If someone breaks in, can I legally hold them at gunpoint until police arrive?

[OfficerObie59]

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.

I disagree because it's a fact. The "Castle Doctrine" at common law is exactly what Massachusetts has: an affirmative defense.

The criminal and sometimes even civil immunity some states provide is something much better.

 

[ztargetshooter]

Get a watch dog or two and this scenario goes away.

 

[ZJPierce]

Another question born from too much media consumption.
It is healthy to consider every circumstance of potential confrontation and even practice your response.
If the situation arises where lethal force becomes a consideration, adrenaline vs training is the first battle to be won.
Basic firearms safety and common sense needs to be applied to any such "preplanning".

How did the perpetrator get on the floor? Did you announce your presence and demand he retreat? Was he into your line of sight instantly and decided to hit the deck?

Having experienced this challenge more than once, simply announcing my presence and demanding their withdrawal was sufficient to prevent employing a weapon. Make no mistake they were at a trigger point where anything less than retreat would have resulted in lethal force because it would have demonstrated to me their intention to cause me harm in my home.

There is wisdom scattered amongst the jokers.

1. You never pull/point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy. This principle is enough to prevent the OP's scenario as the moment the firearm is produced the threat is neutralized by the subsequent accurate bullet placement or why did you produce your weapon?
2. The very first and most important question anyone picking up a weapon needs to be absolutely certain of answering "Are you willing to take a life to save your own or the life of someone else"? Taking a life is the only reason that gun is in your hand.
3. You aren't a cop and you won't be treated as a cop after the round leaves the barrel.
4. Cops like firefighters walk into situations the rest us should be fleeing.
5. Analyzing a life threatening situation in terms of acceptable and legal application of lethal force only makes sense if the situation is unavoidable. Never ever should the possession of a weapon dictate or influence one to engage in behavior likely to require the application of lethal force unless you are a cop. I was taught to carry a gun was to accept a new reality which included running/avoiding confrontation or possibly taking an ass-whipping in order avoid initiating a lethal outcome.

MAKE NO MISTAKE firing your weapon regardless of the effect will change your life forever.

I will never understand your thoughts or someone a few posts back (yeah too lazy to go back).

Drawing your weapon if you only plan to fire seems ridiculous. If I am upstairs and my wife and child are up stairs as well and I hear people who broke in down stairs... I WILL DRAW MY WEAPON. Under your thought process, you will only take out your weapon if you plan to use it and "destroy" something.

Are you going to call 911 and scream for them to leave, and hope they don't turn around and charge up the stairs with a knife, or turn with a gun in their hand and you are left standing there with your gun in the safe, or stuck in your holster?

What is wrong with the mindset where drawing your weapon to BE PREPARED to use it is not right? You already know there are people in YOUR house, putting your family in potential imminent danger. You are going to wait to draw your weapon until you are ready to fire? Or are you going to immediately draw your weapon and just start shooting because you hear people and see shadows downstairs?

 

[Hvymax]

I almost wonder if some of the responders aren't trolls trying to make us look like a bunch of nuts! I hear a potential threat in my house so I arm myself to go investigate, I discover a young man rifling my stuff, I aim my firearm and turn on the light startling him into submission, I consider him a threat until he is restrained and taken into custody so I maintain my firearm at the ready. How in the flying excrement does that equate to shooting someone in the back and all of the other stupidity I have read??? If the person decides to become a bigger threat then I can respond when that happens. No reason to shoot anyone just because there is a gun in my hand. With that logic we could never go to the range without shooting each other!!! Be ready and use some sense and things will work themselves out.

 

[M1911]

I disagree because it's a fact. The "Castle Doctrine" at common law is exactly what Massachusetts has: an affirmative defense. The criminal and sometimes even civil immunity some states provide is something much better.

Agreed. It is the Castle Doctrine as it was traditionally known. Some years back, some states started enacting so-called "Make My Day" laws, whereby someone unlawfully in your home was assumed to be a deadly threat. Since then, people have been conflating the two.

 

[spt_1955]

Really? Why?! I kind'a laughed at the OP's question at first but seems like it's a real question. Why do I have​ to let him go and cannot hold him at gun point until the police arrives?

Not sure how you can hold him at gunppoint if he wants to leave.... unless you have a spiderman gun and can hold him in a sticky web?

"... wait... don;t leave.... I have you at gunpoint.... Stop!!!!! "

 

[M1911]

Not sure how you can hold him at gunppoint if he wants to leave.... unless you have a spiderman gun and can hold him in a sticky web? "... wait... don;t leave.... I have you at gunpoint.... Stop!!!!! "

That is the point I was trying to make. Your choice then is shoot or don't shoot.

 

[spt_1955]

1. You never pull/point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy. This principle is enough to prevent the OP's scenario as the moment the firearm is produced the threat is neutralized by the subsequent accurate bullet placement or why did you produce your weapon?

DOn't get me wrong.. I agree with almost everyhting that muzzleDiscipline has to say except that :

You never point a gun at something you ARE NOT WILLING to destroy ... not INTEND to destroy. You can pull the gun because you are willing to destroy the intruder but if he surrenders you do not have to shoot him and conversely you do not tell the intruder "Stop... or I will pull this weapon and shoot you".

 

[Hvymax]

That's when I strap em to the Hobby Horse and wake up the Gimp!!!

 

[spt_1955]

Agreed. It is the Castle Doctrine as it was traditionally known. Some years back, some states started enacting so-called "Make My Day" laws, whereby someone unlawfully opinion your home was assumed to be a deadly threat. Since then, people have been conflating the two.

..opinion my home? autocorrect?

 

[DONALDG-HOG]

MGL allows you to shove a red hot coat hanger up his dick hole until police arrive as long as the hanger is 6 inches or less.

to

I searched and found this: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...meone-breaks-in?highlight=Holding+at+gunpoint but it is more related to a hero situation chasing someone outside of the house.

My question is if the burglar who breaks in is confronted by the homeowner inside their dwelling, and the burglar immediately get's down in the "I give up position - not trying to attack" at gunpoint, are you legally able to keep in that position at gunpoint until police arrive?

The thread I linked to references a Citizens Arrest needing to be a felony, and not all cases of burglary are felonies, but does this change if you are inside your house?

Do you hold them at gun point, or say get the *** out of here I am calling the cops?

 

[M1911]

..opinion my home? autocorrect?

Ugh, yes, autoincorrect

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

DOn't get me wrong.. I agree with almost everyhting that muzzleDiscipline has to say except that :

You never point a gun at something you ARE NOT WILLING to destroy ... not INTEND to destroy. You can pull the gun because you are willing to destroy the intruder but if he surrenders you do not have to shoot him and conversely you do not tell the intruder "Stop... or I will pull this weapon and shoot you".

A reasonable correction. Thank you

It isn't my intention to be pedantic but all too often people express the idea somehow the presence of a firearm settles something. It is as wrong an idea as a single well placed shot will end an encounter. Those outcomes can occur but this stuff is media authored drama and has little place in the real world. If I am over reacting I apologize for the offense.