Armed neighbors erroneously detain would-be suspects

[Carl Levitian]

And yet again some morons grab a gun and play hero instead of using some common sense. People like this and the Zimmerman idiot are a curse to our cause. Don't think for a New York minute that the Brady bunch don't love these senerios. More ammo to use against us.

First and for most, as gun owners, we, are the ambassadors of our sport and the 2d amendment. It will only take a few high profile idiots to ruin it for everyone. Think a crime is taking place? Call the frigging police, that's what they're for. Watch and observe. With the Zimmerman case, it's clear to a blind man that grabbing gun and going off without thinking about it, is a disaster in the making. These two slobs will probably loose their right to own firearms, and I can't say I'm feeling a bit sorry for them.

Think before you act, and act like you have a brain. Times have changed, and rushing off with a gun is a bad move. Nobody was in harms way, except for the people being held at gun point. I can only hope the self appointed posse had decent trigger discipline. An accidental discharge would have been really a disaster.

 

[k-frame]

Since April 26 is the day after tommorow, I'd say that was an impressive response time!

Doh! :banghead:

Sorry, looking at the wrong week in my calendar... *sigh*

 

[mgkdrgn]

drgn,

Your Police Dept may be well staffed and respond immedialely to 'phone calls of suspicious activity.

Here, if there isn't blood on the ground, response time could be measured by a very slow clock.

Not the fault of the PD. Just there isn't funding to respond . Given that notion, people need to get involved in their neighborhood.

Sometimes the pendulum can, and does, swing too far. In both directions.

salty

And I talked about the POLICE response where exactly?

 

[Dnaltrop]

A few months ago, we saw a man in coveralls kicking in a wooden side-panel to the crawlspace of the rental home across the street.

We're on good terms with the landlord, he's a Doctor, usually well dressed, and invested his income in a few rentals to make ends meet. We keep an eye on his property for those odd "nightmare" tenants.

We called the police who responded immediately, to find... The good doctor! His tenants had changed the locks and left shortly thereafter without a word.

It's amazing the difference a set of clothes and a hat can make.

 

[Sam1911]

That's like using a case in which a person with a CC permit shoots without sufficient cause to argue against CC permits all together. The fact that this yahoo father detained people illegaly doesnt mean all citizens arrests are illegal. Detaining a criminal who is obviously commiting a felony is nothing like this scenario. I'm not arguing wether or not it's wise to ever perform a citizens arrest but this case does not prove that it isn't.

I never said all citizen's arrests were illegal, did I? I never said they were all unwise.

Instead, I'm saying this case is a grand illustration of one of the primary (extremely serious) pitfalls of that action.

It points to exactly the same kind of errors that are often brought up in our hypothetical "Would You Intervene?" threads where a scenario is given of you observing a man appearing to be beating and/or kidnapping a woman and you draw your weapon and defend her ... only to find that you've just proned out (or shot) an undercover police officer, and let a felon escape. The harm you might be doing, and the risks you are inflicting on yourself and probably others too, may easily outweigh any possible good you're doing. And you simply don't have the understanding to make a life-or-death decision -- to put your own life and freedom on the line.

Sure, there are situations where citizen's arrests have worked out fine. Hopefully even more have ended well than have ended disastrously, though I don't have the figures on that. But it is a very dangerous path to take and the stakes are very high. You're rolling the dice on a life-changing chance. You have to realize, in a case like this, "I'm either right and am defending (whatever*) from harm/theft/destruction, or I'm very very wrong and am going to spend a long time in jail, lose all my money, lose my gun rights, and be a felon forever."

And that's what folks who say things like, "This is my Second Amendment right. Look, this is the county out here, and we protect our own," just don't seem wired to comprehend. They are holding up their right to keep and bear as somehow shielding them from the repercussion of making feloniously bad decisions ... and it doesn't.




(* When that "whatever" is the contents of someone else's unoccupied (empty/deserted/foreclosed) house ... this is a REALLY bad bet.)

 

[jbrown50]

I never said all citizen's arrests were illegal, did I? I never said they were all unwise.

Instead, I'm saying this case is a grand illustration of one of the primary (extremely serious) pitfalls of that action.

It points to exactly the same kind of errors that are often brought up in our hypothetical "Would You Intervene?" threads where a scenario is given of you observing a man appearing to be beating and/or kidnapping a woman and you draw your weapon and defend her ... only to find that you've just proned out (or shot) an undercover police officer, and let a felon escape. The harm you might be doing, and the risks you are inflicting on yourself and probably others too, may easily outweigh any possible good you're doing. And you simply don't have the understanding to make a life-or-death decision -- to put your own life and freedom on the line.

