How do you detain a criminal at gun point?

[MayorQuimby]

Not according to the law.
Its only self-defense to shoot if they have and equally deadly weapon.
You cannot escalate.
If they are unarmed, shooting is illegal.

I can't comment on the legality of it, I am not an American. But I am pretty sure they don't need to have an "equally deadly weapon". As long as someone is trying to cause serious harm, even if he's just using his hands, you can shoot him.

 

[MayorQuimby]

you blew something thats for sure,,

I just hope he consented,,

Lmao, now you are insinuating I am gay. How bad did your feelings get hurt lol.

 

[progressive hunter]

I can't comment on the legality of it, I am not an American. But I am pretty sure they don't need to have an "equally deadly weapon". As long as someone is trying to cause serious harm, even if he's just using his hands, you can shoot him.

youre not an american??

no wonder youer ******* idiot too,,

 

[MayorQuimby]

youre not an american??

no wonder youer ******* idiot too,,

Lmao you are now incoherent.

 

[Rigby5]

Where is the stealing taking place? If it's in a public area like a store, you let security deal with the perp. If someone goes into your home, then regardless of whether he is trying to rob you or merely to steal from you, you can shoot him. This is the castle doctrine.

Wrong.
The castle doctrine does not say you can shoot trespassers.
It says you can shoot if that is necessary in order retain your property.

{...
Depending on the location, a person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home. Deadly force may either be justified, the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded, or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another."[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions. Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity, such as from wrongful death suits, which have a much lower burden of proof.

Justifiable homicide[2] in self-defense which happens to occur inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine, because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine,[citation needed] under which the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying homicide in self-defense. However, the existence in a legal code of such a provision (of justifiable homicide in self-defense pertaining to one's domicile) does not imply the creation of a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty to retreat. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori[3] and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.
...}
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

 

[MayorQuimby]

Wrong.
The castle doctrine does not say you can shoot trespassers.
It says you can shoot if that is necessary in order retain your property.

{...
Depending on the location, a person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home. Deadly force may either be justified, the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded, or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another."[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions. Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity, such as from wrongful death suits, which have a much lower burden of proof.

Justifiable homicide[2] in self-defense which happens to occur inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine, because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine,[citation needed] under which the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying homicide in self-defense. However, the existence in a legal code of such a provision (of justifiable homicide in self-defense pertaining to one's domicile) does not imply the creation of a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty to retreat. The use of this legal principle in the United States has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori[3] and Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.
...}
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

If he's a trespasser you can't shoot him. But if he's a home invader, you can, or should be able to, shoot him. And it has nothing to do with protecting property. Any time someone invades your home, you can consider your life to be in danger. You don't know if he's just here to steal your TV, or if he's thinking about seriously harming you.

 

[NetJedi]

Wrong!

If a person is trying to steal something, you brandish as a threat, in order to get them to stop.
You do not have authority to shoot until after they have been warned.

What state do you live in? Not all states allow the use of deadly force to protect property (outside of a domicile where Castle Doctrine is in force where there is a rebuttal presumption of deadly threat), so if you pull your firearm outside of your domicile to stop a theft and don't live in one of those states where the stand your ground law(s) allow it, you're opening yourself up to an aggravated assault or brandishing charge if you don't shoot and a manslaughter charge if you do.

Drawing your firearm outside of a situation where you're facing the imminent threat of death or great bodily harm places you at great risk of prosecution or worse, the legal standard is derived from the principle of proportionality.

Your assertion regarding a "warning" is patently false, no state requires any such thing, anybody that buys into such nonsense doesn't understand what imminent threat of death or great bodily harm means.

 

[NetJedi]

If he's a trespasser you can't shoot him. But if he's a home invader, you can, or should be able to, shoot him. And it has nothing to do with protecting property. Any time someone invades your home, you can consider your life to be in danger. You don't know if he's just here to steal your TV, or if he's thinking about seriously harming you.

That's a common misconception regarding Castle Doctrine; you can't just shoot a home invader and automatically get away with it, it's a REBUTTAL presumption of a threat of death or great bodily harm, in other words you still have to JUSTIFY it.

Common example, a local neighborhood 3rd grader wanders into your home, you can't just shoot him under Castle Doctrine and be protected since the presumption that Castle Doctrine provides will be rebutted by the prosecution (i.e. unjustified shooting).