Had to draw my weapon for the first time.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What can you make people do?

I would have immediately demanded he and his girl friend (accomplice?) turn around and prone out on the floor. That way, they can not jump you.

Having the two individuals turn around (backs to you) great idea by a previous poster, asking them to lie on the floor? not sure that is such a good idea, for several reasons. The main one being the willingness of anyone to lie defenses on your living room floor, good guys in the wrong house, or bad guys in a house.

The actual shooting of someone is not so easy where they are just standing there with their hands up, empty hands! really difficult, A/ to do, and B/ to explain.

IMHO the laws in the States that protect you when you have shot someone in home invasions, or plain old walk into your home type situations, all require your perception of a threat!

Unless walking around with no clothes on is your MO when home, always having a pistol on your person is not difficult. You come home armed, and stay that way, home invasions, Florida style, go like this, CRASH! they smash through the door, and enter with accomplices, fast! Going to get a weapon is not a very viable option.

One of the benefits of this type of thread here on THR, is the learning curve is quick, you get to see the other guys point of view, and most likely improve your defenses, and thought patterns.
 
From grayryder:
In my opinion you made several mistakes.

(1) Not placing the both of them in a face down prone postion on the floor.

How would he have done that that? By threatening to shoot them? What should he have done had they they refused to comply?

Would you really want to assume the civil and criminal liability for making an improper citizen's arrrest if the "invaders" were not ultimately charged and found guility of a crime? Think kidnapping, false arrest, assault....

Not for me, thanks!

(2) Not calling 911.

Agree.

(3) Falling for the B***S*** excuse of wrong apartment.

I don't think the OP said he did.

(4) Not asking for the mother's name and address and/or apartment number.

Did they have any obligation to give him that information?
 
Would you really want to assume the civil and criminal liability for making an improper citizen's arrrest if the "invaders" were not ultimately charged and found guility of a crime? Think kidnapping, false arrest, assault....

Kleanbore,

Are you suggesting that it may be improper to make a "citizen's arrest" or someone who has unlawfully entered your home in the middle of the night and is standing in your house?

The fact that they are IN your house in the middle of the night seems to suggest that we have one "detainable" offense that they SHOULD be charged with if it came to that.

-- John
 
I've been around guns since I was young, I am now 27 - astrolite

Now that's worth a chuckle. - meef

No offense to the OP, but your right meef - I walked by a mirror this morning and was shocked, where did the old guy come from.
 
Good job overall. Valuable lessons learned and you didn't get hurt or robbed.

Since their story "checked out" and you can identify them, I would have the police pay them a visit.

I, however, call BS on their story. When I read the facts, it seemed to me that the woman was going to search the bedrooms while the man was getting a knife from the kitchen.

It's terrible to think about it, but if you weren't there your girlfriend could have been killed, raped, or tied up or kidnapped... who knows.

If she's not familiar with guns, I would get her up to speed and get her a handgun.

Extra locks and a dog and/or some alarms would also be a good idea.
 
From JWarren:
Are you suggesting that it may be improper to make a "citizen's arrest" on someone who has unlawfully entered your home in the middle of the night and is standing in your house?

Short answer: it may well be.

Longer answer: It's going to vary depending on state law. If their entry was not "knowing and willfull," or in some cases, if there had been no intent to commit a crime, it may well be judged that it was not criminal. That's specifically pointed out in the Colorado statute. Also, in some states there are different degrees of home invasion depending on the situation. Anyone wondering should consult a qualified attorney in his state.

Years ago I entered the wrong house by mistake (looked exactly like my parents' house into which we had moved on that day), and another time I went into the wrong apartment, the door to which was open (misprint on a party invitation). A friend of mine entered the wrong apartment by mistake once. I think it would have been difficult if not impossible to charge either one of us him and make it stick. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

In some states there are different degrees of home invasion.

From rbernie:
What are the laws on lawful detention in Texas or Louisiana?

Do not take this as legal advice.

