charged or convicted for shooting a burglar or strong arm robbery suspect in their own home. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

actually it has happened, it does happen and will continue to happen. Just give me a few and I'll get the links for you. If the prosecution proves that your life wasn't at risk then you can go to jail.

KingEdward
June 5, 2009, 12:41 PM
"So in areas where you have the right to use any level of force to stop a violent felony could you use hand cuffs on the felon... LEGALLY?"

this is a little confusing...

I assume you mean that a violent felony has begun or is well underway and some how you have stopped it (gunpoint, commands, physical control).

If you have stopped a violent felony and have not fired a shot, I assume you consider cuffs an option to hold them there to be picked up. Another poster summed this one up for me when they said, "I'm not in the business of detaining criminals."

If you have stopped a violent felony via shots fired, then you shouldn't be concerned with handcuffs. More concerned about safety and medical attention.

It does not appear you are talking about someone in your home just standing in the kitchen after b & e or someone outside taking your car cd player. Since the term violent felony is used.

hogdogs
June 5, 2009, 12:50 PM
For an instance, being held up in the walmart parking lot etc... And yes as a means to detain for LE to arrive. I am not fond of the idea of stopping the crime and not the crook. But would only shoot if forced to do so.
Brent

KingEdward
June 5, 2009, 01:02 PM
thanks Brent.

In a parking lot or elsewhere, if I stop a crime without firing I doubt circumstances would be favorable for me to handcuff someone.

I have seen cases though and you probably have too (cops / most wanted / etc) where someone has hurt someone or is trying to get away and a few guys grab him and basically hold him down until police take control.

In a couple of these, the arriving police push the citizens away and then take control. One was a guy that was scuffling with a police officer near his car and two bystanders jumped in and helped subdue the BG and then 3 other officers arrived and did a little more "subduing"

hogdogs
June 5, 2009, 01:13 PM
Here is juniors chipped tooth he got when we were each holding a set trying to cuff the other... mrs.hogdogs was not the happiest momma at my house that day!
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b81/caughthog/PC090392.jpg
Brent

Tucker 1371
June 5, 2009, 01:13 PM
Just do what's practical. If someone's in my house at 3am they're getting the surefire first then the AK immediately if I don't like what I see, he'll be lucky if he can get his hands up or say something before I shoot.

Donn_N
June 5, 2009, 03:16 PM
If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, odds are not only will I not handcuff him, I probably won't even see him. I'll be barricaded behind a solid core door with my shotgun and dialing 911.

The best way to survive (physically, mentally, and legally) an encounter with a home intruder is to avoid it.

I know this is not an option for some folks due to floor plans, other family members, and whatnot, but in my house it is a great option.

KingEdward
June 5, 2009, 03:47 PM
same here Donn

the way we're set up via middle of the night break in is...

what he (they) do or take in the living room or laundry room is their business.

what happens if they proceed much deeper and down the hall toward where my girls are sleeping is my business.

OldMarksman
June 5, 2009, 04:10 PM
If you wish, you might be generous and tell him lay down and spread them or you will shoot him. If he refuses, you can feel that he is figuring out how to hurt you, and you can SHOOT him.

Guntotin' Fool, don't fool yourself.

Find an experienced criminal attorney in your state and discuss that question with him.

Find me ONE SINGLE CASE where an honest law abiding home owner was ever charged or convicted for shooting a burglar or strong arm robbery suspect in their own home. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. If the person is being charged, it is because of other circumstance. ... if you are joe homeowner, watching TV at midnight when someone kicks your door open and starts demanding your money and you put three center of mass, or if you come in from the deck and charlie crackhead is in your Living room boosting your TV, and you pop him, your NOT going to jail.


Indycolts, who by virtue of his profession knows what he is talking about, says he's looking for some information, but let's see if this holds your appetite:

You've mentioned two scenarios: one involves a forcible (some laws say 'tumultuous") entry while you are in your house. Pretty straightforward, I'd say. In almost all states you may shoot, but in some you may need to try retreating first. In the OP's case and in mine, you do not.

