Using a Firearm to Detain a Person
- Thread starter Talyn
- Start date
Keystone19250
SAINT
Ok the video was informative but the guy presenting had the charisma of a block of concrete.
Bassbob
Emissary
If I point a gun at someone I am in immediate fear for my life or someone else's life and I won't be trying to detain anyone.
HansGruber
Ronin
I’m with this.
If I have a weapon pointed at someone, and they decide to leave, and end the situation...they’ll more than likely have my blessing.
Talyn
SAINT
IMO, this was justified.
Oregon wildfires: Woman seen holding suspected arsonist at gunpoint
An Oregon woman was captured on video holding a suspected arsonist at gunpoint on Saturday after she allegedly caught him on her property carrying only matches.
In addition to Oregon, my state is prone to forest fires whether natural or human-caused. If I had property that was at risk of fire (forest or arson) and I saw a dirt-bag out setting fires to other property, or my own, I would be justified under Montana Code.
Montana Code Annotated 2019
TITLE 45. CRIMES
CHAPTER 3. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
Part 1. When Force Justified
Use Of Force In Defense Of Other Property
45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person's possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person's immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Last edited:
That video was useless. State laws will govern use of firearms.
That guy was clueless to think that because the "suspect" was on his knees, his status as a threat suddenly evaporated. If he was a threat on his free, he's a threat on his knees. He'll remain a threat until he's cuffed and searched.
That guy was clueless to think that because the "suspect" was on his knees, his status as a threat suddenly evaporated. If he was a threat on his free, he's a threat on his knees. He'll remain a threat until he's cuffed and searched.
wmg1299
Professional
Detaining anyone with a firearm anywhere besides your own home may be legal in many cases, but it is incredibly risky. Even in your own home, it will always be legally dubious, to say the least, to use deadly force to prevent someone's escape. It's a different story if they come at you, but following Hans advice and letting a fleeing subject leave with your blessing will almost always be a prudent decision.
When detaining someone in public, you must always be aware that the 1st responding police officer is working off 3rd-hand information. The cops only know what some random caller, who may even be a friend or relative of the suspect, tells a dispatcher. You may very well be trying to detain a robbery suspect, but if the initial 911 caller just says, "Some crazy dude is pointing a gun at people", you may be in tremendous danger from responding officers. I strongly doubt that all of us wearing masks in public is going to make this any easier.
When detaining someone in public, you must always be aware that the 1st responding police officer is working off 3rd-hand information. The cops only know what some random caller, who may even be a friend or relative of the suspect, tells a dispatcher. You may very well be trying to detain a robbery suspect, but if the initial 911 caller just says, "Some crazy dude is pointing a gun at people", you may be in tremendous danger from responding officers. I strongly doubt that all of us wearing masks in public is going to make this any easier.
papadan
Master Class
I'm sorry, but you see someone walking towards you with a gun in their hand the chances are you're dead as soon as you reach. Situation like that would be a distraction move by dropping to your knee while pulling your firearm. Smaller moving target gives you the advantage. If I was the perp, he would have been shot the instant he reached, If I meant no harm, I would not be carrying in my hand.
I mean I guess I can see some highly selective situations where the person poses an immediate danger to the lives or health of someone else....but geez. Unless there’s a gun in their hand or, as above, a gas can and lighter, the moment they submit and then run what are you going to do? Shoot a fleeing guy in the back?
I didn't watch the entire video, but did watch the beginning where she has him lay on the ground. Apparently, he's been through the drill before because he crosses his ankles w/o being told to. Or, he might have watched a lot of episodes on the "Cops" tv show. 
I'm going with my first scenario. He's BTDT previously.
I'm going with my first scenario. He's BTDT previously.
I don't think so. Professionals know that all felony suspects are dangerous until they've been cuffed and thoroughly searched for weapons. One cop will keep a dangerous suspect at gunpoint while another cop cuffs and searches him. Whether the suspect is booked or autopsied is his decision.I didn't watch the entire video, but did watch the beginning where she has him lay on the ground. Apparently, he's been through the drill before because he crosses his ankles w/o being told to. Or, he might have watched a lot of episodes on the "Cops" tv show.
I'm going with my first scenario. He's BTDT previously.
Who you allow a murderer to escape?
There's a reason cops will shoot escaping dangerous suspects in their backs is they try to escape. Cops will not allow a murderer to escape to commit more murderers.
Arson is a very serious felony. Almost 20 years ago,, a moron caused arson with an illegal pyrotechnic in San Bernardino National Forest. Two firefighters died suppressing that conflagration. The suspect was convicted of two counts of murder.IMO, this was justified.
Oregon wildfires: Woman seen holding suspected arsonist at gunpoint
An Oregon woman was captured on video holding a suspected arsonist at gunpoint on Saturday after she allegedly caught him on her property carrying only matches.www.foxnews.com
In addition to Oregon, my state is prone to forest fires whether natural or human-caused. If I had property that was at risk of fire (forest or arson) and I saw a dirt-bag out setting fires to other property, or my own, I would be justified under Montana Code.
Montana Code Annotated 2019
TITLE 45. CRIMES
CHAPTER 3. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
Part 1. When Force Justified
Use Of Force In Defense Of Other Property
45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person's possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person's immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In CA, murder by arson is a death penalty crime, which is moot. CA totalitarian rulers will never allow anyone convicted of a death penalty crime to receive needle therapy. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Newsom were to release death row inmates for fear they might contract covid and die.
Cops have the authority to do that through a specific legal presumption of intent, by a LEO, of a violent felon. Citizens have no such legal presumption unless the forceable felony is currently happening or imminent (by the legal definition not by what’s morally right). Unless I have those conditions, yeah I’m gonna stand there, watch him as much as I can safely, and report my observations.
Here in Florida, you’ll go to jail if you pull your gun otherwise. And, regardless of that, my gun is to protect me and my family first and foremost. The harsh reality is that ‘what if he’ is the next guys problem. Maybe they should have the means to defend themselves..
You must know applicable law in your jurisdiction.
In totalitarian CA, capture of dangerous felons is amazingly broad as it applies to civilians:
California Penal Code Section 197
California Penal Code Section 692
California Penal Code Section 693
Unless the USA has gone full Third World, banana republic totalitarian, and its status as such is in doubt, the reasonable man standard is the guide used to establish innocence.
The concept of retaking dangerous felons is based upon likelihood of an escaped dangerous felon wreaking carnage upon additional innocent victims.
Knowing that a stranger kidnapped child is dead within 48 hours if not found, would you allow a kidnapper to escape with a kidnapped child?
Running around with a gun in your hand after you murdered someone is a felony, not a forceable felony, unless the guy is specifically running or aiming at someone or screaming “I’m gonna go kill John Doe next”.
You’re absolutely right, all of my comment was based on Florida law.
A kidnapper with a kid, or even without the kid but ID’d by LEO or demonstrable personal knowledge as having done so means he is still in the act of the forceable felony. Yep, that’s one of those highly specific situations that’d be good to go here.