|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 21, 2010, 01:42 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: December 7, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 25
|
Intruder: what postion?
I've been trying to figure out what positon to tell an intruder to get into. Now, on tv they always say get on the ground flat down on their stomach. This makes me nervous because they can move forward pretty quickly in that postion.
If a woman who lives alone has an intruder and she draws her gun... what position do you suggest she tell them while she dials 911? I appreciate the feedback. LL Edited to say thank you for moving this to the correct place. Last edited by LightHouse Lady; February 21, 2010 at 11:30 AM. |
February 21, 2010, 02:03 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 10, 2008
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,326
|
If 911 has already been dialed my advice would be to tell them to remain absolutely still. The slightest movement will be percieved as an attack and I'll shoot.
If 911 has not been dialed: "Hands on your head, turn away from the sound of my voice, get on your knees, cross your ankles, sit on your feet, move and you die" That's my advice, but I'm no expert, but the one time I was in that position it made it really hard to stand up when I was finally allowed to. I do know that after they do this get to a distance where you can make a kill shot, but where they cannot reach out and touch you.
__________________
“Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science, by rendering them my supreme delight.” - Thomas Jefferson |
February 21, 2010, 03:02 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2010
Posts: 300
|
I completely agree with scorpion_tyr. Make sure you are very direct and stern with anything you tell them.
__________________
From my cold dead hands If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns |
February 21, 2010, 06:32 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 16, 2008
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,891
|
Just watch an old episode of "COPS".
Face on the floor, hands behind the head should be sufficient. An intruder should consider himself lucky to still have the option...
__________________
Hopp Custom Leather <------ click for HOLSTER awesomeness!! -There is no theory of evolution... Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live. |
February 21, 2010, 07:33 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,066
|
I would have the intruder facing me. Think about it.
|
February 21, 2010, 08:21 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Ms.
Posts: 1,984
|
Quote:
|
|
February 21, 2010, 08:27 AM | #7 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 16, 1998
Location: Titusville, FL, USA
Posts: 1,030
|
If the situation permits:
If there's not enough room you can direct him/her to double kneel and get into a similiar position of disadvantage. It's the intruder's choice if he/she is going to comply with your commands. You may be limited in the amount of force you can legally use to detain an intruder. If he/she turns and bolts toward the door what are you going to do about it? In addition, if he/she is deliberately slow to respond to your commands or is trying to frustrate your ability to control him/her, then it might be best to just instruct him/her to leave the premises. |
February 21, 2010, 08:28 AM | #8 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 26, 2009
Location: Here and There
Posts: 13
|
Might look a bit odd if you shoot someone in the back / head that was in a kneeling / sitting position. Just sayin'.
|
February 21, 2010, 08:30 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
You know what......... in my case it probably won't make any difference what position they wind up in.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W |
February 21, 2010, 08:46 AM | #10 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 10
|
Kidnapping?
You can't hold an intruder! That would be kidnapping and you are using a deadly weapon to to boot! Aren't you required to let the intruder go? The threat is over, the police are on the way. You can't hold him/her. That's the job of the police. You don't have arrest powers just because you're armed.
|
February 21, 2010, 08:58 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,717
|
A very brief primer about citizen's arrests:
http://www.criminalattorney.com/news/citizens-arrest/ In NYS you may detain someone that has committed a felony in your home.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. |
February 21, 2010, 09:02 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Ms.
Posts: 1,984
|
Quote:
|
|
February 21, 2010, 09:11 AM | #13 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
In New York, it is legal to detain someone for simple trespass, say nothing of B&E, robbery or assault.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
February 21, 2010, 09:23 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2009
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Posts: 1,902
|
Years ago, I worked for an agency that took no prisoners but when we did, we had them face a wall about 1/2 a bodies length away from it. Had them lean against the wall with their hands spread apart and then spread their legs to the limits. If they moved, they were falling and they were no longer prisoners.