The second scenario you describe involves the resident coming in to find someone in his home and shooting him for trying to take property. I only know of "one single case" where such an incident has occurred: in Washington State, which has a castle doctrine, a homeowner recently found a perp in his house and shot him. He has been charged with murder. Good enough for you?

You see, the homeowner was not in the house when the guy entered. By the way, most state castle laws are written in such a manner that most people will understand that they just can't get by with that. In some states, being on the deck may qualify as occupying the domicile, but in others it will not.

And there's only one state (potentially two, actually) in which shooting simply to stop the taking of the TV would be legal, but only under limited circumstances, and you would have to show that the shooting had been necessary to prevent the removal of the property.

More than likely, the kind of guy who breaks into your home is going to have a record that has its own hard drive down at the Local PD.

Unless you happen to have known that, getting it introduced into evidence would be an interesting challenge.

More often than not, you will get a very private "attaboy" from the cops who show up. They will know his name without looking for ID, When the Cops say, "bad day to be you, Joe Bob," or "Tyrone", Or "Hector" to the body on your floor, relax, you did a good thing.

Read some of the material Pax suggested and see if you still believe that.

I get sick and tired of people thinking that if you do not follow a prescribed set of steps in exactly the right order, you are going to spend your life behind bars if you shoot.

????

It ain't a procedural question at all--forget the steps. It's simply a matter of whether you are legally justified under the circumstances and whether the evidence supports that defense.

In the event of a forcible unlawful entry while you are occupying your domicile, that defense is apt to prove a whole lot easier and less expensive than might the defense for a shooting in a parking lot with no witnesses.

...IF you are a good law abiding Citizen and your worst "crime" to date has been a speeding ticket driving home from church to catch the rest of the first half of the football game...you are not going to jail for shooting a hoodlum in your house.

Again, if the shooting was legally justified and the evidence is sufficient to prove that, that's what matters. Nothing esle.

And again, I strongly suggest that you check out the links and read the book recommended by Pax.

markj
June 5, 2009, 04:31 PM
Geez, that permit dont make you a cop. Handcuff someone and you will be in court over it. Dont give the BG ammo for him to use against you in court.

skydiver3346
June 5, 2009, 05:19 PM
Yep, it is my opinion!

This is the bottom line: When someone has broken in my home at 3:00am in the morning, (or any other time for that matter) they are history, toast, etc. etc. I heard someone say, "Just do what is practical"? I will do what is practical, PROTECT MY FAMILY....

You guys kill me with the B.S. What the heck has happened to this country, (when the bad guys get the benefit of the doubt)? Remind me to NEVER be in your home when someone breaks in your house.....

Glad I make my own decisions and don't depend on your support. Defend yourself and family first.
Forget about all the rest of this B.S.

David Armstrong
June 6, 2009, 10:28 AM
Find me ONE SINGLE CASE where an honest law abiding home owner was ever charged or convicted for shooting a burglar or strong arm robbery suspect in their own home. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Of course it doesn't happen. If they are charged or convicted they are not honest law abiding home owners. There are plenty of cases where people have claimed they were honest law abiding homeowners just defending their home from the BG who are doing time, and plenty more who have bought an attorney a new car or a cruise.

BikerRN
June 7, 2009, 01:42 AM
Handcuffs, I use them at work.

If I'm not at work I will be distancing myself from the adversary and seeking cover. If the felon wants to run away from me, great. If he complies with my orders to "prone out" great. I'm still not touching him with a 10' pole. In short, I don't want to be anywhere close to my adversary. Handcuffs, to apply them, force you to come in to contact with your adversary.

If he or she is injured in the encounter, not good, great or bad, they are just injured. No, I'm not tending to an adversaries wounds at that time either. It could just be a trap to "lull" me in. Like I said, I want distance.

Unless you are a LEO that is required to carry them off duty I see no need for them in an off duty, or non LEO application. That's just my $0.02. If this has already been stated, I apologise. I didn't read four pages of post just to give my $0.02.