All states permit citizens to make arrests--even New York. In some, citizens arrests for misdemeanors are not permitted. Excessive force is not permitted. Citizens are not indemnified against civil suits if the arrest is later judged improper, excessive force is used, the arrested party is injured or endangered, etc. In addition, there is the risk of criminal charges.

Much downside, no real upside.

Here's something general on the subject:

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_citizens_arrest.htm

The Louisiana castle doctrine law permits the use of deadly force if it is necessary to prevent unlawful entry, or in the case of unlawful entry that has occurred, to compel the intruder to leave.

Should the intruders choose to leave, one cannot use deadly force to use to prevent their escape in any state, except as outlined in the SCOTUS findings in Garner v. Tennessee. Chances of meeting the conditions there outlined are probably less than remote.

Here's something on the subject from another discussion:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3111810&postcount=59
 
Last edited:
All states permit citizens to make arrests--even New York

Sorry to have to disagree.

There is no 'citizen's arrest' in NC in the traditional sense of the phrase. If you were to modify the statement to "All states permit citizens to make arrests or detentions under certain circumstances..." then I wouldn't take issue.

In any case, attempting a citizen's arrest or detention should be undertaken only with a full understanding of the applicable laws in the jurisdiction in question. Otherwise the individual attempting the detention or arrest opens themselves up to potential legal difficulties.

lpl
==================
http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/!apr97.htm

JUST ANOTHER STATUTE AT LAW
COMMENTARY ON THE NORTH CAROLINA
GENERAL STATUTES OF INTEREST TO
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY


Ralph B. Strickland, Jr.
Agency Legal Specialist
North Carolina Justice Academy

G.S. 15A-404

Volume 2 Number 4

April 1997

NO CITIZEN’S ARREST ALLOWED IN NORTH CAROLINA!

G.S. 15A-404 Detention of offenders by private persons.

(a) No Arrest; Detention Permitted. - No private person may arrest another person except as provided in G.S. 15A-405 [assisting law enforcement officers in making an arrest.] A private person may detain another person as provided in this section.

(b) When Detention Permitted. - A private person may detain another person when he has probable cause to believe that the person detained has committed in his presence:

(1) A felony,

(2) A breach of the peace,

(3) A crime involving physical injury to another person, or

(4) A crime involving theft or destruction of property.

(c) Manner of Detention. - The detention must be in a reasonable manner considering the offense involved and the circumstances of the detention.

(d) Period of Detention. - The detention may be no longer than the time required for the earliest of the following:

(1) The determination that no offense has been committed.

(2) Surrender of the person detained to a law enforcement officer as provided in subsection (e).

(e) Surrender to Officer. - A private person who detains another must immediately notify a law enforcement officer and must, unless he releases the person earlier as required by subsection (d), surrender the person detained to the law enforcement officer.

There is no citizen’s arrest in North Carolina; there is only a citizen’s detention. There are two reasons why you should know this: (1) so that you can tell nonsworn individuals what their rights are in these circumstances, and (2) so that you will know what your rights are outside yourterritorial jurisdiction. Now that most officers are allowed to carry a handgun concealed when they are outside their jurisdiction, it is more important than ever to understand what you have a right to do when faced with the criminal behavior of another. The key is to simply remember that the right to carry concealed outside your territorial jurisdiction is to allow you to defend yourself; not to make arrests, stop crime or act as a sworn officer would in a criminal situation.

Let’s look at the sections of 15A-404 individually. First, in section (a) we learn that citizens may NOT arrest in North Carolina. This myth of a citizen’s arrest is taught by television and the movies, but does not reflect reality here in our state. While citizen arrests may be legal in other jurisdictions, it is not available to us here. What can be done is a detention that is based on probable cause to believe that one of a limited number of crimes has been committed in your presence. A detention, like an arrest, is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment; but an arrest allows moving the arrestee without his consent to a judicial official. A detention is just that; the suspect is detained, and while he may not leave, he cannot be moved without his consent. It is essential that you understand this point. A detention is a seizure without movement of the suspect; an arrest is a seizure and involuntary movement of the suspect.

