-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
If someone breaks in, can I legally hold them at gunpoint until police arrive?
- Thread starter ZJPierce
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,577
- Likes
- 33,659
Two considerations:
1. What do you do if the person says "I'm outta here", turns around and starts walking? Shoot? I'm not a big believer in bluffing.
2. If any person you point a gun at in self defense is caught, be sure to budget for your attorney as that person's defense counsel will likely arrange to file assault charges against you.
1. What do you do if the person says "I'm outta here", turns around and starts walking? Shoot? I'm not a big believer in bluffing.
2. If any person you point a gun at in self defense is caught, be sure to budget for your attorney as that person's defense counsel will likely arrange to file assault charges against you.
No, I said if they want to leave so be it... but I am also not going to holster my weapon while they are still inside my house. I wouldn't shoot, but I wouldn't holster either.
Thanks for all the replies... I know I am new to NES, so I appreciate your responses even if my question rings of "not this again". I signed up for a membership yesterday and I hope to give back as much as I can in the coming years. Thanks again to everyone.
the_shootist
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:
I have heard of burglars, suing because you "messed with their livelyhood etc" from my understanding my daughter is in said house, and I don't know this intruder from a hole in the world. I do not know what he or she is capable of so you know what my outcome would be. Id imagine if the intruders seat is vacant in the court room it's easier on you? Am I wrong?
Due to forensics being as good as they are these days, not necessarily easier on you.
Vickers:
Read the last few lines of your citation. The "in fact committed" standard of proof is only met when the individual placed under "citizen's arrest" is CONVICTED of a felony (not just charged with a felony). I will reiterate how easy it is for plea deals to be made. If the person placed under "citizen's arrest" cops a plea deal for a misdemeanor conviction only, the individual who made the arrest can potentially face ADW/Agg kidnap charges depending on how zealous the DA is feeling. Said person could also face civil liability for unlawful arrest (you will wind up paying the "bad guy" out of your own pocket). Police officers have a union and department attorneys, let them make the arrests. Most people don't even know what constitutes a felony to begin with, so I would very much advise against such course of action.
As far as use of force while effecting a "citizen's arrest", see Model Penal Code 3.07.
Again, while a "citizen's arrest" CAN lawfully be made in Massachusetts, a private citizen can only use deadly force (pointed firearm) to effect said arrest if they are assisting a peace officer or directed to do so by a peace officer. I will reiterate, a private citizen CANNOT make a "citizen's arrest" at gunpoint inside or outside of their home unless explicitly authorized by a peace officer or while aiding a peace officer.
Read the last few lines of your citation. The "in fact committed" standard of proof is only met when the individual placed under "citizen's arrest" is CONVICTED of a felony (not just charged with a felony). I will reiterate how easy it is for plea deals to be made. If the person placed under "citizen's arrest" cops a plea deal for a misdemeanor conviction only, the individual who made the arrest can potentially face ADW/Agg kidnap charges depending on how zealous the DA is feeling. Said person could also face civil liability for unlawful arrest (you will wind up paying the "bad guy" out of your own pocket). Police officers have a union and department attorneys, let them make the arrests. Most people don't even know what constitutes a felony to begin with, so I would very much advise against such course of action.
As far as use of force while effecting a "citizen's arrest", see Model Penal Code 3.07.
Again, while a "citizen's arrest" CAN lawfully be made in Massachusetts, a private citizen can only use deadly force (pointed firearm) to effect said arrest if they are assisting a peace officer or directed to do so by a peace officer. I will reiterate, a private citizen CANNOT make a "citizen's arrest" at gunpoint inside or outside of their home unless explicitly authorized by a peace officer or while aiding a peace officer.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,577
- Likes
- 33,659
I think the poster was referring to the offender's seat being vacant because you let him go, not because you induced subcutaneous ballistic apertures.
And, if the offender's seat is "vacant", the only reason the case would be in a courtroom is if you are being charged.