Biker

armsmaster270
June 7, 2009, 02:02 AM
I would have no reservations handcuffing a felon after I have shot him in my home. After all how that I have shot him COM now I should do first aid and to do that I have to render him safe. Just remember its shoot then cuff not cuff then shoot.

cracked91
June 7, 2009, 02:55 AM
Citizens arrests are generally legal, but it would be illegal to move him, you could only detain him until LE showed up. See if you could get former leo to train you to use them. Proper handcuffing is generally done very quickly, most of the trainees who were with me could get in and out of a persons bubble in less than 5 seconds. Once you get one cuff on a bg you can usually manipulate them easily if they start to resist, I was certified in handcuffing when I was 18 but there are alot of things to know before you actually go try to handcuff someone. Just to throw a few out there:

Handcuffing and uncuffing is one of the most dangerous situations an LEO ever gets himself into on a daily basis.

Handcuffs are a deadly weapon, once you have one cuff on, if you lose control of the suspect and have to disengage you should immiadiatley go for your sidearm.

Any time you step into a persons bubble (if I rememer correctly the kill zone is anywhere within a 6 foot radius of someone) you are putting yourself in danger so you want to get in and out as quick as possible.

You never know whats going to happen so keep them, but I think for a civilian it would make more sense and be easier to just make them lay on the ground and hold them at gun point until LE showed up

scottaschultz
June 7, 2009, 07:00 AM
After all how that I have shot him COM now I should do first aid and to do that I have to render him safe. IMHO, this is really bad advice! as BikerRN said, keep your distance. Unless you are a trained medical professional, if you, as a "civilian" administer CPR or some other form of first aid and the BG ends up dying anyway, YOU could end up being accused of causing the BG's death when this goes to court! After all, you just shot the guy and without witnesses, who's to say that you weren't just trying to finish the job the bullets started?

OTOH, if you are a physician (or maybe even an RN), I could see how this could be used in reverse. If you did nothing and the BG dies, his lawyers could say, "As a doctor, how come you did not administer CPR?"

Just my 2¢

MLeake
June 7, 2009, 09:25 AM
For instance, in Florida or Georgia, I can shoot a BG who breaks into my home. I have no responsibility to retreat, and the burglary itself justifies the shoot. In both states, I cannot be sued over a legally justified defensive shooting. Note: in Florida's statute, burglary of a home is listed among violent felonies. This may be at least in part due to rising number of home invasions...

At the other end, in Massachusetts I remember a case where a woman heard somebody break into her home. She picked up the nearest heavy object, a kid's gumball machine, and when the intruder came around the corner, she hit him over the head with it. It killed him. DA charged her with manslaughter. I don't remember if she was convicted, but in MA you are required to retreat, even in your own home.

Remember, on this forum posters aren't necessarily even in the US, let alone your state, so it's possible they can offer opinions that are legally and technically correct for them, yet way off base for you or me.

OldMarksman
June 7, 2009, 09:29 AM
Citizens arrests are generally legal, but it would be illegal to move him, you could only detain him until LE showed up.

Legal in all states but one, I think.

Nonetheless, not for me. Attorneys tell me that the legal risk involves a very slippery slope indeed, and most of the books and websites on personal defense seem to concur.

You never know whats going to happen so keep them, but I think for a civilian it would make more sense and be easier to just make them lay on the ground and hold them at gun point until LE showed up

Make them? Well, in some states one could use non-deadly force. Hold them at gun point? Well, you do see that in old westerns, but what's the "point" if you cannot shoot them?

skydiver3346
June 7, 2009, 09:34 AM
If that law about retreat is true, I'm sure glad I live here in Florida and not Mass. Retreat in your own home?? That is pure crap. Someone breaks into your home and you have to run and hide.. Right, like that is going to happen!

hogdogs
June 7, 2009, 09:46 AM
skydiver, The retreat law is in place in several states to varying degree.
YUP... Sux to live there!
Brent

OldMarksman
June 7, 2009, 09:52 AM
For instance, in Florida or Georgia, I can shoot a BG who breaks into my home. I have no responsibility to retreat, and the burglary itself justifies the shoot.

