Confinement as justifiable force
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
This has come up a few times on other forums and EVERY single person who has had any experience handcuffing people advised strongly against it.
One LEO made the comment that police are trained and retrained on handcuffing techniques and there are still police killed every year while trying to handcuff suspects.
If they continue to attack, continue to shoot.
If they try to leave, let them unless you reasonably believe that allowing them to leave would expose you or others to life-threatening danger.
If they will stay, make them lie face down as far away from you as the room will allow.
One LEO made the comment that police are trained and retrained on handcuffing techniques and there are still police killed every year while trying to handcuff suspects.
If they continue to attack, continue to shoot.
If they try to leave, let them unless you reasonably believe that allowing them to leave would expose you or others to life-threatening danger.
If they will stay, make them lie face down as far away from you as the room will allow.
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:00 pm
- Location: Tejas, CSA
How Would You Know?
How would you know they are NOT armed?
It seems sensible to think anyone who will break into an occupied habitation IS armed. Texas law certainly seems to make such a presumption.
FWIW
Chuck
It seems sensible to think anyone who will break into an occupied habitation IS armed. Texas law certainly seems to make such a presumption.
FWIW
Chuck
txinvestigator wrote:You would use deadly force on someone simply in your house, unarmed?64zebra wrote:I gave my $.02 on this in the other thread on using cuffs
and as for non-lethal use IN my house....
its my opinion that if a scumbag is in my house OC/taser/baton/etc is not an option (OC for obvious reasons, don't want to gas everyone in the vicinity). Unless I've made the mistake of letting the guy get up close and personal I won't be using anything except my 00 filled Mossy and one of my .45s
just my opinion
Hoist on High the Bonnie Blue Flag That Bears the Single Star!
I handcuff people for a living, and wouldn't even think of attempting it by myself in this situation.JohnKSa wrote:This has come up a few times on other forums and EVERY single person who has had any experience handcuffing people advised strongly against it.
One LEO made the comment that police are trained and retrained on handcuffing techniques and there are still police killed every year while trying to handcuff suspects.
Kevin
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts in topic: 8
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:06 pm
- Location: Panhandle of Texas!
You're dang right I would, he has committed a felony by breaking into my house,txinvestigator wrote:You would use deadly force on someone simply in your house, unarmed?64zebra wrote:I gave my $.02 on this in the other thread on using cuffs
and as for non-lethal use IN my house....
its my opinion that if a scumbag is in my house OC/taser/baton/etc is not an option (OC for obvious reasons, don't want to gas everyone in the vicinity). Unless I've made the mistake of letting the guy get up close and personal I won't be using anything except my 00 filled Mossy and one of my .45s
just my opinion
A) he runs out the door NOT shooting at me....I don't shoot
B) if illuminated in some manner and complies with my verbal commands...I don't shoot (but he better get face down quick and not breathe wrong
or
C) he has a visible weapon/doesn't comply/advances...BANG (repeated as necessary)
LEO/CHL Certified Glock Armorer
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
Re: How Would You Know?
where do you see that presumption?cxm wrote:How would you know they are NOT armed?
It seems sensible to think anyone who will break into an occupied habitation IS armed. Texas law certainly seems to make such a presumption.
FWIW
Chuck
txinvestigator wrote:You would use deadly force on someone simply in your house, unarmed?64zebra wrote:I gave my $.02 on this in the other thread on using cuffs
and as for non-lethal use IN my house....
its my opinion that if a scumbag is in my house OC/taser/baton/etc is not an option (OC for obvious reasons, don't want to gas everyone in the vicinity). Unless I've made the mistake of letting the guy get up close and personal I won't be using anything except my 00 filled Mossy and one of my .45s
just my opinion
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
Texas law does not make a justification for use of deadly force for someone committing a "felony".64zebra wrote:You're dang right I would, he has committed a felony by breaking into my house,txinvestigator wrote:You would use deadly force on someone simply in your house, unarmed?64zebra wrote:I gave my $.02 on this in the other thread on using cuffs
and as for non-lethal use IN my house....
its my opinion that if a scumbag is in my house OC/taser/baton/etc is not an option (OC for obvious reasons, don't want to gas everyone in the vicinity). Unless I've made the mistake of letting the guy get up close and personal I won't be using anything except my 00 filled Mossy and one of my .45s
just my opinion
A) he runs out the door NOT shooting at me....I don't shoot
B) if illuminated in some manner and complies with my verbal commands...I don't shoot (but he better get face down quick and not breathe wrong
or
C) he has a visible weapon/doesn't comply/advances...BANG (repeated as necessary)
Your ABC contradicts your first sentence. I asked if you would shoot someone unarmed who is simply in your house.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
-
- Member
- Posts in topic: 8
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:06 pm
- Location: Panhandle of Texas!
