When you get the jump on someone about to jump you........it's good.

[SavageEagle]

I think you played it exactly right. I wouldn't try to hold them at gunpoint for 30 minutes while waiting for the police to show up. Lot's of things could go wrong with that. I think it's better to put a fast end to the situation, and that's what you did.

Yea, this. I can testify that that would SUCK like a Hoover. But you could still keep them there with them knowing it's in your hand in case they do something stupid.

Of course, if they were smart, they would run anyway knowing you can't shoot them in the back and at least TRY to get away.

 

[Muddy_Ford]

Since the OP said he thought one of them pee'd themselves I would be inclined to believe that they were just teenagers out playing. And after the encounter I think they will seriously reconsider doing whatever it was that they were doing.

I don't think in that case that I would have held them for the police either. Especially when it takes em 30 mins to get out to the scene.
YMMV

 

[Comp]

As far as being at home and having to "go" get my gun .... well even in my night clothes i have a gun ON ME at all times at home

I just wanted to Quote For Emphasis and add that I believe he means at all times while legal, in home or out of home. I feel the same way and rep incoming when I can rep you again. I'm the same way with my sleep wear, when I wear it.

 

[rmabrey]

Good situational awareness. With that said I don't think I would have held them either. A: 20 minutes is a long time and B: they didn't do anything wrong other than act suspicious, but then again you don't know till it happens to you

 

[fullauto 45]

Was this in Wanamaker?? If so, I'd like to know more as I live VERY close to "downtown" Wanamaker and have seen roving bands of trouble recently.

Could this have been some teens playing Army or just generally messing around? What makes you sure that they were up to something bad? Just asking for more details.

John

PM sent on location. And yes, it was right downtown.

 

[XDinmyXJ]

PM sent on location. And yes, it was right downtown.

Hmm...... I'll let my dad know this. Thankfully he has a .357 right beside his bed!

 

[thompal]

Dang - all you Wanamaker guys!! I grew up in Wanamaker - actually, just across the corn field on Franklin Rd. I guess things have changed everywhere.

 

[leftsock]

Sorry, it's a little long.

This sounds like good sig material to me!

 

[mconley]

not an expert here, but to someone who knows the law ....... if he held them could he have been charged with unlawfuly detaining them?? even to make a citizens arrest you need to see first hand someone commiting a felony right? and while it may not be legal what they were doing i dont hink it was a felony? not trying to monday morning quarterback here, but its a good chance for some of us to learn what to do if we are faced with a similar circumstance.

i think he did a good job. i might not of pointed my weapon at them or even had it out personaly, but i wasnt there and im not him.

I think this is correct, you havent see them commit a crime, they were just " playing hide and go seek" for all their lawyer would be concerned. Their lawyer would prob. try to slap a criminal confinement charge on both of you. I would have done what you did, but grounds to keep them, I dont know you had that.

 

[Fargo]

not an expert here, but to someone who knows the law ....... if he held them could he have been charged with unlawfuly detaining them?? even to make a citizens arrest you need to see first hand someone commiting a felony right? and while it may not be legal what they were doing i dont hink it was a felony? not trying to monday morning quarterback here, but its a good chance for some of us to learn what to do if we are faced with a similar circumstance.

i think he did a good job. i might not of pointed my weapon at them or even had it out personaly, but i wasnt there and im not him.

As to this particular case, I don't know that I know enough about it to really opine on it. The statutes apprear to be:

IC 35-33-1-4
Any person
Sec. 4. (a) Any person may arrest any other person if:
(1) the other person committed a felony in his presence;
(2) a felony has been committed and he has probable cause to believe that the other person has committed that felony; or
(3) a misdemeanor involving a breach of peace is being committed in his presence and the arrest is necessary to prevent the continuance of the breach of peace.
(b) A person making an arrest under this section shall, as soon as practical, notify a law enforcement officer and deliver custody of the person arrested to a law enforcement officer.
(c) The law enforcement officer may process the arrested person as if the officer had arrested him. The officer who receives or processes a person arrested by another under this section is not liable for false arrest or false imprisonment.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.7.

I believe this is the relevant IC Code. The "Pointing a firearm" IC Code is also relevant to this example:

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
As added by P.L.296-1995, SEC.2.

The IC codes referenced in that statute are the general use of force statute as well as the statute regulating use of force during an arrest:

<A name=IC35-41-3-2>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.

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

It is my understanding that you have to have PC that they committed a felony to use any force to effect an arrest. Deadly force can only be used if justified by the general use of force statute, not to effect the arrest by itself.

There is an exception to the "pointing a firearm" statute based upon a citizens arrest of a felon.

There is no provision that allows a citizen to use ANY force to effect a misdemeanor arrest.

Best,

Joe

 

[mconley]

IC 35-42-3-3
Criminal confinement
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) confines another person without the other person's consent; or
(2) removes another person, by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force, from one (1) place to another;
commits criminal confinement. Except as provided in subsection (b), the offense of criminal confinement is a Class D felony.
(b) The offense of criminal confinement defined in subsection (a) is:
(1) a Class C felony if:
(A) the person confined or removed is less than fourteen (14) years of age and is not the confining or removing person's child;
(B) it is committed by using a vehicle; or
(C) it results in bodily injury to a person other than the confining or removing person; and (2) a Class B felony if it:
(A) is committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(B) results in serious bodily injury to a person other than the confining or removing person; or
(C) is committed on an aircraft.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.35; Acts 1979, P.L.299, SEC.1; P.L.183-1984, SEC.2; P.L.278-1985, SEC.8; P.L.49-1989, SEC.21; P.L.59-2002, SEC.2; P.L.70-2006, SEC.1.