Maybe, maybe not. Re-read Post #21 and the link to the law. If you have to shoot for self defense, you are justified and your burden of proof is reasonable, but that's different from shooting someone for the act of burglary in Florida.

In both states, I cannot be sued over a legally justified defensive shooting.

For some reason a lot of people seem to think that. It has more truth than the old legend about dragging someone into your house, but in Florida it is not accurate.

The court will issue a stay against a civil suit while you are under criminal prosecution, and in the event of a civil suit, proof of an unlawful entry can serve as a defense. That's a little different from "cannot be sued."

That's for Florida. You can check Georgia yourself.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC085.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20085#0776.085

Remember, on this forum posters aren't necessarily even in the US, let alone your state, so it's possible they can offer opinions that are legally and technically correct for them, yet way off base for you or me.

That is a very, very good point!

OldMarksman
June 7, 2009, 09:58 AM
If that law about retreat is true, I'm sure glad I live here in Florida and not Mass. Retreat in your own home?? That is pure crap.

You can sure say that again.

You do not have to retreat if you are in your domicile (that includes a tent, by the way) or car in Missouri, either. I'm told that the law was enacted to correct some bad case law.

The original "duty to retreat" concept existed for a reason, but its extension into the occupied home exceeds all standards of reasonableness by a long shot, in my opinion.

Tucker 1371
June 7, 2009, 11:22 AM
And there's only one state (potentially two, actually) in which shooting simply to stop the taking of the TV would be legal, but only under limited circumstances, and you would have to show that the shooting had been necessary to prevent the removal of the property.


Make it three if Georgia is not among them:
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb1061.htm

Pay very close attention to Section 3 part B. I've read this about 20 times now and what I got from it was if someone unrelated to me forces their way into my house or if I stumble upon them in my house I can shoot them as I am "presumed to have held a reasonable fear of threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury" in such a situation.

OldMarksman
June 7, 2009, 12:42 PM
Make it three if Georgia is not among them

Georgia was indeed among them, "potentially"--the discussion was about the television. Georgia has some kind of provision about using deadly force to protect property in an instance involving a forcible felony. I do not know if it applies here and I wouldn't want to risk it.

Nor would I use deadly force to protect property simply because it might be legal in a couple of jurisdictions. Who knows, I might be unwittingly and unintentionally instrumental in getting the law repealed.

Pay very close attention to Section 3 part B. I've read this about 20 times now and what I got from it was if someone unrelated to me forces their way into my house or if I stumble upon them in my house I can shoot them as I am "presumed to have held a reasonable fear of threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury" in such a situation.

Did you ever happen to notice the word "occupied" before "habitation" in Section 3 Part B?

(b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to himself or herself or to another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered upon an occupied habitation and the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred."

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/hb1061.htm

However, that portion of the bill does not appear to have made it ultimately into the Georgia Code, in which it says

... [a] person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.


(Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-3-23)

...nor does it seem to be very relevant.

http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/16-3-23.html

That wording would appear to say that if one knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had occurred, deadly force would be permissible. Would "stumbling upon" someone in your house give you sufficient knowledge or reason to believe that?

I haven't read it twenty times, but if there is one thing I learned in working directly for the General Counsel for a major business, and in working directly with the Law Department for more than two decades, it is to not try to interpret a law using lay dictionary definitions and without knowing how the courts have interpreted that lay in the context of the mosaic of the other laws including the state constitution.

And again---maybe you can shoot, but should you? I wouldn't, except to defend against death or serious injury.

By the way, I was told the other day that if I were to leave my doors open and go out of town for a week, my television would be among the things that remain!

