"Taking the Law Into Your Own Hands"

[Guntalk]

Whenever I read a newspaper account where a police officer or prosecutor says that people should not "take the law into their own hands" it makes me wonder how others react to that phrase.

Do the police think that they are the only ones who have the right of self defense, or even the right and duty to stop criminals?

"Taking the law into your own hands" sounds like doing a civic duty, if done well. Chasing a guy down the street, shooting at him, doesn't qualify.

Stopping someone who attacks you sure does.

How do others feel about that phrase?

 

[pacodelahoya]

Government has no rights, only powers. Powers that come from we the people. If a government employee has the power to do a thing, then we the people should have the right to do the same. However, some animals are more equal than others.

 

[K3]

There is such a thing as a 'citizen's arrest'. I wonder if ordinary citizens are discouraged from using it?

It annoys me when phrases like 'taking the law into your own hands' and 'vigilante justice' are used. Unless the police response time can be whittled down to nothing, there are times a man has to act.

 

[El Tejon]

It's an intentional misconstruction done for the political result of legitmating the Left's Weberian "governmental monopoly of force." I ran into it all the time in grad school in Chicago. Professors would speak of "taking the law into one's hands" when they talked about self-defense.

"Taking the law into one's hands" is to become a member of a vigilance committee or a rogue self-appointed agent. Say I as a non-LEO start pulling people over for not using their turn signals. That is taking the law into my own hands.

OTOH, say I defend myself with firearm, cricket bat, knife what have you, this is self-defense which is provided by the law. My exercise of my right of self-defense is not a rogue action, although the Left wishes it to be.

In summary this phrase is an attempt to deconstruct self-defense and garner more power for a government.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Enforcing laws as non LEO would qualify as taking the law into your own hands. "Sir, have you had anything to drink tonight?"
Defending yourself would qualify as self defense. "STOP! Don't come any closer!"

 

[22-rimfire]

Taking the law in our own hands?? Defending myself is not taking the law into my own hands, it is the law.

Maybe we should all become part-time deputy sheriff's. I wonder what is involved in getting "certified"? We could help out during times of crisis when they need more manpower, like a Katrina situation. I'm sure the Brady people would really like that.

 

[Art Eatman]

The phrase has become a very-much misused catchall.

It is generally agreed that it is not the business of those outside law enforcement to play detective or go out and play a Bronson movie role. We don't chase down speeders or form our own posses to go after some sort of fleeing bad guys.

Okay, fine.

The problem arises when somebody applies that phrase the legitimate action of defending one's life or property.

Much of this derives from Hollywood movies, where a 911 call gets instant response, or some hero merely deliberately wounds a bad guy ("Can't you just shoot to wound?") or some other such ignorance of reality.

Another problem is societal. A high percentage among us believe that government can and should solve all problems. So, if you see a bad guy doing wrong, tell the Official People and they will then Do Something. Too many look outside themselves for an Offical Person to take responsibility, but not themselves.

All that said, and veering a bit, I do have one question (Keeping the "Minutemen" in mind.): Government's authority and powers are delegated to it by The People. If official government forces abdicate their responsibilities to enforce our laws, who, then, should act?

Art

 

[MattC]

There is such a thing as a 'citizen's arrest'. I wonder if ordinary citizens are discouraged from using it?

Some states, like WI, do not have citizen arrest laws. Here, it's called unlawful detainment. (This is based on a personal conversation with a police officer; please post documentation if it is otherwise.)

Regarding people actually helping to enforce the law, it scares me how many times people say "it's none of my business" or "there's nothing I could have done anyways" when they talk about seeing a crime or even an accident scene. I was walking with a friend around the college campus my freshman year during finals time. We turned back and passed a high school kid with a backpack going somewhere. Then three older kids showed up right behind us and started pushing the younger one around, who they clearly did not even know. I turned back and my friend told me, "Matt, don't get involved!" Lucky for everyone, I noticed two oblivious cops chatting in the parking lot right next to the whole thing.

My personal philosophy: Every action is an example, every example is a lesson; what am I teaching? That night, I wanted to teach people to come help me if I was ever in the same situation. "Taking the law into your own hands" is about recognizing a personal role in a productive society, whether it's telling a drunk friend not to drive or defending your personal property.

