An Actual Use of Force incident for Discussion

[Kleanbore]

It was 1961 or 1962. No Time for Sergeants was in theaters here for the second time. As a reward for having Simonized his 1955 Coupe DeVille, a friend's dad let us take the car on a Friday evening..

We went to a movie. We were late; we had to park on a residential street; we ran from the car, which had out-of-state plates; when we returned, the car was gone.

We rang the bell on the nearest house, and then....

1. A man came to the door and invited us in. The front door had been unlocked.
2. He walked slowly to a desk in the foyer, withdrew a Parkerized Model 1911 pistol from an unlocked desk drawer a short distance form the font door, walked back within striking or grappling distance of the two of us, cocked the hammer, and pointed it at us.
3. He picked up a the receiver of a dial telephone for a stand that was close to my knee, bent over to observe the dial though his bi-focals, and slowly dialed a seven digit number that included three sloe zeros and one slow nine.
4. He told someone his name and told them that he had the car thieves at gunpoint. He continued to point the gun at us, holding it well within our arms' reach.
5. After several minutes, the police arrived.

At the time, I was familiar with the operation of the Model 1911, but I had no in-depth knowledge of Use of Force Law

And as a law abiding citizen, it certainly did not occur to me to overpower them, injure him, take his gun. or worse.

But I have since wondered what the man was thinking, and what he unintended to do with that .45 when he took it from the drawer and did the other things.

Betcha he saw himself as a hero doing the duty of a law abiding citizen, BUT:

1. How many things in the above account were impudent, or tactically unwise in the extreme?
2. Which of his actions were unlawful? (We did not threaten the man at all).
3. Which could have put him at risk in civil court?
4. Did the police incur any liability by taking the car and finger printing it after the man had reported having seen two people parking it and running?

Let's scratch the last one. I learned the answer during the denouement--a high powered attorney had been at my friend's dad's cocktail party. There was hell to pay.

But the rest are worth discussing.

I have also wondered if the man were a veteran, and whether any of what he did had been conditioned by watching screen fiction.

 

[TarDevil]

Wow! Lot to think about.
Good on you for complying until the police arrived. Heroics would've ended poorly.
Don't know in what state this occured, much less what the gun laws were then. But his actions were vigilante and risky. Regardless of laws, common sense shouldn't have changed, and pointing a firearm at anyone can go south quickly. I imagine had you gotten hurt trying to disarm him, he would be at civil risk. Again, what were the laws? And yes, police acted out of protocol.

 

[Kleanbore]

Missouri.

The gun laws were very strict--permit required to purchase a handgun, no concealed carry for civilians, no open carry in the county at hand.

The use of force laws have not changed substantively--threat or use of deadly force was lawful only if the innocent defender faced an immediate threat of serious injury or death, but in hose days there was duty to retreat. Citizens were afforded no assumptions RE: immediate threat of delay force in the event of unlawful entry.

 

[rhino465]

@Kleanbore - I'm stuck on the part where he though you were car thieves when it was your car that was stolen. How did he know a car was stolen when it wasn't his and why did he assume you were the culprits?

 

[Kleanbore]

Apparently he assumed the car had been stolen when he saw two people running from it. So, he called the later-very-chagrinned Kirkwood MO Police.

After towing the car, the KPD called every agency they could find between here and Ft. Lee VA asking about possible reported theft. Nothing. Egg on their faces.

When we rang the bell, we asked the man who answered if he knew what had happened to the car that we had parked in front of his house. His reaction was obviously not that of the law abiding citizen whom he considered himself to be..

The next morning, it took the Watch Commander and three+ officers (off and on) on a lot longer to get the fingerprinting dust out of the fresh Simonize than it had taken my friend and me to wax the car. They were red-faced, and angry at the officers on the previous shift.

When permitted CCW first became lawful in MO, their seemed to be, in the minds of many civilian lay persons, something of a tendency to relate handguns and law enforcement. Perhaps this fellow was afflicted witha touch of that.

 

[scaatylobo]

It was 1961 or 1962. No Time for Sergeants was in theaters here for the second time. As a reward for having Simonized his 1955 Coupe DeVille, a friend's dad let us take the car on a Friday evening..

We went to a movie. We were late; we had to park on a residential street; we ran from the car, which had out-of-state plates; when we returned, the car was gone.

We rang the bell on the nearest house, and then....