The next section, (b), allows a detention only when you have probable cause to believe that a person has committed in your presence one of the following crimes:

1. a felony

2. a breach of the peace

3. a crime involving physical injury or

4. a crime involving theft or destruction of property.

Section (c) requires that the force used to detain the suspect be reasonable. It is generally true that an officer in his jurisdiction may use more force in making a detention than a private person. The law allows you greater latitude in the use of force because your job is the enforcement of the law, and you have been trained to use force correctly. But if you are not in your jurisdiction, then your right to use force becomes that of a private citizen. As an example, when presented with danger from another in a public place, a private citizen is under a duty to retreat unless in doing so he would be placed in greater danger. A law enforcement officer is never under a duty to retreat when enforcing the law; we may retreat tactically, but we are not required to.

Sections (d) and (e) are very simple. The detention must be as brief as is reasonably practicable. If you determine that no offense has occurred, release the suspect. Otherwise, contact the authorities, and turn him over to them. Don’t arrest and don’t move him. Of course, you may move him out of the sun, or to a chair or seat, or from one room to another for security purposes. But no movement to a magistrate’s office is allowed.

Probably the best option in such circumstances is to become the best witness you can be. Call for a law enforcement officer, protect yourself and your family, and wait for help to arrive. Check with you legal advisor or district attorney’s office for specific advice in this area. Thank you and good luck.
======================

http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_citizens_arrest.htm
August 21, 2006
What is a Citizens Arrest?
By: Collin McKibben, Attorney at Law & Ariella Rosenberg

Everyone is familiar with the term citizens arrest: we have seen it on TV, read about it in books, and even heard about it in social circles. Surprisingly, however, almost nobody really understands what a citizens arrest is, or legally, what it represents.
A citizen's arrest is an arrest performed by a civilian who lacks official government authority to make an arrest (as opposed to an officer of the law). An arrest, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, is "The apprehending or detaining of a person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime." Ex parte Sherwood, (29 Tex. App. 334, 15 S.W. 812).
Although generally the person making a citizens arrest must be a citizen, in certain states, a citizens arrest can be carried out by a civilian who is not a citizen (for example, an alien or illegal immigrant). A citizens arrest does not necessarily mean an arrest made by a single individual who happens to witness a crime. For example, a department store may also carry out a citizens arrest in the course of apprehending a shoplifter.

Legal Requirements for Making a Citizens Arrest
The right to making a citizens arrest goes back to our roots in English common law. Historically, before the modern infrastructure of police departments, citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Today, citizens arrests are still legal in every state, although state laws pertaining to citizens arrests are not uniform. In general, all states permit citizens arrests if a criminal felony (defined by the government as a serious crime, usually punishable by at least one year in prison) is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or if a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. Variations of state law arise in cases of misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party.
For example, California Penal Code mandates:
A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. (C.P.C. 837).

In contrast, New York State Consolidated Laws hold that:
Any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence. (N.Y.C.L. 140.30).

Unlike the California statute, which only permits citizens arrests in cases of felony, New York law extends the possibility for making a citizens arrest to any offense committed in [ones] presence. Additionally, in cases where the citizen has not necessarily witnessed the crime being committed, California law allows citizens arrests when a citizen has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed [a felony], whereas New York law applies only to situations in which person has in fact committed a felony. Distinctions such as these are importantunwarranted citizens arrests can result in repercussions (such as law suits) for well-meaning citizens who attempt to make arrests without understanding local laws. It is important to be familiar with the laws in your particular state should you want to carry out a citizens arrest, or should a citizen try to unlawfully detain you.

Anatomy of a Citizens Arrest
Once a person has committed an offense meriting a citizens arrest (under the applicable state law), the arresting party must follow certain guidelines to detain and deliver to authorities the suspect in question. Acceptable guidelines for carrying out a citizens arrest also vary by state. In general, the arresting party must notify the suspect as to why he or she is being arrested, and may enter the building or private residence where the suspect is residing, using a reasonable amount of force to apprehend the suspect. In California, for example, To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felonymay break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired. (C.P.C., 844). In New York, A person may arrest another person for an offenseat any hour of any day or night. 2. Such person must inform the person whom he is arresting of the reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical. 3. In order to effect such an arrest, such person may use such physical force as is justifiable pursuant to subdivision four of section 35.30 of the penal law. (N.Y.C.L. 140.35).