Counter charges, no matter how bogus, can be expensive and remain on your record forever.
This brings up another interesting issue:
- If you use lethal force (including just pointing a gun) and fail to report it, you are in a world of merde if the othe person reports it and claims you were the aggressor.
- If you report it, you have to talk to the police. It's awkward to call them to the scene and say "now that you are here, I am going to exercise my right to remain silent."
Last edited:
No i meAnt him not being able to tell his side lol. correct me if im wrong but from my understanding on mass law as far as an intruder goes "castle law" id be covered. I hope it never happens, but to be honest you never know what the intruder is capable of especially in the middle of the night, me knowing my daughter is in the house and if I dont stop the possible threat it could hurt my family.
If it was just me in the house, id probably not fire a round unless I saw a weapon, but my wife in daughter in close proximity im not taking the chance
If it was just me in the house, id probably not fire a round unless I saw a weapon, but my wife in daughter in close proximity im not taking the chance
I read a jury would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intruder was bot a threat. Im saying/asking this because I like to be educated dont take my posts as "wow, this kids a dumbass"
Read C. 278 S. 8A again. It is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE . . . your attorney has to defend you by pointing out why you should NOT be convicted!! To me (others disagree) this s a far cry from a "castle law" where the person's home is their castle.
You have to be in mortal fear of death/immediate serious injury (to you or family member), articulate that to a judge/jury and convince them of the above exception. It will be very expensive and you may not succeed (meaning you will be the one sent to jail).
Take this scenario:
They broke in in the middle of the night to steal jewelry/TV/computers/etc. . . . they convince the court that it was a simple burglary not with intent to cause serious bodily harm . . . you are in for a world of hurt when they send you to prison for pulling a gun on the guy. And they would probably give the perp probation.
MGL 278 8A is an affirmative defense; it does not provide for immunity from prosecution.
Jury instructions on the so called "Castle Rule":
A person lawfully occupying a house, apartment or other dwelling is not required to retreat from or use other means to avoid combat with an unlawful intruder, if two circumstances exist:
First, the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder is about to inflict great bodily injury or death on him (her) or on another person lawfully in the dwelling; and
Second, the occupant uses only reasonable means to defend himself (herself) or the other person lawfully in the dwelling.
What is "reasonable" to you may not necessarily be "reasonable" to a jury of your (non gun enthusiast) peers should you employ a firearm as a mode of defense.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,577
- Likes
- 33,659
If you are justified, and it is obvious, you will likely be offered a plea deal for a no jail time but pp status.
Think you won't take it? You'll think differently when you attorney says "I'll need a $100K refresher on the retainer to try this case, and also remind you that if you loose, you can expect severe punishment for taking the case to trial and will almost certainly do time". EVERYBODY thinks they won't take a deal (or settle a civil case) when talking in the abstract, but things are different when it's actually happening.
I remember talking to a very competent attorney about a criminal case he would never allow his client to plead out to since the defense arguments were so strong. When I asked him about it many months later, he bragged about what a great plea bargain he worked out for his client.
Last edited:
Option #3 is the DA not being a douche and using prosecutorial discretion and not pressing charges. Even with that you'll probably still waste some money on lawyers. (I get the distinct impression that there is sort of a game of chicken that goes on, if the DA knows your serious and knows their case sucks, they might not bring it, if they think they can bury you because you have weak or no representation, they still might do it anyways. ) Even with that you'd better hope that the act of prosecuting you would make the DA look bad politically If you're a single white male, forget about that. If you're an elderly woman in a wheelchair, you can pretty much buy the bottle of champange once the cops leave the house.
For most of the rest of us buying a powerball ticket probably has better odds.
-Mike
So I need to wait and see if he is going to try to harm me? And I need to prove he was a viable threat? In other words im guilty until proven innocent, however the intruder is innocent til proven guilty?..
