Here's a sad story. Is there a lesson?

[flintknapper]

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.

[KBCraig]

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

You are absolutely correct on that point.

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).

If you transition from gunpoint to handcuffing, what are you going to do with your gun? Do you have a retention holster? Would you be wearing it while responding to a 3 a.m. break-in?

Although you're no more likely to be carrying a good OC spray than you are to be wearing a Level III retention holster, this would be a good scenario to play Huck Finn: grab the OC, and paint him like a picket fence!

Secure whatever weapon he might have had, then take care of BG#2, upstairs with darling daughter. Having taken care of BG#2, assume that BG#1 is still a threat, and assume a defensive posture.

Yes, yes... it's likely that BG#1 is still thrashing around downstairs, or perhaps he's found or created an exit. But, he could be one of those who are quick to recover, and he could be looking for revenge. Don't assume he's no longer a threat.

This was bit of a ramble... but how can you discuss the hypothetical without rambling?

Kevin

[flintknapper]

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.

[Venus Pax]

I don't like the idea of giving a man that is in my home, taking my things, and has a buddy upstairs doing something to make my child cry the option to live.
These people are criminals, and many are psychopaths, sociopaths, or sadists. Perhaps my ill-feeling toward these guys arises from being a woman, or possibly from being the child of a mother who processed police reports and read all the ugly, or simply from reading books on the minds of violent criminals.
If they're in my house, I'm going to assume that they are either there to harm me or my family, or that they will if they think I can identify them or assist in their capture. 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.

If these people CHOOSE to break into my home, then they chose to commit suicide. I have an obligation to my family to protect myself. I have an obligation to my family to protect them. I have no obligation to a criminal that threatens the safety of my family or me.

[Paladin]

I don't like the idea of giving a man that is in my home, taking my things, and has a buddy upstairs doing something to make my child cry the option to live.
These people are criminals, and many are psychopaths, sociopaths, or sadists. Perhaps my ill-feeling toward these guys arises from being a woman, or possibly from being the child of a mother who processed police reports and read all the ugly, or simply from reading books on the minds of violent criminals.
If they're in my house, I'm going to assume that they are either there to harm me or my family, or that they will if they think I can identify them or assist in their capture. 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.

If these people CHOOSE to break into my home, then they chose to commit suicide. I have an obligation to my family to protect myself. I have an obligation to my family to protect them. I have no obligation to a criminal that threatens the safety of my family or me.

Good mindset

[KBCraig]

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.

Sorry, I was just using your "have more than one tool" line as a point to jump in. I agree, by the way. I didn't mean to imply that you're all in favor of cuffing people.

Kevin

[Boma]

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

Yeah well true story guys. One of my close friends was actually involved in a real life home invasion. They even showed me the newspaper clipping. He was like 3 years old and his sister and mom were home. His mom bought a 38 special revolver to protect herself from guys that would follow her around. One day they hear a crash through the window and the mom grabs her revolver. She confronts the badguy and tells him to leave. He picks up a barstool in their house and raises it at her. She empties the revolver into him. He gets hit and he said you got me and he sat down. His breathing slowed down and he died.

Cops say only one bullet hit the bad guy. His mom never talks about it. She doesn't even go to the gun range or anything. I was really glad she had to nerve to pull the trigger.

[flintknapper]

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.

[flintknapper]

. 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!

[KBCraig]

[WNallG30]

I'd be hard pressed not to shoot anyone who's in my house and doesn't belong there. It's pretty tough to accidentally force your way into someone's house. If there's something questionable as a weapon in their hand then it's, "Officer, I was affraid for my life." If I'm alone, I'll give them verbal warning to drop what's in their hands and call 911. If my wife and/or daughter are with me or in the house. Well... May God have mercy on their soul. Daddy's are just as protective of their cubs. I agree with Venus 110%.

My wife is having a hard time with my CHL. Her mother is a strong anti-gun person in general and was furious when I wouldn't sell off all my guns when my wife got pregnant. With that childhood message from her mom, it's tough to overcome that. Situations like this help open her eyes. Thanks for posting. I printed the article out and showed it to her. No response from her. Just obvious hard thinking.

[Venus Pax]

I have one friend in particular that is uncomfortable with me carrying a gun. When it comes up, I remind her that the gun is only as dangerous as its user.

[longtooth]

WNall, you are doing good. I do not believe there is anyone who reads, keeps reading, & thinks honestly about what they read that will have a problem "being protected". Maybe still never want to even touch one themselves but OK for hubby to have one to protect us. Hope she never needs one when you are not there. Most finally come around to at least being comfortable w/ them around. She will decide right. Giver her time.

Good phrase VP. May I use it giving credit? Have already quoted your signature to some.

[Venus Pax]

Longtooth, you may use it, and I don't need credit.
Most of it is just knowledge gained from various relatives and friends.

[longtooth]

Thank you maam.