 

[Lanser]

Nice, way to keep your situational awareness.

Amen!

 

[cosermann]

. . . By letting them go, they may have done one of two things. A) Scared the crap out of them and maybe at least one of them realized a less stable person COULD have just shot them and asked questions later and decided it's not worth it. OR B) they laughed it off and moved on to a less aware/prepared person.

or C) Furthered the education of future felons who won't be as careless next time (like throwing fish back).

I'm still thinking through the situation and whether I think I could justify drawing on them or not. 4 on 2. Maybe that'd be enough. Seems like one of those gray situations, not a clear cut one.

So, remind me why you just didn't get out, go inside and call the police?

If you'd have been rushed and had to shoot and they were unarmed teens, then what?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing your actions. All's well that ends well. Just trying to think through some "what ifs" and learn from it.

 

[figley]

A) keep one in the chamber

B) you had time to get to a rifle

C) are you actually LOOKING to get in a draw-down? dude, you were at your house. get the F inside, arm yourself, call the cops.

don't be a cowboy, it's not worth it

 

[drgnrobo]

I like to think that you scared them straight & they will grow up to be fine outstanding individuals .......They pissed their pants LOL

 

[Tactical Dave]

I don't think the criminal confinement would ever fly, they had hoodies on and something covering their faces and were sneaking around.........

Good job to the OP for having situational awarness, I doubt I would have pointed my weapon but I was not there and it sounds like you were out numberd and who knows if you could see if they had guns so take my thoughts on that with a grain of salt.

Next time you could call 911 and tell them that you cought people in masks sneaking around your house and that you are armed...... that will get them their quick....... or since most people that rob others are armed I think you could tell them you have them ar gun point because you think they are armed....... that would also..

 

[finity]

just to play devil's advocate:

4 guys creeping around the bushes on your property at night and you wouldnt be at a low ready position? if you were in the house and saw them outside, would go get your gun?

The problem is that he WASN'T at the low ready (which would have been reasonable, IMHO), he DREW on them. It also doesn't sound like they were on his property but heading towards it from a farm store lot beside it.

Could this have been some teens playing Army or just generally messing around? What makes you sure that they were up to something bad? Just asking for more details.

See. That's the problem. They had no evidence that they were doing something illegal. "Messing around" in a parking lot isn't illegal unless you're asked to leave & then it's only trespassing; not a felony.

It is my understanding that you have to have PC that they committed a felony to use any force to effect an arrest. Deadly force can only be used if justified by the general use of force statute, not to effect the arrest by itself.

There is an exception to the "pointing a firearm" statute based upon a citizens arrest of a felon.

There is no provision that allows a citizen to use ANY force to effect a misdemeanor arrest.

Best,

Joe

You beat me to it.

It seems to me that when the OP pointed a gun at them he broke the law. Since it was a loaded gun then it was a felony.

If he would have held them then they would have broken another law.

I don't think the criminal confinement would ever fly, they had hoodies on and something covering their faces and were sneaking around.........

And you base this statement on...what exactly?

I don't see a clothing exception in the criminal confinement law that would allow you to detain them because they were wearing hoodies & masks.

 

[Tactical Dave]

And you base this statement on...what exactly?

I don't see a clothing exception in the criminal confinement law that would allow you to detain them because they were wearing hoodies & masks.

Theif: He detained me, arrest him.
LEO: Why did you hold them at gun point?
Me: It is dark, I noticed them trying to sneak up to my position and were wearing hoodies and had something covering their face. I knew I could not get inside my house safely before they got to me and the inside of my truck was not safe so I snuck around then and held them untill help arived.

LEO: Have a good night sir.

I am sure the theif could then be arrested for tresspassing.


No was you being arrested for criminal confinement would ever fly or at the least you would not be convicted.

 

[phil]

You don't need to hold them at gun point long.....just long enough to ask them to hand over some ID. Let them know this is to assure they don't try to pull something stupid and tell them they can collect their belongings from the local PD in the A.M. I'm fairly certain that would assure they rethink their idea of fun.

 

[finity]

Theif: He detained me, arrest him.
LEO: Why did you hold them at gun point?
Me: It is dark, I noticed them trying to sneak up to my position and were wearing hoodies and had something covering their face. I knew I could not get inside my house safely before they got to me and the inside of my truck was not safe so I snuck around then and held them untill help arived.

LEO: Have a good night sir.

I am sure the theif could then be arrested for tresspassing.


No was you being arrested for criminal confinement would ever fly or at the least you would not be convicted.

First, this is not Iraq, we don't have a 'position' to sneak up to.

Second, maybe you'll get lucky & the cop will let you go. But then again maybe not. Cops have been letting people go for carrying a handgun in their car going to the range & even telling them it's OK to do so. But then there's always the one (or more ) who actually enforce the law as written. Do you want to take the chance on which one you'll get.

The law says it's illegal for a non-leo to arrest someone unless a felony has been committed & the person has PC to think the other person did it. Period. If you otherwise detain someone against their will with a weapon it's a felony. Period. If you do anything else it's a gamble. Do you what you want but don't say that it's legal. Fictional scenario's of what you want to happen doesn't change anything.

Suggesting people break the law either intentionally or through misinformation doesn't do anybody any good.

ETA: I also failed to mention that your initial assumption could have been flawed which makes your argument flawed as well. You said he was a 'theif'. There was NO evidence to suggest that was true. Change the character of 'theif' to 'person wearing weather appropriate clothing that I was scared of' then you can see how your scenario might fail.