Another way to keep a prisoner immobile is to put them on their knees, ankles crossed, hands locked behind their head, elbows straight out to the side. If they moved, they were falling forward and were no longer prisoners. And, you want them not to face you. You can better tell what is going on with them by watching the body, not the face. Further, you don't want them to watch you so they can plan their next move. It they don't know exactly where you are, they don't how much time they have to execute a move before you execute them. Not suggesting you execute anyone...you have to apply your best judgement; are they still a threat or have they already left a deposit in their pants?
__________________
45Gunner May the Schwartz Be With You. NRA Instructor NRA Life Member |
February 21, 2010, 09:44 AM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Don't even think about using deadly force. State laws vary somewhat in this regard, but unless you are in one of the very few states such as New York that permits it under certain very limited circumstances, and those circumstances exist (heinous crime that you have in fact witnessed, for example), you cannot lawfully use a firearm to prevent his departure. One other little thing: while you are preoccupied with the perp, you stand the chance of being ambushed by one of his accomplices who came to find out what was taking so long. And one other: if first responders who have already been summoned by someone else arrive to find you pointing a gun at someone, expect to be ordered to drop the gun and get on the ground, and do it quickly, and be glad that you have not been shot. If the person chooses to remain, fine, but realize that you are at all kinds of risk until he has been taken away. If he chooses to depart, don't do anything stupid. Just to put it in perspective, consider that a law enforcement officer who had come upon the perp in your abode would not shoot except in self defense or under certain very limited and rare circumstances involving immediate necessity, knowledge or at least suspicion of a heinous crime just having been committed, and imminent serious risk to others if he flees, and even then, he would be under investigation for quite some time afterward. |
|
February 21, 2010, 10:22 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Ms.
Posts: 1,984
|
Quote:
You have no way of knowing if they have a pocket carry , knife, or any other weapon on them...they are to be considered a threat every second after they have invaded YOUR home....until they are out of your home. You bring up a good point, there's a lot you can do to make things safe for you and the police when they arrive...I'm in a wheelchair, and my weapon will be in my lap for them to see, and my hands rolling the chair out of they way so they can do their job. Last edited by SilentHitz; February 21, 2010 at 10:37 AM. Reason: sp |
|
February 21, 2010, 10:31 AM | #17 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 15, 2007
Posts: 10
|
There are things you have the right to do and things you should do. As OldMarksman points out, you have the right in some states, but you take on a number of risks including liability and perhaps even another bad guy. So, what is to be gained by holding the perp at gun point? The BG isn't going to get away with any of your stuff. He may have broken things (window, door, etc.) but insurance will cover that. The police may catch him or they may not. Perhaps you have a civic duty to stop him from committing any other crimes? I don't know. You need to weight the risks and benefits I suppose.
|
February 21, 2010, 11:04 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 552
|
Was taught two of the positions already mentioned.Leaning against the wall with arms spread as wide as possible,and feet back from the wall as far as possible was used for pat down/body search.The reasoning was that if the suspect moved you could hook one of his legs out from under him.
Holding a suspect until your back-up arrived we used the on your knees,ankles crossed,fingers interlocked behind your head.After a short while their feet fall asleep,and if you have them really jam their fingers together its difficult to separate their hands quickly.On their belly arms spread gives them leverage to quickly bolt up from the floor. The most important thing is to stay outside their zone.It wont make much difference what position they're in,if you're close enough for them to grab you.And to stay in control,you tell them what to do ,they don't speak,they don't move,reinforce the fact they have everything to lose. |
February 21, 2010, 11:15 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
IMO... After the critical incident has passed. You can ask the subject to remain for the police. You cant make him do anything... there are no consiquences to his refusing your request. He may run away... Oh well... as long as you and yours are safe... it's a police matter. If he re-threatens. Your re-authorized to use deadly physical force.
It is tactically sound to keep a prisoner (subject) ignorant to your position, armament, physical condition, and physical description. So I may keep him on his stomach facing away from me, with his arms outstretched. But if I feel he may try something I may want him facing me. As some astute poster mentioned. It's a lot easier to explain a shot to the chest than to explain one in the back. In sum and substance I believe we must decide tactics based on the dynamics of the individual incident. Glenn Dee Last edited by Glenn Dee; February 21, 2010 at 09:47 PM. |
February 21, 2010, 11:16 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2009
Location: Not close enough to the beach
Posts: 1,477
|
Position
For the average citizen who has the upper hand in a conflict, my best advise is to have them run like hell way from you. Advise them if they turn around you will shoot and if they stop you will shoot.
