TexasCHLforum.com

The only thing the BG on my living room floor should be doing is bleeding. There, hopefully, won't be any conversation or movement on his part at that point.

lonewolf wrote:Tossing a set of cuffs to him and telling him to cuff himself exposes you to having the cuffs thrown back at your face while he lunges at you. You might think you are ready, but your first instinct is to duck. By then he is on you. Although I'm not a LEO, I'll bet LEOs would rather have a partner cuff while they cover, or vice versa. Single handed restraint is very dangerous.

True. Something I hadn't considered.
What was I thinking, injecting logic into a situation that started by someone with a complete disregard for my personal property and safety? My bad!

joe817 wrote:In this scenario, distance is your friend. Coming into close proximity, or to even have contact in any form with the b.g., could give him an opportunity that could go horribly wrong for you.

Exactly. That's why I was wondering if getting the BG to secure himself would be a more acceptable option. If he didn't want to I could argue that if he did we could both relax just a little bit and that might prevent him from getting shot. If he's already tossed his weapon he might see the logic in this and comply.

HankB, #1 is also what I was wondering.

After that, if we find ourselves in the scenario described by the OP I have a couple of possibilities. First, I do not own a pair of handcuffs, but this is making me think about getting some. The BG has re-thought his position, tossed their gun on the ground, and surrendered. What about tossing them the handcuffs and having them handcuff themselves to a large object they would be unable to just run off with or just handcuffing a wrist to an ankle? Away from the gun, of course.