Once the suspect has been taken into custody (by the citizen), it is the citizens responsibility to deliver the suspect to the proper authorities in a timely fashion. In California, A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer. (C.P.C. 847). In New York, a citizen must also act without unnecessary delay to deliver a suspect to an officer of the law. (N.Y.C.L. 140).

Dangers of Making an Erroneous Citizens Arrest
Making a citizen's arrest maliciously or with insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by the arrested individual can lead to civil or criminal penalties. Additionally, it is in violation of a suspects rights for a citizen making an arrest to use unnecessary force, to intentionally harm the suspect, to hold the suspect in unsafe conditions, or to delay in turning the suspect over to authorities. A citizen making an arrest is acting in the place of an officer of the law, and as such, is required to uphold the same rights and civil liberties as an officer of the law must uphold.

A citizen who violates a suspects rights, or who violates the applicable state law in detaining the suspect, (for example, arresting a suspect for a misdemeanor when the state statute requires a felony for a citizens arrest), risks being sued or even charged with a crime. Additionally, if it is found that the arresting party did not meet the pertinent state requirements for a citizens arrest, any contraband found on the suspect will have been found illegally, and charges may be dropped entirely.

If you feel that you have been unfairly arrested by a citizen, or if you have been charged with illegally detaining a suspect during an illegitimate citizens arrest, it is important to seek the counsel of an experienced attorney. A good attorney will demonstrate familiarity with state laws, and as such will help you to ensure the best possible outcome of your case.
===========================
 
Kleanbore makes an excellent point. If you start making demands on an unarmed person and they don't actually physically resist, but refuse to comply, what are you going to do? You have neither a taser nor the authority to detain them using force...only to defend yourself. The gun doesn't protect you from them like some kind of force field, and they can easily take advantage of your questionable legal position when they have the gun pointed at them, trying to detain them when they're unarmed.

It's also highly questionable whether entering through an unlocked door is an "unlawful entry" of the kind that can be responded to with lethal force.
 
I may not be reading this right but I dont understand how an unlocked door is an invitation for someone to come into your house and you dont have any legal recourse to defend yourself. What I read was someone said that if had shot the intruder the shooter would have gotten into trouble because the door was unlocked. Did I read that right??

Isnt that what perp's do look for the easiest access to gain entry for what ever reason they are doing their action for.

I understand that once the hands were in the air and apologing it almost becomes a non shoot situation that is when you should have called the gf to call the cops.

I also think that if you live in an apartment building where they all look the same the mistake could be made of entering the wrong apartment. Their mistake of course. I wasnt there but the shoes comeing off wasnt to sneak around just his mom doesnt allow shoes on in her apartment kind of thing. I know I wouldnt take my shoes off to commit a b&e. They were probably really buzzed but left really sober after they seen the gun.

One time some guy walked into my sisters house. The guy had the wrong street fairview and fairfax right by each other houses looked the same. The guy was going over to a friends house and got the wrong house. She called the police but the guy came back to explain. She was freaked on just the same though.
 
From Lee Lapin:
There is no 'citizen's arrest' in NC in the traditional sense of the phrase. If you were to modify the statement to "All states permit citizens to make arrests or detentions under certain circumstances..." then I wouldn't take issue.

Thanks for the correction.

In any case, attempting a citizen's arrest or detention should be undertaken only with a full understanding of the applicable laws in the jurisdiction in question. Otherwise the individual attempting the detention or arrest opens themselves up to potential legal difficulties.

I'll second that and suggest that even with a full understanding, conflicting testimony or facts that you were not aware of can also put you serious in difficulty.