As a private citizen I don't want the responsibility for a bad guys safety. |
February 21, 2010, 11:26 AM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: December 7, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 25
|
Wow! Great responses here. I am so glad I came here to ask. I am reading each post with interest and learning from them.
I live in California so the law is as I understand it that if I fear for my life I can shoot them. If I shoot, I have learned from here and in discussions to shoot to stop. I get that. However, I don't just want to shoot someone... I woud rather let the law handle it. The on the knees positon makes me feel the most comfortable and I never even thought of having them face away from me. That makes so much sense. As to someone posting to just let them go... I do NOT feel comfortable at all with that. How am I to know if he will come back? Now that scares me. Now, say he is facing away from me and starts to move... if I shoot then it would be in the back and wouldn't that put me at risk legally? What do you think? As a woman who lives alone in the country and with rural crime going up I think I should learn as much as I can. Thanks, LL Last edited by LightHouse Lady; February 21, 2010 at 06:54 PM. |
February 21, 2010, 11:32 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
Lighthouse Lady?
Never mind. Glenn Last edited by Glenn Dee; February 21, 2010 at 09:22 PM. |
February 21, 2010, 11:37 AM | #23 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 16, 1998
Location: Titusville, FL, USA
Posts: 1,030
|
Legally, and morally, you never shoot to kill. Instead, you shoot to stop the bad guy's wrongful, life threatening activity. You are using lethal force. Death may result, but killing him or her is not your intent. You merely want to stop him/her.
You must have reasonable fear, and be able to describe the situation in such a manner so others can understand the circumstances that gave you reason to believe that your life was in danger. A criminal adversary must have, or reasonably appear to have:
Cheers! |
February 21, 2010, 11:45 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
|
posted by LightHouse Lady
Quote:
If my sister or mother lived alone in a rural area and confronted an intruder in their home at 3:00 A. M. I hope the last thing they were worried about was whether they could hold the BG at bay long enough for the police to arrive. TRUE STORY: A very good friend of mine came home at dusk one evening with wife and very small child in tow. As they entered their front door they confronted a thug filling up a pillow slip with stuff from their living room. Mark W. (my friend) happened to be armed and held the thug at gun point until cops arrived. (He used the face down hands behind neck method) Mark goes downtown to do the paperwork to file charges etc. As he looks out the window he sees the young thug getting in his mother's car then leaving. Mark had not even finished with the paperwork! The cops had turned him loose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't know why. Don't matter. Point is what would have stopped this young thug from coming back to Mark's to seek revenge maybe bring reinforcements or weapons??
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W |
|
February 21, 2010, 12:08 PM | #25 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
In a number of states, including California, a "castle doctrine" is established by statute or case law. California law establishes that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. As a presumption, that is rebuttable. It does not mean that one would be permitted to use deadly force to prevent the departure of the perp. Forensic evidence, earwitness testimony, or even the testimony of the perp himself could establish that the imminent danger no longer existed when the shooting occurred or that excessive force had been used. Quote:
Bookmark and study these: http://www.useofforce.us/ http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...2_StudyDay.htm I would be a lot more concerned about living alone with my gun having been taken away as evidence with the rest of the perps in the world out there than about the possibility that one intruder who may consider himself lucky to have gotten away, but who knows he is the subject of investigation and pursuit, might risk coming back. I would also be a lot more concerned about being charged with murder because the evidence indicated that I shot to prevent the perp from departing after the danger had passed. One other thing: Shawn Dodson and Glenn Dee are correct. One does not "shoot to kill". One shoots, or uses other deadly force (force that can be reasonably expected to cause death or serious bodily injury), to prevent death or serious bodily harm. That means shooting to stop--shooting effectively. It does not mean shooting to wound. |
||
|
|