Texas law does make a justification for use of deadly force if I feel my life is danger/grave bodily harm, or that of my family or other innocent persons. I think this is more than covered is some scumbag has broken into my house and does anything other than run out the door or get spread eagle on the floor. Whether I see a weapon in his hand or not, the 21ft rule applies in my house and on the street so if he makes a bad move its over with.txinvestigator wrote:Texas law does not make a justification for use of deadly force for someone committing a "felony".64zebra wrote:You're dang right I would, he has committed a felony by breaking into my house,txinvestigator wrote:You would use deadly force on someone simply in your house, unarmed?64zebra wrote:I gave my $.02 on this in the other thread on using cuffs
and as for non-lethal use IN my house....
its my opinion that if a scumbag is in my house OC/taser/baton/etc is not an option (OC for obvious reasons, don't want to gas everyone in the vicinity). Unless I've made the mistake of letting the guy get up close and personal I won't be using anything except my 00 filled Mossy and one of my .45s
just my opinion
A) he runs out the door NOT shooting at me....I don't shoot
B) if illuminated in some manner and complies with my verbal commands...I don't shoot (but he better get face down quick and not breathe wrong
or
C) he has a visible weapon/doesn't comply/advances...BANG (repeated as necessary)
Your ABC contradicts your first sentence. I asked if you would shoot someone unarmed who is simply in your house.
I don't think the ABCs above contradict, merely give more detail....
If someone other than my son or my wife is in my house univited and I feel that me or my family are in danger I would not hesitate to shoot them under certain conditions, as stated earlier
in B) if he "breathes wrong" he will get shot, as in makes any sudden moves, etc, bottom line is I won't take any chances on something like this in my house, like someone's signature line says "if they're in your house they are not there for tea"
If they end up being unarmed then so be it, they shouldn't have broken into my house in the first place and made me feel threatened.
LEO/CHL Certified Glock Armorer
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 5474
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
- Location: Houston
The "21 ft" rule (I'll spare you the proper name) applies in situations where your weapon is not at the ready and an attacker is armed with a knife. If you are investigating something suspisious with a holstered/unready weapon then you need a better plan of action.64zebra wrote:Whether I see a weapon in his hand or not, the 21ft rule applies in my house and on the street so if he makes a bad move its over with.
Have fun in court. What if its your son's friend who is running from something dangerous? I could list many more "what ifs" that would get you in a heap of trouble with this mindset. Just read all the horror stories on people that acted without proper threat identification. Charles even has one (a certain shirt attack). This quoted statement is rediculous and gives me the impression you are irresponsible. It isn't your fault you shot someone you shouldn't have - they MADE YOU feel threatened...even if in ignorance.64zebra wrote: If they end up being unarmed then so be it, they shouldn't have broken into my house in the first place and made me feel threatened.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you really need to reconsider this point because the ramifications of this can be huge and even endager people's lives.
-nick
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
-
- Member
- Posts in topic: 8
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:06 pm
- Location: Panhandle of Texas!
---I guess I should feel sorry for someone that has broken into my house and that I feel may have a weapon and could harm megigag04 wrote:The "21 ft" rule (I'll spare you the proper name) applies in situations where your weapon is not at the ready and an attacker is armed with a knife. If you are investigating something suspisious with a holstered/unready weapon then you need a better plan of action.64zebra wrote:Whether I see a weapon in his hand or not, the 21ft rule applies in my house and on the street so if he makes a bad move its over with.
---I know about the 21 foot rule, thats why I mentioned it, point being that if someone is in my house that close that they can close the distance to me with a blunt object/blade/etc really quickly and I'll have to be prepared for that
Have fun in court. What if its your son's friend who is running from something dangerous? I could list many more "what ifs" that would get you in a heap of trouble with this mindset. Just read all the horror stories on people that acted without proper threat identification. Charles even has one (a certain shirt attack). This quoted statement is rediculous and gives me the impression you are irresponsible. It isn't your fault you shot someone you shouldn't have - they MADE YOU feel threatened...even if in ignorance.64zebra wrote: If they end up being unarmed then so be it, they shouldn't have broken into my house in the first place and made me feel threatened.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but you really need to reconsider this point because the ramifications of this can be huge and even endager people's lives.