From BULLSI:
I may not be reading this right but I dont understand how an unlocked door is an invitation for someone to come into your house and you dont have any legal recourse to defend yourself. What I read was someone said that if had shot the intruder the shooter would have gotten into trouble because the door was unlocked. Did I read that right??

No.

First, head Lee Lapin's advice--know the law in your state.

In Texas, according to my lay reading of the law, the intruder must enter unlawfully and with force for the fact of entry or attempted entry alone to provide evidence of reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary under the law. However, if the intruder were committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery, deadly force would be justified regardless of how the invader got in.

Don't assume that lifting the silverware from the kitchen would constitute robbery. Here's the definition in Texas:

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.

So, (lay opinion) a person committing homicide would not be in trouble simply because the door had been unlocked. He would, however, be in serious trouble if there was no evidence indicating unlawful, forceful entry and there was no evidence indicating (1) that he believed that the intruders were committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery and (2) that that belief was reasonable.

Where I live (Missouri) there's no mention of forceful entry. The law simply refers to unlawful entry. I'm going to have to follow my own advice and consult an attorney.

In Colorado, the entry must have been "knowing and criminal."

I have read legal opinions that some of the castle laws that have been most controversial didn't really change things much, and that they simply codify what has been common law for some time. I don't know enough about common law in those locations to comment, but it would seem to this lay person that most of them affirm that one has no duty to retreat from his dwelling (auto, etc. as applicable) and that they set forth factors that would aid in the determination of reasonable belief. Some of them also provide shields against civil liability when the use of deadly force is justified under their provisions.

In any case, none of us should believe what the antigun media has said about any of these laws. Do not assume that they provide automatic license to kill.
 
BULLSI wrote:

I may not be reading this right but I dont understand how an unlocked door is an invitation for someone to come into your house and you dont have any legal recourse to defend yourself. What I read was someone said that if had shot the intruder the shooter would have gotten into trouble because the door was unlocked. Did I read that right??

In my lay opinion, there is a kind of continuum of force that comes into effect (here in NC).

If someone is forcefully entering your house you can use lethal force to prevent their entry (according to my CCW instructor and what reading I've done on it).

Once they are IN, however, you must be able to reasonably articulate why you perceived them as a lethal threat OR prove that they were in the middle of the commission of a felony (other than B&E itself), in order to justify lethal force. I know me personally, if someone broke into my house I feel that is justification in itself. Trust your gut.

If someone enters your house because you were dumb enough to leave the door unlocked, they are essentially trespassing, which is not in itself presenting a threat to you. You can ask them to leave if you'd like, and they're supposed to. At that point, you are allowed to use "the amount of force required" to remove them IF they refuse to leave.

This is where it gets tricky and confusing; what if you use "soft hands" and they hit you? Where do you go from there on the force continuum?

The fact is, if you see someone in your kitchen because you were negligent enough to leave your door unlocked, and you shoot them, you're in a world of...well, you fill in the blank.
 
Great post there! This is a lesson for most people who just assume that they are safe in a quiet area.
 
Trespassing is a felony...

Further to that, INTENT can be proven to a degree and can be used to infer action.

Telling someoen who is in your house (illegally) to STOP, PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD, LAY DOWN ON FLOOR, CROSS YOUR ANKLES, DO NOT MOVE I AM CALLING THE POLICE is not detainment in the "criminal" sense.

Detainment:

1: to hold or keep in or as if in custody <detained by the police for questioning>
2obsolete : to keep back (as something due) : withhold
3: to restrain especially from proceeding <was detained by a flat tire>

We are focusing on definition 3... We are stopping him from proceeding. That would mean we are preventing his escape.

I think it is important to be clear here, as there maybe some criminaly liability for NOT doing that.

Police "Where is the suspect?"
Me "I let him go."
Police "You let him go... why?"
Me "Because I didn't want to detain him"
Police "So you are declining to press charges? *** did you call us for??"
 
O
Oh, sorry, I thought this was my mom's apt.

Now, I only read the first page and jumped to make a response, so I don't know if you had the opportunity to verify their story.

