How do you hold someone at gunpoint?

[SilentWarrior1]

#1 I would want to assess the situation first, with the business end of my Glock or my AR towards the BG, of course.

2# I would be loud enough to wake up every MF'er in my building, seeing as I live in an apartment. Having been an a Range NCO in the Army, I can be VERY loud, clear and concise.

Unless, of course, you're planning to secure him with rope, belt, zip ties, cuffs, etc. Then, by all means, stand or kneel on his neck while you do so.

FWIW, PLEASE don't attempt to do this unless you A) are trained to handle this procedure B) have someone to CYA or C) Both.

 

[BloodEclipse]

If they are in my house they are a threat to me and my family.
If it happens that I have not shot them and get them under control (spread eagle on the floor) they will remain that way untill LEOs arrive. Any attempt to move from this position would consitute aggression and it would be dealt with quickly.

 

[Ri22o]

If they are in my house they are a threat to me and my family.
If it happens that I have not shot them and get them under control (spread eagle on the floor) they will remain that way untill LEOs arrive. Any attempt to move from this position would consitute aggression and it would be dealt with quickly.

I agree. Any uninvited guest in my house is, and will be, considered a threat and will be dealt with accordingly.

 

[JosephR]

I would do what I thought I had to do at the moment and what I knew I could do within the limits of the law.

Holding someone at gunpoint is never legal. It might be legal in your home but I doubt it. It is holding someone against their will with the threat of deadly force- not legal.

You are allowed to shoot them in if they are unlawfully in your home. I personally wouldn't shoot someone unless I felt threatened. If I felt threatened I wouldn't hesitate.

More than likely if I caught someone off guard in my home I'd point the gun at them and tell them to "freeze" or "don't move or I'll blow your head off" or something similar. I'd call the police. But, if the person moved towards the door without moving towards me in a non threatening manner, I wouldn't shoot them.

You need to think about what a jury will let you live with AND what you'd be willing to live with. The intruder will more than likely have a family so there's always the possibility of a lawsuit.

 

[sjstill]

FWIW, PLEASE don't attempt to do this unless you A) are trained to handle this procedure B) have someone to CYA or C) Both.

This needs a big 'ol +1!

 

[mosesiscarryingapdw]

The correct answer to "How do you hold someone at gunpoint" is "when they are face down, hemorrhaging blood, and the police and ambulance are on their way."

 

[baldmax]

Indiana has the Castle Doctrine:

If you can get past the train metaphor (which is hard because they really do their best to beat it to death), this year-old article from the NRA has a good summary of which states enacted laws that eliminate the duty to reasonably retreat from an intruder in your home. As of October 2006,

Castle Doctrine [was] the law in Alabama, Arizona, [Florida,] Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota.
​

I note that contrary to my naive political expectations, California, Michigan, Oregon, and Texas are all suspiciously absent from that list. But not to fear! In the past year, eleven more states have adopted some version of the Castle Doctrine as law:

[As of October 4 2007], the Castle Doctrine has become law in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Missouri and Maine. . . . By far, the popular concept in those states has been the “stand your ground” approach that permits a homeowner to fire upon invaders at first sight.

Found it here:

The Castle Doctrine: A State-by-State Summary « tekel
​

 

[Ri22o]

Indiana has the Castle Doctrine:

If you can get past the train metaphor (which is hard because they really do their best to beat it to death), this year-old article from the NRA has a good summary of which states enacted laws that eliminate the duty to reasonably retreat from an intruder in your home. As of October 2006,

Castle Doctrine [was] the law in Alabama, Arizona, [Florida,] Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Dakota.
​

I note that contrary to my naive political expectations, California, Michigan, Oregon, and Texas are all suspiciously absent from that list. But not to fear! In the past year, eleven more states have adopted some version of the Castle Doctrine as law:

[As of October 4 2007], the Castle Doctrine has become law in Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Missouri and Maine. . . . By far, the popular concept in those states has been the “stand your ground” approach that permits a homeowner to fire upon invaders at first sight.

Found it here:

The Castle Doctrine: A State-by-State Summary « tekel
​

So, what exactly is the Castle Doctrine? Your post was basically a copy of the provided link.

 

[pmpmstrb]

Castle Doctrine in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Wiki we have a "stand your ground" doctrine which is one level up from a the Castle doctrine.