If this is true, this is whats wrong with this world, imo if an intruder breaks in in the middle of the night, he isnt there to say hi, as i said before my daughter is in the house I am not taking any chances, I dobt know if he has his buddies waiting to come in, I dont know hes there for jewelery etc.
If this is true, this is whats wrong with this world, imo if an intruder breaks in in the middle of the night, he isnt there to say hi, as i said before my daughter is in the house I am not taking any chances, I dobt know if he has his buddies waiting to come in, I dont know hes there for jewelery etc.
ok. how about we throw this twist of events in. While down on the floor , you restrain them in some way, say tying them up, hands or legs so they can't get away. You order them down, then do this, then call the police. now you are not holding them at gunpoint. though you might be able to say that you tied them up under the pretext of gunpoint?
Kidnapping, he could say you took him to your house at gunpoint for god knows what
Ive always been told, a corpse cant testify
Althought it has been tried in history
Ive always been told, a corpse cant testify
Althought it has been tried in history
Last edited:
At this point after reading all this I don't know why I even bother having a gun sometimes. "Excuse me kind sir who is trespassing while breaking into my house, do you have any intent to harm me or do you just want my things?" True bizarro world here.
Len, only a few weeks ago in your PPIH class, a video shown covered this scenario. If I remember correctly it said to back against the wall, call police and tell perp to lie face down with legs spread and palms up until cops got there. I understand it was just a NRA video that is not Mass specific, but I am just perplexed at all of the ramifications of doing this.
Len, only a few weeks ago in your PPIH class, a video shown covered this scenario. If I remember correctly it said to back against the wall, call police and tell perp to lie face down with legs spread and palms up until cops got there. I understand it was just a NRA video that is not Mass specific, but I am just perplexed at all of the ramifications of doing this.
Going hands-on with a perp on the floor is likely to lead to disaster for you. NOT wise to try to hog-tie or handcuff, etc.
oppressed, yes it is an NRA video. We later discussed that you'll likely be prosecuted (even states it as possible in NRA instructor guide) . . . so that fits with the class and with the way MA does business.
If faced with this, you need to do what you have to, you just have to be prepared to face the fallout of your actions, regardless of what you do.
oppressed, yes it is an NRA video. We later discussed that you'll likely be prosecuted (even states it as possible in NRA instructor guide) . . . so that fits with the class and with the way MA does business.
If faced with this, you need to do what you have to, you just have to be prepared to face the fallout of your actions, regardless of what you do.
Im not saying im going to shoot as soon as the door opens either, if he bolts back out i doubt he's calling the cops. I understand where everyone is coming from legal wise.
I want to know what scenario is less likely to make me look like a criminal A:
A perp breaks into my home, I grab my pistol and hold him at gun point until the law arrives..(never see thus happening, hed run and take his chances of you shooting him..atleast i would if i were the perp)
Or B)
Perp enters home, I grab my pistol point at him he turns in my direction with a crowbar in hand, and i pump 4 rounds center of mass, call 911 immediately granted the threat is stopped, with the unfortunate side that the 4 rounds were fatal.
Or C) I suspect someones is breaking in Grab my pistol, call 911 put the phone down and shout, like "this home is occupied, you are trespassing blahblah there is a child in here and I have a firearm, give a solid 3-4 warnings that you have a firearm and they should leave police have been notified the whole 9, after all those warnings say the idiot still breaks in can you 'choot em then and have minimal legal repercussions. Id imagine theyd flee the scene once they heard someone..
Granted this is all hypothetical I'd like to know which scenario would be the ideal if you will
I want to know what scenario is less likely to make me look like a criminal A:
A perp breaks into my home, I grab my pistol and hold him at gun point until the law arrives..(never see thus happening, hed run and take his chances of you shooting him..atleast i would if i were the perp)
Or B)
Perp enters home, I grab my pistol point at him he turns in my direction with a crowbar in hand, and i pump 4 rounds center of mass, call 911 immediately granted the threat is stopped, with the unfortunate side that the 4 rounds were fatal.