On a related note, in Milwaukee a few months back a guy called the police and then ran out of his house with a baseball bat to scare off two thieves at his neighbor's house. One of the thieves then pulled a gun and fatally shot him. To my relief and surprise, he was praised in the news for his willingness to protect his neighborhood. It's terrible that he was killed, and I wish it had turned out otherwise. But I thank him for taking a stand against those thieves.

 

[Steve in PA]

Defending yourself is not taking the law into your hands.

Being the judge, jury and executioner is.

 

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Do the police think that they are the only ones who have the right of self defense, or even the right and duty to stop criminals?

Totally unrelated issues. Everyone has a right and duty to self-defense. Even criminals have a right to self-defense in some circumstances. Only cops have a duty to catch and stop criminals and bring them to justice. The rest of us should let them go.

 

[sidewinder517]

K3, There has an issue where an individual was harassing one of my employees, and after several times of running him off I called the cops. The cops told me to warn him one more time and include in the warning that I would put him under citizens arrest for trespassing if he came in my store again. I never got the chance to do it because he never came back. So I guess they are all for it here in west Oklahoma.

 

[Jeff White]

Almost all states have some form of a citizens arrest law on the books. So clearly the legislators that wrote those laws intended the average person to be involed in enforcing the law.

Here in Illinois a private citizen has essentially the same powers as a peace officer to take action if he actually witnesses a crime. So he's not taking the law into his own hands to defnd himself or another. There are other reasons why this may not always be the best course of action when you witness a crime, but that's not the focus of this discussion. What the private citizen can't do is not witness a crime and then take action. In other words, if someone runs up and says; "That man over there just grabbed a woman's purse two blocks down." The person he said that to, couldn't go grab the suspect and drag him off to jail or hold him for the police. However, the person who witnessed him grab the purse could.

Self defense is not takin gthe law into your own hands. However not stopping when the attack has ceased and handing out a few extra blows for good measure or to teach the assailant a proper lesson is taking the law into your own hands and is not self defense.

Too many people want to turn words around, use them in different contexts to give the public the idea that self defense is taking the law into one's own hands. Where clearly it's not. Laws may differ from state to stae on when and how you may defend yourself, if you must attempt to retreat first, but I'm not aware of any state that denies self defense. Self defense is a basic human right.

Jeff

 

[another okie]

Aren't you "taking the law into your own hands" every time you file a lawsuit?

 

[Zoogster]

Great post Jeff. That is very much the context of the law many places however there are some differences.
The law varies from state to state. In some states it actualy does say someone not witness to a felony can take action. However only someone that witnesses a misdemeanor in action can take action over a misdemeanor. Since robbery is a felony someone actualy could go after the purse snatcher if they believed it to be true in such states. Other states limit action to only felonies and not misdemeanors, and still others limit action to only those that directly witness a felony being commited, so stopping the purse snatcher as he runs by without witnessing the taking of the purse would be invalid. It all depends on state law.

Citizens arrest goes back into English Common Law which is where many of the original concepts of our legal system and even our Constitution are inspired from.

 

[Delta608]

For the most part, (You mileage may vary) every citizen can make a citizens arrest if it is involving a felony...That means No misd & no civil as in traffic. Having said that, A Police Officer makes an arrest based on Probable Cause..(Look it up in any cop bashing thread here..) A citizen may make an arrest based on ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE....(ie burglar in your garage or neighbors and ya hold him for the po, po, that is an arrest) Way, Way BIG DIFFERENCE....There is no wiggle room..You make a mistake, you loose YOUR freedom and a TON of monies in the settlement.....

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Yet another group of words that liberals seem to be hell bent on hammering into the heads of the huddled masses, plain and simple.

“Taking the law into your own hands”.

“Vigilantes”

“Stock piling weapons”

This is just the tip of the liberal vernacular iceberg, we all know what the hell is meant when a person makes a citizens arrest, or when you clear you own house after finding an open door.

It’s just a really good sounding sound bite that comes to mind when the press sticks a camera in the face of a Police Chief or PIO who is trying to explain away a situation where the citizenry has gotten involved or is threatening to get involved.

Liberals are all about big guberment and the police are guberment, having the peasants running around catching bad guys make the cops look bad.

TFW

 

[kludge]

The government and it's officers get their "just powers" from the "consent of the governed".

They don't get any power we don't give them.

Citizens have the power to defend the law. Where else would the police get it from?

