Most things just aren't important enough to get shot or shoot someone else over.
Can you hold someone at gunpoint in your home state?
- Thread starter vt_shooter
- Start date
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
And now the whole internet knows!
I need to spill some stuff I did to a group of teenagers at a cabin in the woods...with my chainsaw and hockey mask. Just between us, of course.And now the whole internet knows!
In my case if they turn away and run, they would make good poker players. But, I wonder how many of them would actually call a bet that big?
CA law does not address this issue in its statutes. In fairness to CA, despite its extreme far-left orientation, this is a very thorny issue because it is so dynamic.
As a CCW instructor I had to deal with what is, and is not, codified.
CA Penal Code section 417(a)(2) deals with drawing or displaying a firearm (AKA brandishing, although the word is not used in the section). It prohibits drawing or displaying a firearm in a rude, angry or threatening manner, except in self defense. As apparently clear as this is, it does not allow for brandishing a deadly weapon to deter a deadly force attack, nor to hold someone. Obviously one can draw a firearm for the purpose of self-defense (or the defense of a third person) against an imminent deadly force attack, and then have the attacker decide not to go forward with the attack due to the presence of the firearm. Other than the preclusion against deadly force on a fleeing felon (Garner v. Tenn, but already the law in CA prior to that SCOTUS decision) the matter is not otherwise addressed.
What I would tell my students is that there is greater latitude for the use of deadly force within one's residence because of the invasive context and the assumed greater danger to the occupants, but in covering this issue in detail I made it clear that if an intruder attempts to flee, deadly force is still not authorized because the danger flees with the intruder. Incidentally, CA is a stand your ground state based on case rather than statutory law. The precedent cases are old and well established. This is very good for the citizens because it means that the CA legislature and governor, no matter how anti-firearms they are, cannot negate this case law via legislation. If they thought they could, I am sure they would try.
Keeping 417 PC well in mind, I advised my students that if drawing a firearm in the good faith intent to use it legally and the attack did not materialize, to put the firearm away. That of course covered the issue of holding someone at gunpoint, because there is just no legal allowance to do so.
As far as securing someone as an armed citizen, it is a dangerous practice both physically and legally. During my career I had countless instances of coming across vehicles whose occupants had just committed violent felonies (part of our area had a great deal of gang activity). During my time as a Sgt, then Lt, I was solo. It at all possible I would not make the stop until I had enough back up so that we could safely remove and control the occupants. In a few instances where the actions of the suspects forced me to make the stop, I used the PA to order the occupants to remain inside the vehicle. I used the driver side door as cover. Fortunately I always got compliance.
One last point on securing arrestees; it is not not possible to cuff a resisting suspect. If the suspect will not comply then the suspect must be subdued to the point where he/she can be cuffed. I would explain this to suspects: Either way they were going to jail; the only question was whether it would straight to jail or to jail via the hospital with additional charges. If the latter transpired I would make sure my report reflected that the suspect had been duly warned.
As a CCW instructor I had to deal with what is, and is not, codified.
CA Penal Code section 417(a)(2) deals with drawing or displaying a firearm (AKA brandishing, although the word is not used in the section). It prohibits drawing or displaying a firearm in a rude, angry or threatening manner, except in self defense. As apparently clear as this is, it does not allow for brandishing a deadly weapon to deter a deadly force attack, nor to hold someone. Obviously one can draw a firearm for the purpose of self-defense (or the defense of a third person) against an imminent deadly force attack, and then have the attacker decide not to go forward with the attack due to the presence of the firearm. Other than the preclusion against deadly force on a fleeing felon (Garner v. Tenn, but already the law in CA prior to that SCOTUS decision) the matter is not otherwise addressed.
What I would tell my students is that there is greater latitude for the use of deadly force within one's residence because of the invasive context and the assumed greater danger to the occupants, but in covering this issue in detail I made it clear that if an intruder attempts to flee, deadly force is still not authorized because the danger flees with the intruder. Incidentally, CA is a stand your ground state based on case rather than statutory law. The precedent cases are old and well established. This is very good for the citizens because it means that the CA legislature and governor, no matter how anti-firearms they are, cannot negate this case law via legislation. If they thought they could, I am sure they would try.
Keeping 417 PC well in mind, I advised my students that if drawing a firearm in the good faith intent to use it legally and the attack did not materialize, to put the firearm away. That of course covered the issue of holding someone at gunpoint, because there is just no legal allowance to do so.
As far as securing someone as an armed citizen, it is a dangerous practice both physically and legally. During my career I had countless instances of coming across vehicles whose occupants had just committed violent felonies (part of our area had a great deal of gang activity). During my time as a Sgt, then Lt, I was solo. It at all possible I would not make the stop until I had enough back up so that we could safely remove and control the occupants. In a few instances where the actions of the suspects forced me to make the stop, I used the PA to order the occupants to remain inside the vehicle. I used the driver side door as cover. Fortunately I always got compliance.
One last point on securing arrestees; it is not not possible to cuff a resisting suspect. If the suspect will not comply then the suspect must be subdued to the point where he/she can be cuffed. I would explain this to suspects: Either way they were going to jail; the only question was whether it would straight to jail or to jail via the hospital with additional charges. If the latter transpired I would make sure my report reflected that the suspect had been duly warned.
Johnny Diamond
Member
Inusuit
Member
Or tales either!
Can't think of a single one.
charlie sherrill
Member
If they're in my house there will be no holding at gunpoint. The cordless hole puncher will be activated. Don't come in my house and expect to get out alive or unhurt.
Inusuit
Member
I don't know what the law is Wyoming, but I wouldn't ever try to hold someone at gunpoint.
Retired LEO here. I still keep two pairs of handcuffs with the pistol in my nightstand. If it can be done safely between me and my wife (she has a pistol in her nightstand too, and is skilled in it’s use). They are gonna be cuffed and held for responding police.
Last edited:
Chubbo
Member
If any grown up, makes the terrible mistake of Breaking into my home, If I determine them to be a threat, to my family or me, and my gun is in hand, that sad situation will be quickly resolved.
‘Nuff said!
Chubbo
‘Nuff said!
Chubbo
Inusuit
Member
Hey, Fecal Material Happens!--
I hate autocorrect.
I imagine that shooting someone who is running away would result in some charge and/or a wrongful death lawsuit. So, I probably wouldn't do that.
A friend of mine who was a CCL instructor would start his response to every “what if” question with “remember….you are not a cop”. Probably the best legal advice given in a CCL class.
The only situation that I could possibly think of is if a pair of handcuffs, covered in leopard print material, were involved and it was an Air Soft gun.
Other than that, nope.
Other than that, nope.
Good cop, bad cop? ��
