Executive summary:  Usually a bad idea, often a very bad idea.

[This is a follow on to prior posts, THREATENING DEADLY FORCE : MUSINGS ON “BRANDISHING” AND “WARNING” SHOTS, and “CASTLE” DEFENSE: WHAT CAN–MAY–SHOULD–MUST YOU DO]

“Can/should I hold someone at gunpoint?” A common question when the topic of guns and defensive use of deadly force is discussed.  The questioner’s “gunpoint” hypothetical usually poses a home invasion, robbery attempt of the questioner, or “in progress” interdiction of someone committing a property crime, or a violent crime against the questioner or another person. The question is another one to which I respond with my smart aleck lawyer’s answer:  “I don’t know, can/should you?”  It lends itself to analysis similar to what I discussed in prior MSW posts on the use of deadly force —  my paradigm:

CAN / MAY / SHOULD / MUST

For the purpose of this post, holding someone “at gunpoint” is not necessarily muzzling the threatened person(s), openly holding an exposed firearm in any specific “ready” position, or a mode of “display” permitted or prohibited by a state “brandishing” statute.  I use the phrase here to mean the display of a firearm coupled with the express or implied threat that a failure to obey commands will result in the use of deadly force, that is, the gunpointer WILL shoot.  (If unprivileged, usually considered a serious felony, such as an armed assault or assault with/by deadly weapon).  Consider the following for your analysis of the SHOULD element of the paradigm. Continue reading →

Recent stories where the non-sworn (usually referred to as a “citizen” or “civilian”) successfully assisted a police officer caused me to write this post.  One “all’s well that ends well” scenario involved a man who took shots when he witnessed an in-progress armed robbery and believed a responding officer was in danger of being ambushed. The officer took cover and the robber was captured later.  (See here and here). Another, a more common scenario, involved bystanders who helped subdue a subject who might have overpowered the officer.  (See here).  Similar stories and videos on topic pop up on TV news reports and officer interest websites from time to time. (See examples, here and here).  As an MSW reader, you likely already know that being a “hero” aiding police is, like policing itself, dangerous business.  Thus it is no surprise; not every “hero” comes through unscathed.  (See here).  Also not surprising; simply having a cup of java in public with an officer is not risk-free.  (See here).  Finally, would it not just plain suck to aid an officer .  .  . and then someone else gets the credit? (See here). Continue reading →

I “learned” the following while browsing the internet:

• In order to scare off a home intruder and alert neighbors to summon the police, one should go out to a balcony and fire a double-barreled shotgun into the air.  WRONG: Likely tactical error abandoning a safer ensconced defensive position, misuse of limited ammunition supply, endangers others, and probably an unlawful discharge. Continue reading →

A tactically appropriate, legally acceptable deadly force response doesn’t necessarily “look right.”  Imagine a courtroom (an LEO is being sued under Federal law for “excessive force,” or a non-sworn alleging self-defense is being prosecuted for murder or manslaughter), where you hear some or all of this: “Members of the jury.  You heard from several eyewitnesses in this case.  They uniformly told you they observed the defendant shoot the victim X times  .  . look around as if to see if anyone was watching, and then duck behind a wall .  .  . stash the partially empty pistol magazine .  .  . put a fresh one into the pistol  .   .   .  and reengage the wounded and flailing victim with Y additional shot(s) to the (body part) .”   A bit concerned that even with the extensive explanation of experts, the above would seem excessive (shot count), unreasonable (reloading, reengaging), and/or sinister (scanning, taking cover) to a judge or jury?  Even when the shooting is unquestionably “good”?  I am. Continue reading →

There is a saying (often attributed to Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch): “Some people just need to be shot.”  Taking a life is the last thing anybody wants to do, whether in public service as an LEO, or as an unsworn in defense of self or innocent others.   But wise and healthy aversion to the awful, distasteful, life-changing (but sometimes necessary) deed does not render that statement silly or merely theoretical, legally or tactically. Continue reading →