Or C) I suspect someones is breaking in Grab my pistol, call 911 put the phone down and shout, like "this home is occupied, you are trespassing blahblah there is a child in here and I have a firearm, give a solid 3-4 warnings that you have a firearm and they should leave police have been notified the whole 9, after all those warnings say the idiot still breaks in can you 'choot em then and have minimal legal repercussions. Id imagine theyd flee the scene once they heard someone..
Granted this is all hypothetical I'd like to know which scenario would be the ideal if you will
Rockrivr1
NES Member
Not sure I'd agree with that. You never know what is going on inside a burglar's head. It's also amazing how being in a different state completely changes the outcome of a situation like this.
Case in point, man tries to carjack someone. That someone gets his gun out first and executes a citizen's arrest with perp forced to lay down on the ground until police show up. Perp asks to be let go and response is that he had a chance to leave before jumping into my car. Now you have no chance to leave. Police applaud citizen's arrest, gun owner is not charged and he goes on his merry way.
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/05/no-time-to-call-911-citizen-arrests-suspect-himself/
I don't think it would go down the same way in MA, which is a shame.
Amen
One other thing worth mentioning, if you worry about the legal outcomes too much you might as well just lock the gun up and forget about it, because you'll never be able to pull the trigger when you need to. It's good to be prepared for bad things legally but that shouldn't radically effect your self defense plans, although there's a solid argument for "hardening the target." If you spend say, 10K making your house a total bitch to break into, and that makes it so that you didn't have to shoot that one guy who tried to get in, then the whole investment would instantly pay for itself. Which does one think is going to be easier to deal with legally..... a crackhead with a crowbar/hammer banging on a door he can't open at 2AM or the same crackhead dead in your living room because he got through your POS door and you had no choice but to shoot him? There's also a bunch of cheap precautions too, like motion lights, etc.
-Mike
-Mike
Rockrivr1
NES Member
Yep! Selecting, meeting and getting to know a lawyer that you'll be calling if you do need to shoot is a very good piece of mind to help alleviate some of these fears. Everyone who carries a gun for self defense should know the name of the lawyer they will call if they ever have to shoot. Trying to figure out what lawyer you'd call after the fact is a HUGE fail in your planning process.
Fully agree. NRA's Refuse to Be a Victim covers all the non-gun stuff that will help avoiding ever having to use a gun in your home, without making the home look like Ft. Knox.
True, but better give that info to your closest contact person as your phone, all computers in your house, etc. will be confiscated and you won't be able to access that info or make that call yourself.
Lank
NES Member
This is getting deep in the weeds. If you do not have police powers, you cannot/should not attempt to detain an intruder.
If an intruder enters the premises, and you are fearful of bodily harm/injury, sure use deadly force.
But tell him/her to GTFOOMH!
I carry for defensive use only, not to play citizen cop.
If an intruder enters the premises, and you are fearful of bodily harm/injury, sure use deadly force.
But tell him/her to GTFOOMH!
I carry for defensive use only, not to play citizen cop.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 148
- Likes
- 19
If you are in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, then lethal force is justified. This is supposed to be determined from what a reasonable and prudent person would do under the circumstances.
When someone throws their empty hands up, it takes away the imminent part of it, so you don't have the right to use lethal force. However sudden movements and failure to follow commands by the intruder can be perceived as threatening and fall into a grey area as to what a reasonable person may do.
If you want to detain the person and prevent them from making sudden movements that could be perceived as threatening, your defense would rely on whether or not a reasonable person would believe that the intruder was still a threat if not obeying commands.
I personally would attempt to make sure they did not move until police arrive. That is for the safety of myself, my family, and the intruder.
(It would be fairly easy to articulate that of you were home, the intruder would have believed someone was home, and therefore making the intrusion a felony, and thus a citizens arrest would be lawful)
Similar threads
