TexasCHLforum.com

Venus Pax wrote:. This assumption will become clear fact if I hear my child screaming for help.
I'm not going to make my way to my child's room with my back to a man that has broken into my house, whether he is armed or not. By simply being a man, he has an edge on me. He's stronger. (Most women are too.) I'm going to shoot him quickly, then run to the aid of my child. I will shoot the person attacking my child in any way that will get him away from her, and when she is far enough away that I'm sure she won't be hurt, I will shoot again to kill (if BG isn't dead already). I will lock child & myself in a room until LEOs arrive, just incase my shots weren't deadly.
.

Well, I've said it a million times (and its still good advice): Don't EVER get between the Momma and her Cubs!

Boma wrote:flintknapper - I hope I didn't sound like I was bashing on you.
.

No Sir, didn't take your comments that way at all.



And the true story above is an excellent example of the proper use of a firearm, thank you for sharing it.

KBCraig wrote:

flintknapper wrote:IMHO it is desirable to have more than one tool or skill.

I think something that has been overlooked in this discussion is the fact that handcuffing someone you have been holding at gunpoint is a transition from deadly force to hand-to-hand. Handcuffing requires at least two free hands (more is better; I like the odds when the ratio reaches at least 10:2).
Kevin

I think if you re-read my posts you'll find that I have not suggested anyone physically "cuff" another unless that BG was incapacitated to the degree that you felt comfortable doing so, or unless immediately necessary for some other reason. What I did post (at least twice) was to toss the cuffs near the BG and demand that HE put them on. I also stated that this might only make sense in certain situations.. and with the understanding that time and circumstances allowed for it.

The real danger in this scenario does not involve "transitions" IMO but has to do with distance. Clearly, we do not want to put ourselves closer to a threat and invite attack if we don't have to. Don't think that because you have a pistol you'll neccessarily be able to make a shot (on a moving target) that will immediately stop that person. If the BG refuses to put himself in cuffs (while being covered) then you have not given up your other options.

Cuffing at the physical level is not as difficult as some make it out to be. There are only a few actual techniques, the hard part about cuffing is not putting the hardware on. The tough part is controlling the person that you want to restrain. If they are not compliant, then you will have your hands full, I readily concede that point.

I like your suggestion about the possible use of OC in this scenario (assuming you can safely get close enough to use it). Naturally, you'll want to be able to hit the face for best results. Simply "painting" someones back with it probably won't get you the results you want.

Properly administered however, it would keep the average BG occupied for at least 10 minutes.


ooops, gotta go to work.

one eyed fatman wrote:

my reply to the first scenario assumed the bg didn't have a weapon visible nor was making threatening advancemnt

Handcuffing is a police action not ours. That's why we carry guns not cuffs. .

I suppose the same argument could be made about carrying a pistol, a knife, pepper spray, or a flashlight....as these are all tools that LE use as well.

I think my posts concerning the possible benefit of having cuffs has been taken to mean "arrest".. despite my clear warnings otherwise.

Concerning the scenario presented (the original..or my rendition), I will use everything available to protect myself and family. IMHO it is desirable to have more than one tool or skill.

I am the first to say that "cuffs" are of limited value to those outside of law enforcement and likely seldom used. I don't use the winch on my truck a lot either, but it sure has "saved my bacon" a few times.

If you really want to start a debate, wait until you find out I have shoulder holster.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Flint.

TxFire wrote:Flint,
This is indeed a tricky one. I would certainly NOT leave him with the weapon I observed. Past that I'm not real sure what to do at. Though I could certainly justify to myself shooting an armed intruder and then going to aid the others, that is not really the option I want to take just yet. I'm interested in others thought past the shoot and go on to others option.

Yeah,

Its basically a no win situation. You either have to secure BG #1's weapon or render him incapable of using it. Even if you manage that, you still have stairs to climb (a highly defensible position for BG #2) and then engage him without harming your child.

I can't say for sure how it would turn out, but one thing my daughter knows she can count on is: Dad WILL be coming, and he ain't gonna be happy!

Boma wrote:We're in Texas, if they're in your house and you hear a struggle upstairs, shoot them and go upstairs. They broke into your house they asked for death.


We're debating on how to be fair to the bad guy by throwing handcuffs at them and stuff. They won't throw handcuffs at us so they can rob our house; they'll just blow our heads off first.