This sounds like 100% hustle. It is the kind of thing someone would say if they ever got caught in an apartment; low functioning burglars. Glad you're safe.
 
Telling someoen who is in your house (illegally) to STOP, PUT YOUR HANDS ON YOUR HEAD, LAY DOWN ON FLOOR, CROSS YOUR ANKLES, DO NOT MOVE I AM CALLING THE POLICE is not detainment in the "criminal" sense.

Citizen's arrest, most likely. Opens the actor to great liability, criminal and civil.

What does one do if the suspect declines to comply? Under Garner v. Tennessee, he cannot shoot.

What's the point?
 
There is still the outside chance that they were up to no good in the apartment complex where their mother lived and just used her apt # as cover, but who knows. If the two #s are similar, then you are probably right.

There's also the outside chance that you're the perp in question, intending to attack or kill the OP, announcing these plans and putting on a fake air of concern to remove suspicion from yourself as you try to build a new identity, eh, criminal!


haha just kidding :p
 
From mbt2001, located in Texas:
Trespassing is a felony...

Really? Not according to the law in Texas:

Criminal trespass is classed as either a class A or a class B misdemeanor, see Penal Code § 30.05(d), and thus is not classed as a felony. Nor is criminal trespass in and of itself a breach of the peace. Heath v. Boyd, 175 S.W.2d 214, 216-17 (Tex. 1943) ("Trespassing is not a felony or a breach of the peace. It is not one of those offenses forwhich the statute defining it gives the peace officer the right to arrest the offender without warrant.").

We are stopping him from proceeding. That would mean we are preventing his escape.

Seems to say that a peace officer cannot do that. Nor can a citizen, as I understand it:

Article 14.01(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits private citizens to make arrests only if the offense is classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

Here are some relevant links:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/AGO.HTM

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/30.05.00.html

http://law.onecle.com/texas/criminal-procedure/14.01.00.html

What's the case in the OP's jurisdiction? I do not know--but I would be very cautious indeed.

We really need to be familiar with the laws where we are when we draw a weapon or do anything else with it.
 
Kleanbore

We have response times in the minutes now days. Many of the laws or guidelines you referenced are from a time when response times were longer. A Citizen MUST ALSO respect the basic rights of the accused, similar to a policeman. That is the point. He cannot be put on the rack while waiting for the the police, he cannot be outsourced to civilians so they can put the question to him.
 
Fascinating to read of a real-life home defence situation.

IMHO the wrong apartment story is total Harry Potter, regardless of the apartment manager seemingly confirming it. So what if the guy's mum lives in the building? Her neighbours would be ideal for him to rob because he has a quick hidey-hole available, somewhere to sort through what was worth keeping and what would go in her trash.

As for the legalities, when you are facing what could be a life-or-death emergency nobody has a choice but to let their instincts get them through it and their lawyer get them out of it in a nice safe courtroom.

I think you handled it very well, my compliments sir.
 
From mbt2001:
Many of the laws or guidelines you referenced are from a time when response times were longer.

You will note in the links that the Texas Penal Code section (30.05, Criminal Trespass, defined as a misdemeanor) I referenced was enacted in 1973 and has been amended numerous times, most recently in 2005. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - Article 14.01, Offense Within View was enacted in 1965 and amended most recently in 1967. Evidently nothing substantive has been changed changed that would affect the earlier (1943) precedent. Doesn't matter when, however; these are the laws in Texas.

A Citizen MUST ALSO respect the basic rights of the accused, similar to a policeman. That is the point.

Yep. Means he cannot arrest for trespassing without a warrant, or use excessive force...

He cannot be put on the rack while waiting for the the police, he cannot be outsourced to civilians so they can put the question to him.

I'm afraid you've lost me.

One question that comes to mind, and this requires the opinion of an attorney in Texas, is what might happen should a resident detain a trespasser (particularly, one who is not armed) at gunpoint, and perhaps use handcuffs. Might the resident be arrested for a felony such as kidnapping when the police arrive? That has happened in other states (someone posted a story about a man who had secured some burglars to a workbench and was charged with kidnapping when the police arrived; I cannot remember the state; the suspects had been committing burglary, and the charge against the resident was later dropped). What civil remedies might the trespasser pursue through his attorney? A suit for damages stemming from false arrest? Assault?
 
Great story, glad all turned out ok. To be in a situation that calls for shooting is never desirable, but it does happen.

I have not read each and every answer that has been posted, and I may be duplicating some other answer, but I have seen several mistakes you made.

One thing that is very often overlooked in preparing for home security is levels of security. As mentioned by several, always lock your door. That is an example of levels of security. I have a 110 pound German Shepherd that adds another level of security. You probably do not want a big dog in a apartment, but you might consider a small ankle biter like a terrier of something. They do like to bark and even a small dog is a threat to someone breaking in.

I see nothing wrong with a PPK, in fact I have one close to my bed. There is a proviso though. If you are capable handling it under the type of stress we are talking about they are great. If you have never been shot at in anger then you do not know if you can or not. I would not consider another bigger pistol, but a .410 or 20 ga. shotgun. They are a little more forgiving and a larger deterrent.

As far as the actual confrontation, you made several mistakes. To begin with do not ask questions, give commands. Get them on the floor in spread eagle then ask questions. When holding a person at bay do not point at their chest, point at their crotch. We all know people who have been shot in the chest and lived, but no one wants to loose what is in their crotch. This is a greater deterrent than the chest by far. Do not stand in a doorway, you are back lit. Stand beside the door or in another place without back lighting. Always call the police. The story they gave you is a very common one and almost never true. There are other mistakes too, but I will not elaborate on them all.

The main objective of being in a firearms situation is to stay alive. You did do that. For that I commend you.

You need training. I know that thinking about scenarios is a good thing, I do it often, but the training you need is some professional training program that has been put together for this very purpose and can be obtained anywhere in the US.

One bright thing. The chances that you will ever have to do this again is slim. This happens less seldom than we think, and the chances of it happening again is slim indeed. Hope you never do.
 
From Frank A:
As mentioned by several, always lock your door.

Great idea. I've been a lot more careful about that since this was first posted.

Get them on the floor in spread eagle then ask questions.
Most likely a very bad idea, depending on the state (the OP did not mention location). Read Posts 83, 84, 94, and 97. Better yet, consult an attorney.

Always call the police.

Yep!!! I've made the mistake of not doing that in worse situations. Never again.

The main objective of being in a firearms situation is to stay alive.

Right. One might add "and stay unhurt; not be charged with criminal action that could lead to great expense, conviction, incarceration, and permanent loss of gun rights; and avoid civil suits.

The training you need is some professional training program that has been put together for this very purpose and can be obtained anywhere in the US.
I could not agree more. I think that's good advice for all of us.
 
MBT, your posts are usually spot-on and I do a little dance when I read them (ok, not really on the second part).

Honestly though, the entire house you're trying to build here is sitting on a cliff...with sand under it...it makes me wonder whether you've really done your homework with regard to not only the laws in your area, but the nature of interaction between normal citizens and criminals, normal citizens and police, and so on.

First of all, trespassing is rarely a felony in most law that I am familiar with. Kleanbore addressed that. Second, a dictionary definition of "detain" doesn't do anything at all in this situation, for either side of the debate. I am familiar with the term, and I wasn't implying that "detaining" a person who is breaking the law was somehow equivalent to "detainment in the criminal sense" (assuming you're referring to kidnapping here?)

Third, and perhaps the thing that made my eyebrows raise the highest (they can actually go pretty high) was your assertion that you could be held liable in some way for NOT detaining someone. This couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, the police can't even MAKE you detain someone! And I highly doubt that any cop with even a trace amount of experience, enlightened with regard to the law, would ever say "what are you pressing charges for if you didn't detain the guy?"

I want you to know that this isn't really so much about me putting you in your place, or anything like that, as it is about keeping the dialog here fact-based and real so that no one is harmed by any misinformation. And that's a big part of the second amendment agenda for me, so I am being rather vehement about this but it's nothing personal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top