MLeake
June 7, 2009, 12:59 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if we could somehow pass an amendment requiring laws to be written in clear, plain language? (I almost wrote "English", but I'm not in the mood to start an English-only argument; my beef in this case is with "legalese")

David Armstrong
June 7, 2009, 04:48 PM
I haven't read it twenty times, but if there is one thing I learned in working directly for the General Counsel for a major business, and in working directly with the Law Department for more than two decades, it is to not try to interpret a law using lay dictionary definitions and without knowing how the courts have interpreted that lay in the context of the mosaic of the other laws including the state constitution.
QFT! That is one of the big problems with folks trying to interpret the law, and one I've seen over and over. Just becaue the law says one thing that does no tmean that hting is what the law says. statutory definintions, otehr laws that modify, various court rulings, etc. can all impact the law and what it will mean in court.

guntotin_fool
June 7, 2009, 06:07 PM
OK, I just spent a very nice weekend with a friend and his wife, she is a very active prosecuting atty for a fairly big city in Wisc. The state where self defense is not very well recognized.


MY question, have you ever charged or brought to trial a guy who was a homeowner, had a clean record, and was forced to shoot an intruder.


her answer: No, we don't do that.


Do you know of any cases where a homeowner who had a clean record shot a burglar in the night and was brought to trial.

Her answer NO.




I hear lots of hearsay, I hear lots of "oh yeah, we know it has happened". I do not see cites and posts.



I say show me posts, cites, and news stories about a CLEAN homeowner who shoots and kills a burglar.


I am not talking about ex's ex who shows up drunk at the door, I am not talking about a drug deal gone bad, I am talking about mom and pop citizen who kill someone in their own home who had broken and entered or who had strong armed their way in. .

Post the links to the washington case, I don't believe it will pass muster. I have seen two cases one in MN, one in Florida, where people entered the front of the home while the homeowners were either in a detached garage and returned or on the deck and returned, where they felt their life was in danger and they shot and in once case killed the perp, and they walked clean and got an attaboy for doing it.


Maybe in california, NYS or NJ you might find some Ahole county atty who will charge you, but for the rest of us, its not going to happen.

If you feel you are being threatened with GBH, you have a RIGHT to defend yourself. Inside your home, you are already a reluctant participant, therefore the need to retreat is GONE. I have spent many hours with several MN criminal defense lawyers and LEO"S and NOT one has said I would be prosecuted for shooting an uninvited intruder in the house who I felt was a threat.

OK, I am 5'8 over 250 and fairly strong, a drunk granny who stumbled into the wrong house would not necessarily pose a threat, and if I popped her for being in the wrong house, I might get some bad results, but at 50 years old, if two teenage thugs with masks on their head break in, I am not concerned that I will be prosecuted if I remove their ability to threaten me.


All you have to be is a reluctant or forced participant to Reasonably be in fear of great bodily harm, and its ok to defend yourself.

That's it, DID You invite them in, If I know I locked the door and the front door is hanging off the hinges when I return, I am pretty sure they are not here selling Watkins door to door. If they have a weapon of any type visible, they are not here by accident from Jehovah's Witness's and are "just leaving a copy of the "Watchtower" on the divan" as a public service. We are not talking about the what if's and maybe's. IF you are in your HOME and somone kicks in the door, you have a reasonable belief that they are not there collecting for Goodwill, and that your use of force to stop the ongoing felony is legal.

PERIOD!

I am not a lawyer, but in my work, I spend a lot of time around them, and i talk to them. I manage apartments, we have pretty much an ongoing battle with bad section 8 renters and I am in court at least twice a month getting people evicted, securing their property as surety against debt, etc. When we spend four hours waiting for the judge, I am talking to my counsel, and others, and I am DAMN sure of what I am saying here.

When people make this up, it harms us all. For the other posters, how much time have you spend asking your Public Prosecutor what is the legal limit for self defense?

Edited to add, http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344971 woman walked in on an intruder, she attacks him with a baseball bat to point of scaring him off, she did not get charged for defending herself, despite walking in on the attacker. He returned with bad results.