-nick
---my son is 3, he won't have any friends running into my house
---and no I'm not irresponsible, I'm responsible for my protection and that of my family, if the scumbag in my home does anything threatening he will get shot; (I do have lights that I can turn on in the house and weapon mounted to assist in identification, I never said I'd go blasting away down the hallway)
ex: unarmed man that was shot by a DPS trooper here in town recently, guy made a threatening move that gave the impression he was armed and he got shot in the head, grand jury cleared the trooper;
listen, I'm not looking for trouble from anyone, I am a responsible person and firearms owner and there is no need to continue this little disagreement if you're going to say my reasons for defending myself are ridiculous,
I have an opinion about defending myself and I think everyone out there should too
---I don't think my statement is ridiculous at all, I'm just a man that will protect himself and his family
LEO/CHL Certified Glock Armorer
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 5474
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:47 pm
- Location: Houston
Agreed! This isn't the scenario that was presented when I responded. This is a much better way to handle the situation. The bolded portion is a huge key. Merely commiting the felony of being in my house, in my mind, does not warrant lethal force, as I see LF as a last resort.64zebra wrote:if the scumbag in my home does anything threatening he will get shot
-nick
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
-
- Member
- Posts in topic: 8
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:06 pm
- Location: Panhandle of Texas!
exactly, maybe my first posts didn't come across right, i'm not a vigilante nor would I blast someone just for the heck of it; the part about breaking in being a felony was meant to convey this person's actions/mindset and mine better react accordingly
as for the original topic (to get back to it) I see no need to handcuff someone in my house, its one story, all my bedrooms are on one end at the end of a hallway, front and back doors are in other end of house so I have a safe area to hunker down if need be
as for the original topic (to get back to it) I see no need to handcuff someone in my house, its one story, all my bedrooms are on one end at the end of a hallway, front and back doors are in other end of house so I have a safe area to hunker down if need be
LEO/CHL Certified Glock Armorer
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
NO it does not. Your feelings are never mentioned in the law. The law state that you must reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. If not in your house, you can only use that deadly force if the above conditions are met AND if a reasonable person in your situation would not have retreated .64zebra wrote:Texas law does make a justification for use of deadly force if I feel my life is danger/grave bodily harm, or that of my family or other innocent persons.txinvestigator wrote:Texas law does not make a justification for use of deadly force for someone committing a "felony".64zebra wrote:You're dang right I would, he has committed a felony by breaking into my house,txinvestigator wrote:You would use deadly force on someone simply in your house, unarmed?64zebra wrote:I gave my $.02 on this in the other thread on using cuffs
and as for non-lethal use IN my house....
its my opinion that if a scumbag is in my house OC/taser/baton/etc is not an option (OC for obvious reasons, don't want to gas everyone in the vicinity). Unless I've made the mistake of letting the guy get up close and personal I won't be using anything except my 00 filled Mossy and one of my .45s
just my opinion
A) he runs out the door NOT shooting at me....I don't shoot
B) if illuminated in some manner and complies with my verbal commands...I don't shoot (but he better get face down quick and not breathe wrong
or
C) he has a visible weapon/doesn't comply/advances...BANG (repeated as necessary)
Your ABC contradicts your first sentence. I asked if you would shoot someone unarmed who is simply in your house.
The 21 foot "rule" is a self-defense concept, not a piece of law. What would be a "bad move" and exactly what is "its over with" supposed to mean?I think this is more than covered is some scumbag has broken into my house and does anything other than run out the door or get spread eagle on the floor. Whether I see a weapon in his hand or not, the 21ft rule applies in my house and on the street so if he makes a bad move its over with.
**sigh** I hope you have a good attorney.I don't think the ABCs above contradict, merely give more detail....
If someone other than my son or my wife is in my house univited and I feel that me or my family are in danger I would not hesitate to shoot them under certain conditions, as stated earlier
in B) if he "breathes wrong" he will get shot, as in makes any sudden moves, etc, bottom line is I won't take any chances on something like this in my house, like someone's signature line says "if they're in your house they are not there for tea"
If they end up being unarmed then so be it, they shouldn't have broken into my house in the first place and made me feel threatened.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 11
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
Being in your house is not a felony. He must be there with the intent to commit a felony, theft or assault, for it to be a burglary.gigag04 wrote:Agreed! This isn't the scenario that was presented when I responded. This is a much better way to handle the situation. The bolded portion is a huge key. Merely commiting the felony of being in my house, in my mind, does not warrant lethal force, as I see LF as a last resort.64zebra wrote:if the scumbag in my home does anything threatening he will get shot
-nick
Lets say the autistic teenager who lives two strets over gets confused and forces his way into your house at 2am. He is NOT committing a burglary.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.