Is pointing a gun at a BG an acceptable violation of safety rules?

[paramedic70002]

Something I just saw postulated on an LEO site, unfortunately the article was LOCKED as LEO only.

But the question is relevant to civilians and LEOs alike. You for whatever reason have a bona fide "suspect" at gunpoint, yet he is not at that moment presenting a clear and credible threat to you. Most agree that your finger should NOT be on the trigger. But should you also "aim away" or keep your aim on target? What should the LEO do?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[farronwolf]

Nope.

If they do something that warrants my pulling a gun, it is going to be pointed at them. I certainly don't want to endanger anyone else by pointing away from my target.

Certain LEO's definately need to point their gun at something besided the suspect or their partner. Not picking on LEO's just a fitting video.

[Miketrance]

No threat=no gun. Civilians aren't law enforcement. We don't need to be engaging anyone unless our life is in danger.

[HotGuns]

The LEO should keep his gun in the low ready postition, keeping the finger along side the trigger guard.

A civilian holding a bad guy should do the same. No chance for negligent discharge which would greatly complicate the matter.

[Hopyard]

This thread reminds me of the intro to the TV show "cops." "I've got him at gunpoint, what should I do with him?"

[Rock and Glock]

^^^^^^^^ Made me laugh!

[INccwchris]

ummmmmm

[paaiyan]

Depends.

1. All guns are always loaded. (self-explanatory)
2. Finger off the trigger until ready to fire. (keep it indexed on the slide)
3. Never point a firearm at anything/anyone you're not willing to destroy. (are you willing to destroy this person?)
4. Always be aware of your target and what's beyond it. (are you?)

[suntzu]

I have a question and hope this doesn't hijack the thread but it the OP's question got me thinking. I will re read all of NH laws pertaining to it but my question is:A BG is in your house, you catch him and before you shoot he drops his weapon. You tell him to stay there cause the cops are on the way. He decides to bolt. Not toward you but awayfrom the AO. Can you shoot and would you? I beleive in TX you can. But I could not shoot an unarmed person running away.

[paaiyan]

Well I can't give my opinion based on NH law, but in OK you'd still be clean. If they entered your residence illegally and forcibly here, they have legally forfeited their right to live during the duration of their stay in your home. Whether I would or wouldn't shoot someone in that case is another matter entirely. I'm tempted to say it's a strong possibility, as I sleep without contacts and don't have a spare pair of glasses (yet) so I wouldn't be able to easily discern what they were doing. I'd make sure my wife was still in bed with me, and then probably just open fire on any other human silhouette I saw. I wouldn't necessarily be able to tell if they were facing me or not.

[NH_Esau]

I have a question and hope this doesn't hijack the thread but it the OP's question got me thinking. I will re read all of NH laws pertaining to it but my question is:A BG is in your house, you catch him and before you shoot he drops his weapon. You tell him to stay there cause the cops are on the way. He decides to bolt. Not toward you but awayfrom the AO. Can you shoot and would you? I beleive in TX you can. But I could not shoot an unarmed person running away.

My read in NH is no - unless you reasonably believe he is likely to use unlawful force. If he's running, I don't think you're justified unless he does something else that justifies the use of deadly force. You could use non-deadly force to apprehend him (force of voice is as far as I'm going). He better keep running straight away with his hands in the open, though... and not be carrying a gas can!

RSA 627:4
A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.

RSA 627:7 - A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other in or upon such premises, but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4 or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson.

And a nice addition after the Ward Bird fiasco... from RSA 627:9
IV. "Non-deadly force'' means any assault or confinement which does not constitute deadly force. The act of producing or displaying a weapon shall constitute non-deadly force.

[high pockets]

Interesting discussion. I would suggest to suntzu that he start a new thread for this discussion.

Regarding the original post: I question whether or not a civilian would be justified in holding someone at gunpoint after they have been disarmed and awaiting police arrival. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, I just wonder about the legality.

[kerberos]

If my gun is drawn, shots will be fired.

Period.

There is no reason to draw if there is no "clear and present danger"

I am no longer paid to carry, and therefore do not have any governmental agency backing my actions.

[hayzor]

If my gun is drawn, shots will be fired.

Period.

There is no reason to draw if there is no "clear and present danger"

I think there are scenarios where drawing a gun is warranted and no shots are fired. I'm not saying to draw to scare someone. Many DGUs (Defensive gun uses) as written by John Lott, More Guns Less Crime, are cases where no shots are fired. The presence of a gun was enough to stop the criminal activity.
Every scenario is going to be different, and the more training we have, the better decisions we will be able to make at crunch time.
OMO YMMV

[kerberos]

The only criminal activity I plan on stopping with the use of my sidearm is a life-ending attack on my loved ones or myself.

With a rare exception of another person who I know for sure is being attacked in a manner that would end their life without proper cause.

If it's bad enough for me to draw, there will be no time for the aggressor to give up, shots will be fired immediately.

Everything else is either hand to hand or knife/flashlight work.

Is my thinking wrong on this?

... I'm here to learn.