1. A man came to the door and invited us in. The front door had been unlocked.
2. He walked slowly to a desk in the foyer, withdrew a Parkerized Model 1911 pistol from an unlocked desk drawer a short distance form the font door, walked back within striking or grappling distance of the two of us, cocked the hammer, and pointed it at us.
3. He picked up a the receiver of a dial telephone for a stand that was close to my knee, bent over to observe the dial though his bi-focals, and slowly dialed a seven digit number that included three sloe zeros and one slow nine.
4. He told someone his name and told them that he had the car thieves at gunpoint. He continued to point the gun at us, holding it well within our arms' reach.
5. After several minutes, the police arrived.

At the time, I was familiar with the operation of the Model 1911, but I had no in-depth knowledge of Use of Force Law

And as a law abiding citizen, it certainly did not occur to me to overpower them, injure him, take his gun. or worse.

But I have since wondered what the man was thinking, and what he unintended to do with that .45 when he took it from the drawer and did the other things.

Betcha he saw himself as a hero doing the duty of a law abiding citizen, BUT:

1. How many things in the above account were impudent, or tactically unwise in the extreme?
2. Which of his actions were unlawful? (We did not threaten the man at all).
3. Which could have put him at risk in civil court?
4. Did the police incur any liability by taking the car and finger printing it after the man had reported having seen two people parking it and running?

Let's scratch the last one. I learned the answer during the denouement--a high powered attorney had been at my friend's dad's cocktail party. There was hell to pay.

But the rest are worth discussing.

I have also wondered if the man were a veteran, and whether any of what he did had been conditioned by watching screen fiction.

I did not get that he figured you were car thieves until I read the later post of him seeing you run from the car.

I am surprised that it was towed on nothing but 2 youths running from it.

It would take an act of Congress for us to tow under any circumstances [ became an LEO 1982 ].

And as for him holding you at gun point ,he was an ******* as you were LOOKING for the car , *** ?.

You did very well for young men and testosterone and all.

Would have loved to hear that courtroom/precinct conversation.

 

[shafter]

It was 1961, I highly doubt there was much legal liability for holding suspected car thieves at gunpoint. Nowadays it's obviously very different.

I believe he probably thought he was doing the right thing and perhaps he was. Tactically it put him at risk but it was a different time, tactics weren't as well understood or discussed and I think people were less risk averse regarding their personal safety and maintaining public order.

I would say that based on the limited information he had based on a very speculative observation of you running from the car he overreacted in a pretty big way. Like it's not difficult to ask a few questions when you knocked on the door.

 

[Kleanbore]

It was 1961, I highly doubt there was much legal liability for holding suspected car thieves at gunpoint.

Not true, and it was really an issue without probable cause.

I believe he probably thought he was doing the right thing

I'm sure he was.

and perhaps he was

No.

 

[shafter]

Not true, and it was really an issue without probable cause.
I'm sure he was.

No.

That sort of thing happened all the time during the 60s and while it may have been illegal in many areas the likelihood of prosecution would not be high. Even today, in some jurisdictions, in cases I've personally familiar with, citizens have not been charged with holding a suspect for the police. No one ever hears about these cases unless charges are filed and if the responding officers don't charge then it's unlikely to ever happen.

The morality of doing such is a matter of opinion and you are entitled to yours as I'm entitled to mine. The wisdom of doing so in 2024 is pretty well established as being a poor choice. 1960 was a different world.

 

[Kleanbore]

As it happened, the police were extremely concerned about their own potential liability for false arrest, and the officers on duty obviously feared for their carrers.

The laws that would have applied to the citizen, who had no legal basis for justifying his action, have not changed. I do not know what the charging authority may have considered doing, but we had no interest in pursuing a civil suit.

Even if the man had had reason to believe that we had stolen the car and that had arguably been justified, his actions were extremely imprudent. We could have overpowered and killed him before he realized what was happening.

 

[usaral63]

And just why did you fella's not consult an attorney...........what was done then was just as illegal as would it be now! Look up the word assume and it's meaning!

 

[Kleanbore]

And just why did you fella's not consult an attorney...........what was done then was just as illegal as would it be now! Look up the word assume and it's meaning!

Please reread the OP.

 

[Scrapiron45]

Why, when the car was discovered missing, were the police not notified instead of knocking on doors? Not an accusation of wrongdoing just curious.

 

[Kleanbore]

Why, when the car was discovered missing, were the police not notified instead of knocking on doors? Not an accusation of wrongdoing just curious.

In that era, people routinely asked for the use of the phone in residential neighborhoods. the alternative would have been to leave the scene on foot and try to fond a pay phone in a business open at that hour.