Intruder: what postion?

[LightHouse Lady]

You have given me a huge amount of advice and I have a lot of learning and reading to do. I will do it and thank you for helping me to understand how all of this works.

I have a better grasp of what is at stake and how better to handle it because of all of the caring people on this forum.

LL

[CRUE CAB]

If you are lucky enough to get them subdued. Get them on knees, hand behind head and fingers interlocked.
Make 100% sure they understand you will fire. I also have a pair of S&W handcuffs to maintain control of them until the cops get there.
I would probably march them out of my house and into the garage or breezeway and hold them there.
Handcuffed behind of course.

[raimius]

The way I've seen it done:
(with them standing, facing you)
-slowly set down anything in hands
-hands straight up, fingers spread
-turn around
-X steps slowly forward (to get them away from any potential weapons)
-slowly drop to knees
-slowly drop to stomach

the final position can be
1. Flat on stomach
2. Arms out to sides (less chance of producing a hidden weapon)
3. Palms up (makes it difficult to get up quickly)
4. Legs apart
5. Heels on the ground (again, difficult to get up quickly)
6. Face away from you

Maybe not THE way, but certainly A way.
By making them do things slowly, you know any fast movement is likely aggressive.
If they obey your commands to move slowly, YOU have more control and time to react. Once the physical threat has subsided, you want to control the pace of events as much as possible.

[Doc Intrepid]

Coupla other comments to the above...

* Emphasize don't allow them to see you or make eye contact;

* Keep your distance - as far away as possible;

* Don't block the exits...

After a few minutes to catch their breath, and knowing the cops are coming, anecdotally many ex-cons doing break-ins will bolt, counting on the fact that you won't shoot them in the back as they are "retreating" (running like hell out the door).

Just because they're down doesn't mean they'll stay down. If they think they can make it out the door or window before you drop the hammer, they just may go for it.

Just a few other things to consider.

[BikerRN]

If you have not stopped the threat using lethal force, you are at risk of being attacked the longer you keep the felon at gunpoint.

From what I've read, and people I've talked to, the longer you don't shoot the more emboldened the felon becomes thinking that you will not shoot him or her. It's sort of a conundrum that has no good answers, IMHO.

The book "Street Survival", by Calibre Press has a chapter on this and is very informative. I suggest you buy and read it. It's old, but still relevant. My one word of warning is, NEVER EVER APPROACH AN INTRUDER! The old saying, "distance is your friend" applies to this situation and gunfights as well.

If the intruder wants to run away, let them run. Just so long as they aren't running towards you, it's all good, IMO. Of course you may have to deal with them at a later date, but that's life. There are no "one size fits all" answers to the complex problem you presented. I strongly encourage you to take advantage of training that may be available to you. Lots of trainers will address this issue, to some degree, IME.

Biker

[OldMarksman]

Posted by BikerRN: If you have not stopped the threat using lethal force, you are at risk of being attacked the longer you keep the felon at gunpoint.

Yep, and not only by the perp; he may have accomplices, or someone who thinks that you are the crook may come along.

A policeman on this or another forum has said that there is only one thing more dangerous than holding someone at gunpoint, and that is trying to put cuffs on him.

Of course you may have to deal with them at a later date, but that's life.

If you survive the encounter unhurt and if you are not prosecuted for unlawful use of force or for other crimes, but if you happen to injure nerves or soft tissue while applying restraints or any kind, or if you cause the perp to do anything to which other bodily impairment or injury can be attributed, you will certainly be dealing with them at a later date. It will involve great expense to you even if you are able to avoid a costly civil judgment.

A law enforcement officer has the same limitations, but the community that he serves will pay for the defense against civil damages and will cover the damages per se. The civilian is on his own. The cost could be astronomical. Statutory protection against civil damages in the event of justifiable use of deadly force exists in many jurisdictions, but it is limited to just that.

Anyone who believes that consulting a knowledgeable local attorney for advice in advance of using deadly force would be an excessive expense should (1) avoid the prospect of effecting a citizen's arrest altogether and (2) employ (display, point, shoot, whatever) a firearm only when immediately necessary to defend oneself or ones family. A couple of hundred dollars will seem infinitesimally small in the perspective of potential defense costs, civil judgements, and possible loss of employment and loss of personal freedom.

[rattletrap1970]

If you are going to use your weapons to defend your home, I would get a copy of the laws pertaining to it. If you don't understand them, you can talk to a Firearms Lawyer or the Department of Public Safety and have them explain it to you in detail. Even if it costs a couple bucks I'm sure it's less than everything you own.

[kilimanjaro]

If he gets up and runs away you don't have to shoot him....nothing wrong with that.

But to consider releasing him without turning him over to the police? That is either rank cowardice or sociopathic behavior. I couldn't sleep at night knowing some scum was out there victimizing someone else, each and every night.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Kilimanjaro: If he gets up and runs away you don't have to shoot him....nothing wrong with that.

You don't have to shoot him? Should you do so, that will most certainly be the end of your gun owning days and prosperity, and probably a precursor to a period of confinement in a correctional institution.

But to consider releasing him without turning him over to the police? That is either rank cowardice or sociopathic behavior. I couldn't sleep at night knowing some scum was out there victimizing someone else, each and every night.

So, what would you do? Hope that he is not fully aware that you cannot shoot him (don't count on it) and tell him to stay? Well, that might work, but you will have put yourself at considerable physical risk until he has been arrested and at considerable legal risk, primarily civil but not necessarily entirely so, with no likely end.

You have the right to arrest him in most states, depending on the seriousness of his crime (it isn't called an arrest in North Carolina), but you are limited in the force you can employ, and once you have done so, you are entirely responsible for his well being, with no indemnification by the community. You have no police procedures or training to help reduce criminal or civil liability.

Better to get a good description and let trained, equipped, indemnified, and sworn law enforcement personnel who operate as a team with backup bring him in. Civilians are not sworn, not indemnified, and not backed up, and those few who have been trained in the law, police procedure, and enforcement techniques know to avoid getting themselves in serious trouble physically and legally.

"Out there victimizing someone else?" How long do you think he would likely be confined? More time than you would for shooting him? Not likely, unless his prior rap sheet is lengthy. And even if you are not confined, he may have seen news articles that give him a pretty good idea that you may now be unarmed, unless did you simply let him go.

Rattletrap1970 provided some sound advice:

If you are going to use your weapons to defend your home, I would get a copy of the laws pertaining to it. If you don't understand them, you can talk to a Firearms Lawyer or the Department of Public Safety and have them explain it to you in detail. Even if it costs a couple bucks I'm sure it's less than everything you own.

Get that understanding and base your actions upon it rather than upon impressions gained from watching movies and television. Kilimanjaro, I do not mean that personally; there are many, many people I know who somehow believe it is their duty to hold people they encounter in burglaries or invasions. You may feel that you have a moral obligation, but it should be clear from your lack of a contract, a badge, and training that it is not a legal one and not one that is very wise to try to perform.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Being rational about actions should not bring on claims of cowardice or sociopathy. Take a course or two, from people who are very competent and tell them that.

Say that again and you will assume the position on this forum -

One can make any point without insults.

[bhannah]

shoot to stop?
Thats the dumbest thing I have heard (just short of ever because it might work out as a good defense) But that will get you killed, god forbid any one in here has to shoot any one EVER.. but if you do shoot to kill. Sorry it may sound harsh
and quite frankly it is. But shooting someone in the leg to "STOP" them is just asking for return fire. So unless I misread the post I think that is just silly advise,and very dangerous advice as well.

Shoot to stop permanently might have been a better title.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Going nowhere with uninformed blood lust.

Closed.