Citizens arrest is entirely legal. Most people just choose not to do anything.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Take the law into my own hands? Pull a weapon on me, and my hands will be full of a gun, thanks all the same.

 

[GRIZ22]

Qoute:

Aren't you "taking the law into your own hands" every time you file a lawsuit?


That is using the legal system.

Quote:

Defending yourself is not taking the law into your hands.

Being the judge, jury and executioner is.

Agreed

The term is often misused to describe someone who defends themself.

Quote;

The government and it's officers get their "just powers" from the "consent of the governed".

If you don't like the laws the way they are elect new legislators.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Law In One's Own Hands

Already mentioned, though this phrasing comes, I believe, from another thread:

The law BELONGS in the hands of the citizens. That's where it's SUPPOSED to be.​

El Tejon made an excellent point. It's a misleading (de)construction designed to bias opinion against armed citizens.

The LAW and its enforcement are the province of the citizen. It is for the courts to mete out justice.

Lest there be a misapprehension of "enforcement" let me clarify. Murder is against the law. Robbery and burglary are against the law. Assault and rape are against the law.

The law says you may not do those things. Proper enforcement is ensuring those things proscribed by law are prevented from occurring.

More simply: you may not kill me, and I may use any means at my disposal, including your demise, to ensure you don't actually succeed. If I prevent you from breaking that law, then that law has been enforced.

Once you have broken the law, you belong to the justice system. What I may not take into my hands is meting out justice. Punishment is not directly the domain of the citizen, but of the courts, as directed by the legilature, in turn directed by the citizen.

The law belongs in my hands. Your trial, conviction, and sentencing for breaking that law does not.

 

[antarti]

There is such a thing as a 'citizen's arrest'. I wonder if ordinary citizens are discouraged from using it?

I'm with Delta608 on this one.

Police have certain (ok, often blanket) liability protections when making arrests that Joe Civvie doesn't. That said, I've asked a detective about this and their advice was simple: if a felony happens in front of you, there is no ambiguity (you are double-danged-sure) about what is transpiring, it's the textbook case where a "citizens arrest" makes sense, otherwise there's too much liability.

Disclaimer: That advice might not be good for anybody else, it's just the advice I (personally) heard and chose to heed.

 

[oldcop1971]

One Problem...

I see is that people don''t know what the law is!?! He was doing _______. Arrest HIM! uh, sir, ______ is not illegal in Alabama.
Just the other night, i had a call about one vehicle following another around town. seems these folks saw a car driving "suspiciously" and jumped in their car to follow it. Car A meets car B and flashes it's headlights. Ok, now we'll turn around and follow car B to see what he's up to. No one had violated any law. Car B driver says we're out riding around trying to get the baby to go to sleep, meet a car with his brights on and flash ours, next thing we know is someone's following us. They were scared to death that a serial killer was after them! the original caller thought A and B were involved in some kind of criminal conspiracy to quote charlie brown, "GOOD GRIEF!" You people are watching waaay too much CSI.
I welcome citizen involvement in law enforcement. Suspicious activity should be reported so we can check it out. I've had citizens detain criminals before and call me to come get them. no problem, as long as you KNOW they were committing a criminal act and are willing to come to court and testify.
Agreed, the phrase is overused and misused. As I tell my citizens when asked about their self defense rights, do what you've got to do and call me. Its all about how i write up the report
oc71

 

[Trip20]

Only cops have a duty to catch and stop criminals and bring them to justice. The rest of us should let them go.

This attitude fosters the choice of most citizens to watch and do nothing as their neighbor is beaten, killed, raped, robbed, vandalized, harassed... et cetera.

Well, that and plain old fear.

A few points from TFL member Antipitas fits quite nicely in this discussion:

Every citizen who observes a crime has a duty, at the very least to be a good observer, so that an accurate account may be given to the authorities. That's the very least a citizen should do. The barest minimum (no effort) on the part of the citizen.

We hire people specifically to keep the peace and enforce the laws. But when they can't be there, it is still up to the average citizen to do that job. Just like it was for the first hundred or so years of this country's beginnings.

Now some of you can continue to misuse the term and call it vigilante justice of you want. But that is nothing more than an excuse for not becoming involved in the overall health and safety of your neighbors and society in general.

 

[Ryder]

This state doesn't have the death penalty. I can see how they'd think we were taking the law into our own hands since we are capable of imposing stiffer penalties than them.