Other states have a stand-your-ground clause, or no duty to retreat policy which expressly relieves the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. In states where Castle Law is included as a part of a larger personal-self-defense law, there may be a duty to retreat if the altercation happens in a place outside the home; even though there is no duty to retreat if the altercation happens at the home.
Stand-your-ground laws (sometimes called shoot-first laws by critics) are statutes that allow the use of deadly force to defend against forcible unlawful entry or attack. These bills significantly expand the boundaries of legal self-defense by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from an invader or assailant in certain cases before resorting to the use of "defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another." [3]
In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated-
The doctrine of 'retreat to the wall' had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs, and even knives, as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced men, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[4]
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.[5]

 

[pmpmstrb]

Indiana Code 35-41-3

Here it is in black and white

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and (B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

 

[SavageEagle]

(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime
[/i]

So basiclly while that BG is Raping, Robbing, Looting, Beating, etc, you can't use force to stop them? That's A BIG LOOPHOLE dontcha think?

 

[BloodEclipse]

So basiclly while that BG is Raping, Robbing, Looting, Beating, etc, you can't use force to stop them? That's A BIG LOOPHOLE dontcha think?

No it means that if a BG is committing a crime or escaping a crime THEY cannot legally use force. For example you couldn't claim self defense if you robbed someone and they pulled a gun on you to stop the robbery and you shot them down.

 

[SavageEagle]

No it means that if a BG is committing a crime or escaping a crime THEY cannot legally use force. For example you couldn't claim self defense if you robbed someone and they pulled a gun on you to stop the robbery and you shot them down.

LMAO Ok I missread that! That's what I get for pulling an allnighter again! SlEeP?!?! WhAt SlEeP?!?!

 

[JosephR]

Yes, exactly that. The BAD GUY can't use the usual reasons for using deadly force if he himself is in the middle of committing a crime or fleeing from committing a crime.

 

[shooter521]

Question #2: What is the proper way to hold someone at gunpoint?

The way I was taught to do it was to issue commands in a loud, clear voice (they call it the "command voice" for a reason - not the same as screaming) and use as few words as possible:

1) HANDS UP

2) TURN AROUND (assuming he was facing you to start with)

3) GET ON YOUR KNEES

4) GET ON YOUR BELLY

5) ARMS OUT

6) PALMS UP

7) CROSS YOUR ANKLES

8) DON'T MOVE

Then, you take up a covering position as far away as you can, at his "foot end" and angled away from whichever side his head is turned to. That is, if his head is at 12:00 and he's facing to the left, I'd be positioned at about 4:00.

As I understand, this is very similar to the "felony stop" procedure that a lot of PD's use. I've never had to do it for real (though it worked in the sims class!), but it seems like a pretty solid technique.

HTH!

 

[Pami]

*boggle*

No offense meant, so please don't take any..
You can remember that much when you're stressed out in a life-or-death situation?

 

[Lars]

Heh.... Yelling "Stop" at phase one of my draw is about as much as I think they'll get.

sure beats the alternative.....

"Die Mo#@$#H F#@$#@!!!!"

 

[RogerB]

Heh.... Yelling "Stop" at phase one of my draw is about as much as I think they'll get.

sure beats the alternative.....

"Die Mo#@$#H <A href="mailto:F#@$#@!!!!"[/quote">F#@$#@!!!!"

I think I'd be in the same boat. <damn I need some training>

Are there any low cost training classes available such as the "Discount Karate" classes? <j/k>

 

[shooter521]

You can remember that much when you're stressed out in a life-or-death situation?

For me at least, it's pretty intuitive, and that helps. I want the BG in a position where he can't see me, and where ANY move he makes is going to require some effort on his part and isn't going to go unnoticed. What is that position gonna look like, and what's the simplest and most direct sequence to get him there?

But really, the trick isn't "remembering that much," it's training to do it enough that you don't have to remember – i.e. that it becomes reflexive. Just like your drawstroke, or moving off the line of attack, or your post-shooting "checklist" (back off, get to cover, threat scan, reload, plan your next move) - you shouldn't be thinking about those things in a confrontation, you should just be DOING them because you've trained to do them a gazillion times. I was able to successfully give those commands under the stress of a force-on-force training environment, and lots and lots of cops are able to do it every day under considerably more stress than that. FWIW.

 

[Yamaha]

The correct answer to "How do you hold someone at gunpoint" is "when they are face down, hemorrhaging blood, and the police and ambulance are on their way."

most likely that would be the same in my case.

Also, if you shoot them in the house, make sure they go down in the house.....6 months ago I had a prowler investigating the outside of the house at 3am, as the garage door was open in the rear. I just walked in the house, drew my 17, and waited for forced entry. The deputy that investigated the event said I did everything right for the circumstances, you cannot take them down in your yard or while fleeing(technically) just a simplified version of the code IIRC.