Perhaps my purpose for "cuffing" was unclear, (my writing skills leave something to be desired). If I in any way.. led you to believe that I am interested in being "fair" to the BG, then my apologies.

My concern in this scenario is one of "control". Ideally, I wouldn't want the "variable" of having a threat both downstairs and upstairs. When faced with multiple threats you start out with a disadvantage.

Personally, I'm going to get upstairs to my daughter as fast as is humanly possible, but leaving a potentially deadly threat (un-neutralized) and behind me, seems like a patently bad idea.

TxFire wrote:Well in that scenario I will likely tell him to ly down on his belly and stay put (I don't keep cuffs on me) and unless he appears to be treatening I will leave him and go to the aid of the daugter/son/wife. If he runs so be it, if he become a threat he will be dispatched ASAP. The safety of the others is more important than the capture of the one burglar/assailant at that time.

Do you see him being unrestrained, near his weapon, possibly in possession of other weapons, and completely free to do his bidding as a potential problem? I don't mean that disrespectfully, its just that many situations would not allow for the convenience of calling the police, or having the BG dutifully comply with our commands.

I know the scenario is a tough one, and I'm not advocating the routine carry or use of cuffs. We teach "police tactics" (to LEO only) at the dojo, and frankly.. most of the guys that come in.. knew they needed some additional training. If officers have problems, then the "average Joe" is sure to struggle with it.

I can see cuffs being useful under certain conditions, but would never suggest anyone carry them around with the idea that they're going to "arrest" anyone.

I think Mrs. Flintknapper has it correct when she accuses me of being "over-prepared". But hey, I don't have an AR-15 in the trunk of my car, and no one gets any flak over that.

I would kinda like an AR though.........

Lets change "the sad story" just a little.

Suppose you come home from work to find an intruder in the living room of your home (downstairs). You see that the person is armed, but you surprise the BG and they drop their weapon on the floor in what appears to be a surrender.

A few seconds later you hear your teenage daughter calling for help from an upstairs bedroom. You can tell by the sounds there is a struggle going on. You call out your daughters name, and when she hears your voice...her pleas become all the more urgent.

So folks, how many of you are going to wait on the police to arrive (assuming you had time to call). Who is going to shoot the now unarmed (we think) Bad Guy?

If you decide to go to your daughters aid, how will you keep track of the BG you just left downstairs (assuming you didn't shoot him)?

Before you answer with: Take up a position of cover, call police and wait, then I must ask you to consider the "time factor". As already demonstrated in the "real" story, it doesn't take long for someone to kill an entire family.

In the imaginary scenario, I'm going to toss a pair of cuffs close to the BG, order him to put them on, if he doesn't, he gets shot and I'll cuff whats left of him. Soon after that (where family is involved), I'm going to become one house clearing "Son of a Gun". And yes, I know the dangers involved.

Just my .02

evil_smurf wrote:Well, under PC 9.03 "Confinement as justifiable force"

Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for an offense.


I'm assuming this covers handcuffing a person who has entered your house without permission. However, does this cover handcuffing somebody in public who continues to attempt to attack you (think aggravated robbery or murder) even after you have told him to stop and pulled your handgun on him? Does that mean you can handcuff them and leave them handcuffed until police arrive?

This subject will likely foster a lot of discussion (a good thing), and will probably get off track (inevitable).

"Confinement" vs. "Citizens Arrest" may have implications that overlap. In general, I wouldn't encourage either one, except under very specific circumstances.

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


Since I brought the subject up, let me be the first to say: Do not attempt to confine, arrest, or otherwise physically restrain someone unless you have been trained to do so AND the action is immediately necessary to insure your safety or that of another party. Otherwise, you will succeed only in putting yourself at increased risk.


In the case cited, if the intruder were being held at gunpoint (and you're sure this is not just a criminal trespass) then you might toss him a set of cuffs (don't try to put them on him/her yourself) and demand that he put them on.

His options become: Compliance (which lowers the threat level to me), Non-Compliance (which leaves him covered by a nervous gun-owner), or Fleeing (which works for me). All of this assumes time and circumstances permit.


O.K., I'll sit back and watch now.

Longtooth,

When we shot a couple of weeks ago, do you remember asking me why I carry "cuffs"?

This is one of those "situations" I was talking about.