When I read accounts of armed citizens defending themselves with firearms, the reports often end with something like, "He/she then held the assailant at gunpoint until the police arrived."

How is that possible?  It seems to me that keeping a gun pointed at an unarmed person implies the threat to shoot him.  What if the assailant just gets up and walks away?  Do you shoot him in the back as he is leaving?  Of course not. 

I would be curious to hear people's opinions on this.  . 

If you have your gun out the person has already presented a threat.  If they drop their gun, knife, or other weapon you don't know if they have another.  You shouldn't be trying to search someone for weapons if you are untrained and even more so alone.  Let the police do that when they arrive.  LEOs will avoid searching someone if they are alone until help arrives.

If the person decides to get up and walk away without offering a threat you can't shoot them.  Holding someone at gunpoint is something to make them think.  They may know you can't legally shoot them unless they offer a threat but they can't be sure you know that.

what about handcuffing them to a pole or somehting?  i think i would rather do that than just holding a gun to them.  

 

Keep in mind.  If the bad guy's weapon is still in proximity to them they still offer a threat.  If they attempt to go for their weapon you can shoot.

You may be safer just letting the guy leave.

2 minutes ago, antimatter said:

what about handcuffing them to a pole or somehting?  i think i would rather do that than just holding a gun to them.  

 

Good idea.  But...to handcuff them you have to get close.  If you are trained in handcuffing techniques this could be a viable option.  If not you're best keeping your distance.

Having someone handcuff themselves is not a smart thing.  Handcuffs are a good striking weapon.

23 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

If they attempt to go for their weapon you can shoot.

You may be safer just letting the guy leave.

Why can't you just do this instead:

 

1 hour ago, Old Glock guy said:

When I read accounts of armed citizens defending themselves with firearms, the reports often end with something like, "He/she then held the assailant at gunpoint until the police arrived."

How is that possible?  It seems to me that keeping a gun pointed at an unarmed person implies the threat to shoot him.  What if the assailant just gets up and walks away?  Do you shoot him in the back as he is leaving?  Of course not. 

I would be curious to hear people's opinions on this.  . 

How is it possible?  Let me guess here...

It's possible because not every Perp is so strung-out on PCP-laced dope that they can't think straight about DYING while looking down a gun barrel.

It's possible because in other states the "art of brandishing" isn't illegal, and a threat can be answered with deadly force---any threat, even a veiled one like a Perp being encountered inside your dwelling.  In some states the mere act of penetration to the inside of your dwelling reaches the threshold of legal use of deadly force.  We've seen it before, when teens protect their home with AR's & shoot the bad guy as he breaks thru the sliding glass door in the kitchen OR even ATTEMPTS to by hurling rocks & furniture at the glass.

I'm not John Wayne, but if I wanna get my point across I can sure as hell do so.  Aim the gun at his nutz & most bad guys will comply.  I'm in fear for my life.  If I tell you to kiss the floor & cross yer ankles & put yer hands behind yer back you better damn well do so.  Go ahead and turn around & reach for a ceramic ashtray or other heavy object to throw at me...

 

This works on everyone.

Don't ask.

1 hour ago, Sniper22 said:

Why can't you just do this instead:

 

If you're capable of that you probably don't need the gun.

Isnt there some law against even having/using handcuffs????? I thought i heard something like that...

3 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

When I read accounts of armed citizens defending themselves with firearms, the reports often end with something like, "He/she then held the assailant at gunpoint until the police arrived."

How is that possible?  It seems to me that keeping a gun pointed at an unarmed person implies the threat to shoot him.  What if the assailant just gets up and walks away?  Do you shoot him in the back as he is leaving?  Of course not. 

I would be curious to hear people's opinions on this.  . 

No threat, no shoot. Holding or attempting to hold at gun point could be defined more as a deterrent to the threat you perceive. If they walk away so be it. Threat neutral

24 minutes ago, Zeke said:

No threat, no shoot. 

That's why you have to shoot them while they are still a threat.

29 minutes ago, Handyman said:

That's why you have to shoot them while they are still a threat.

I don’t believe this is the correct attitude or approach. Keep in mind you are not da police. Your job is self defense, or defense of others. It is not apprehension.

” In fear for my life”

but if a dude wants to hang out till police arrive... cool.

2 minutes ago, Zeke said:

” In fear for my life”

Remember how well that worked out for the white dude in Florida?

 

2 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

Remember how well that worked out for the white dude in Florida?

 

There are no absolutes in life.

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

There are no absolutes in life.

Actually there is, no one gets off the planet alive. Eventually we all end up looking at the brown side of the grass.

 

1 minute ago, Sniper22 said:

Actually there is, no one gets off the planet alive. Eventually we all end up looking at the brown side of the grass.

 

Dark, bud... very dark 

2 hours ago, Lambo2936 said:

Isnt there some law against even having/using handcuffs????? I thought i heard something like that...

2C:39-3 in NJ makes possession of handcuffs "not manifestly appropriate for lawful use" a Disorderly Person offense.  This is the kind of law that makes you prove your possession was "appropriate for lawful use".  Other states have different laws.  Some have none.

If you detained the person illegally, with or without handcuffs or a firearm, you could be charged with some type of unlawful imprisonment charge.

Let me repeat. Attempting to handcuff someone without proper training is extremely dangerous as it puts you in close proximity to the bad guy.  I'm not talking about watching a You Tube video or the entire season of Chicago PD either.

Another problem you have to worry about when "holding someone at gunpoint until the police arrive" is the fact that the police are arriving with guns.  I used to be a cop in another state.  We were encouraged to carry off duty and were trained to realize that if you pull out the gun, then there has to be a need to use it.  You use it then put it away afterwards.  Don't use it then have it in hand when the uniforms show up.  They may not recognize you right away or you may be in a different jurisdiction where none of the cops know you.  Same for civilians at home.  The cops most likely do not know you on sight, so they are showing up to a strange house and seeing a person with a gun.  That automatically makes the person with gun the biggest threat.  Too many times the innocent person gets shot.  

 

1 hour ago, Sniper22 said:

Actually there is, no one gets off the planet alive. Eventually we all end up looking at the brown side of the grass.

 

Works out ok for me. For my grass, the brown side is on top.

18 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

2C:39-3 in NJ makes possession of handcuffs "not manifestly appropriate for lawful use" a Disorderly Person offense.  This is the kind of law that makes you prove your possession was "appropriate for lawful use".  Other states have different laws.  Some have none.

Is it ok if Mr. and Mrs. Zeke keep them around to use in the boudoir?

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

I don’t believe this is the correct attitude or approach. Keep in mind you are not da police. Your job is self defense, or defense of others. It is not apprehension.

I agree 100%. I'm not trying to apprehend anyone. If I find someone in my domicile with a weapon, they are getting shot, not apprehended. They might not be killed, but they bought a new orifice.

2C:39-3 in NJ makes possession of handcuffs "not manifestly appropriate for lawful use" a Disorderly Person offense.  This is the kind of law that makes you prove your possession was "appropriate for lawful use".  Other states have different laws.  Some have none.
If you detained the person illegally, with or without handcuffs or a firearm, you could be charged with some type of unlawful imprisonment charge.
Let me repeat. Attempting to handcuff someone without proper training is extremely dangerous as it puts you in close proximity to the bad guy.  I'm not talking about watching a You Tube video or the entire season of Chicago PD either.

Unless you use the kind that have purple velvet around the chains and purdy pink feathers. [emoji6][emoji23]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

making sure you have witnesses you tell the person to wipe the spit off your hand that he got on you.   

2 hours ago, Handyman said:

Works out ok for me. For my grass, the brown side is on top.

Is it ok if Mr. and Mrs. Zeke keep them around to use in the boudoir?

 

2 hours ago, bhunted said:

Unless you use the kind that have purple velvet around the chains and purdy pink feathers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If that's the purpose I'm guessing that would constitute "appropriate for lawful use" between consenting adults.

With all this kinky shit how come Peel didn't chime-in?   

7 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

With all this kinky shit how come Peel didn't chime-in?   

I heard that Mrs Zeke was inspired by this scene:

Apparently Zeke's "safety word" is "pineapple meatloaf!"

11 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

With all this kinky shit how come Peel didn't chime-in?   

She's too busy rotating the air in her tires.

 

12 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

With all this kinky shit how come Peel didn't chime-in?

Because I'm a lady (dammit!).

1 hour ago, Sniper22 said:

She's too busy rotating the air in her tires.

Ummm… or that! ^^^^ Gotta keep those tires round, dontcha know! 

15 hours ago, Handyman said:

I heard that Mrs Zeke was inspired by this scene:

Apparently Zeke's "safety word" is "pineapple meatloaf!"

A learned man such as yourself knows the rule... can’t be bigger than yourn