Handcuffs a no-no?

[skydiver3346]

: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.........

[chemgirlie]

"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]

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]

:
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by RINGKINGS

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]

How do you know that someone is a felon ?

[hogdogs]

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]

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]

Don't forget, before you cuff mrs HD, you will have to thuroughly frisk her first , then you can cuff her

[skydiver3346]

You say that this has happened to you three times???

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]

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*

Originally Posted by Hook686

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

[BuckHammer]

What is the record for most consecutive posts by one user? Just wondering...

[hogdogs]

I am sure a bunch... But often times consecutive posts are due to deletes by mods...
Brent

[Wagonman]

I sometimes post consecutively when I am replying to different posts.

[NickySantoro]

Anyone other than a sworn officer who attempts to handcuff someone deserves to leave the scene in considerably worse condition than when he arrived.