You're exactly right, but that's why they're police officers; they train regularly in "shoot/don't shoot" situations. The LEO can never be certain of anything; that's why cops will say ordinary everyday traffic stops are the most dangerous thing a cop does. However, knowing that the homeowner is armed and holding the BG at bay leads the LEO to expect that situation when he shows up.DParker wrote: That's all well and good, but none of that is going to leave the newly-arrived LEO(s) certain as to who's who. So I'm still under the assumption that they're going to want neither of us to be holding a gun as they take control of the situation.
Having encountered this situation, the officer will draw and order the BG to the ground. If at that point you are still holding your weapon, the officer will ask you to lower it. He'll cuff the BG, then ask for your weapon. He's just controlling the scene. If you haven't done anything threatening to him or the BG, you may be left uncuffed, but it's possible that the officer will cuff you as well until the whole thing is sorted out.
Legally speaking, drawing on a BG is use of force. Firing is of course use of deadly force. However, from a practical standpoint, if you are afraid for your life or safety, those of someone close to you, or of your possessions, draw and fire. Drawing on an invading BG by itself isn't always a deterrent, and by the time you figure out it isn't you could be dead.DParker wrote:The scenario I propose did not assume that the BG was IN your home. Merely either on your property or in some other situation that makes your possession and use of the firearm legal. It *did* assume, however, that things have played out in such a way that the BG did not challenge you once your weapon was brought to bear (leaving you with no reason to shoot), nor did he try to flee the scene.
DParker wrote:Of course. I think we're all (or at least the overwhelming majority of us) of a similar mind there.