BS said in an authoritative manner is still BS

Tucker 1371
June 7, 2009, 07:25 PM
And again---maybe you can shoot, but should you? I wouldn't, except to defend against death or serious injury.

No probably not. Now that I think about it if I came home and someone was walking out with my TV I (assuming I had a gun on my person) would probably just hold the gun on him and tell him to set my TV down... and then of course we're back to the handcuffs debate... good grief.

Getting woken up in the middle of the night is a different story though. My plan in a nutshell is ID target and shoot immediately if need be, I don't want to wait to find out whether they're armed or not or what their intentions are, just whether they're someone I know or not.

A few years ago some people with (apparently) some very bad intentions cut my grandparent's phone lines and slashed all their tires and then tried to open the front door. However, my grandpaw met them at the front door as they were trying to kick it in (dunces hadn't realized it was an out-opening door) with a .44mag and they hightailed it outta there. I think you can understand where I'm coming from, right?

OldMarksman
June 7, 2009, 08:14 PM
I do not see cites and posts. I say show me posts, cites, and news stories about a CLEAN homeowner who shoots and kills a burglar.

Why is it that you think that how "clean" a homeowner might be will impinge on the situation? Do you somehow think that that factor will influence justifiability?

Post the links to the washington case, I don't believe it will pass muster.


No, I won't take the time, and frankly, I do not care what you believe. I have told you all that I know: a man came home to find a man in his house, shot him, and was charged with murder.

If a citizen employs deadly force within his dwelling, domicile, etc. and is justified under the law, one would hope that he will not be charged; in castle law states he stands a good chance; if he shoots someone under questionable circumstances and there is unfavorable evidence, he may well be charged, and he probably deserves it.

How "clean" he is is completely irrelevant.

Read this for a better understanding. I't too long to paste, but you will learn that seedy characters may be sucessfully defended in court:

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

OldMarksman
June 7, 2009, 08:48 PM
I think you can understand where I'm coming from, right?

Yes indeed.

pax
June 7, 2009, 09:54 PM
OM ~

Good link.

Everyone ~

It looks as if tempers are getting a little frayed. Please, before you post: think twice, post once.

pax

FNtastic!
June 8, 2009, 12:33 AM
Hmmmn, strong in this one, rhetoric is ... mmmnnn

Please, no one is trying to force you to use their way of thinking when it comes to your paticular home invasion ethos. If someone like Skydiver or GSUeagle1089 wants to shoot someone in his home for whatever reason, that is his choice and he is welcome to it. It will be up to him alone to face the concequences of his actions should the matter proceed to trial. To say however, that rational minded people who would rather not excecute or attempt to slap restraints upon an intruder the first instance they come into view are the cause of the downfall of your countrys social values is absurd.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25076609-2761,00.html

A story from the area, yes it is not the United States, but it is still relevant and interesting. It also affirms most of what the sensible posters on this thread are saying, in my opinion, this man did the right thing.

Tucker 1371
June 8, 2009, 12:44 AM
If someone like Skydiver or GSUeagle1089 wants to shoot someone in his home for whatever reason

This sounds like a very anti-gun, rhetoric-injected statement to me. I never said I wanted to shoot anyone and I am fully aware of what my state's laws say is legal in a home invasion. Your laws down under may suck, mine here don't. Don't make me out to be a bloodthirsty vigilante because you got the short end of the stick. I personally think there are too many risks involved in 1) waiting to see what an intruder's intentions are 2) trying to restrain an intruder unassisted. If you think you can then go for it Hulk, I'm 5'7 and 140lbs, I may bench 200 and know a little hand to hand stuff but so do a lot of people and I'd rather not take mine or my family's lives into my bare hands if I can help it.

If a guy has forced his was into my house but I catch him in a position of weakness (i.e. hands full of TV or already in the air, back turned) of course I will not shoot him. But if he's free handed (or armed) and moving he's a threat and it's going to be a bad night for him.

pax
June 8, 2009, 12:56 AM
Hmm. Should have trusted my instincts earlier, I see.

Closed.

pax