Sure, there are situations where citizen's arrests have worked out fine. Hopefully even more have ended well than have ended disastrously, though I don't have the figures on that. But it is a very dangerous path to take and the stakes are very high. You're rolling the dice on a life-changing chance. You have to realize, in a case like this, "I'm either right and am defending (whatever*) from harm/theft/destruction, or I'm very very wrong and am going to spend a long time in jail, lose all my money, lose my gun rights, and be a felon forever."

And that's what folks who say things like, "This is my Second Amendment right. Look, this is the county out here, and we protect our own," just don't seem wired to comprehend. They are holding up their right to keep and bear as somehow shielding them from the repercussion of making feloniously bad decisions ... and it doesn't.




(* When that "whatever" is the contents of someone else's unoccupied (empty/deserted/foreclosed) house ... this is a REALLY bad bet.)

Well said Sam1911.

Our Second Amendment rights do not immunize us from the commission of criminal acts against innocent people. Unfortunately, just like criminals who misuse firearms to commit criminal acts there are some people who seek to misuse (or hide behind) the Second Amendment to cover for their misguided irresponsible actions.

 

[Big Boy]

Another problem with these idiots, other than the fact that they should have minded their own business is that if someone plain clothed was to walk up behind me and point an gun at me, they are likely to be treated with an armed response from me.

Then everything just gets messy. But from the homeowners side, if your at your house doing your thing, like changing your locks, and someone walks up and threatens you with a gun, what would you do?

 

[JustinJ]

I never said all citizen's arrests were illegal, did I? I never said they were all unwise.

Instead, I'm saying this case is a grand illustration of one of the primary (extremely serious) pitfalls of that action.

Okay, but this specific incident certainly does not prove that to be the case. Unlike this situation there are numerous scenarios in which there is no ambiguity about wether or not a felony is being committed. For example if one is walking through the park and witnesses a grown man raping a child there is no question he is committing a felony. Nobody will convince me that the risk of performing a citizens arrest on this individual if at all possible is not worth the associated risks given his escape could likely result in further such crimes.

I would certainly agree that one should be absolutely certain it is legally justifiable before even considering a citizens arrest but this situation is not a valid blanket arguement against it in all potential scenarios.

And that's what folks who say things like, "This is my Second Amendment right. Look, this is the county out here, and we protect our own," just don't seem wired to comprehend. They are holding up their right to keep and bear as somehow shielding them from the repercussion of making feloniously bad decisions ... and it doesn't.

On this point i fully agree.

 

[Sam1911]

I would certainly agree that one should be absolutely certain it is legally justifiable before even considering a citizens arrest but this situation is not a valid blanket arguement against it in all potential scenarios.

Ok...and I never said that it was, and now haven't said that it was, twice. Only that this case is a serious warning about a pitfall that can happen in situations where a citizen's arrest SEEMS like a good idea.

I'm sure those two helpful neighbors believe they were clearly seeing a felony in action. They took what possibly could have been a lawful action to stop that breaking and entering and arrest (detain for the police) the "perpetrators" -- if only they'd guessed RIGHT and that's what was happening. They believed they understood what they were seeing. The difference between perception and reality is going to make them felons.

The list of things that I believe I need to take on the risks attending performing a citizen's arrest in order to stop right now is very VERY short. I'll be a good witness, call 911, perhaps even try to maintain visual contact with the actors. But drawing a gun and detaining someone? Just like in preserving my own life...somebody is going to have to be nearly about to DIE or that's just not happening.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Unlike this situation there are numerous scenarios in which there is no ambiguity about wether or not a felony is being committed.

I think the list of situations in which there is a potential for ambiguity that cannot be detected by the actor is longer, but even in clear cut cases involving actual felonies, the actor will almost always have to depend upon corroborating testimony from witnesses and/or the victim, and when for whatever reason they provide a different story (or none) after the fact, the actor is in a bad way. Happens to sworn officers, too.

I can see circumstances in which the presentation or use of a firearm may be indicated to stop a serious forcible felony, but there's not way I'm going to try to detain the perp by myself until help arrives. That's just too dangerous. A cell phone photo or two will result in his apprehension without putting me at risk of prosecution, lawsuits, ambush, friendly fire, or being overcome by the suspect.

 

[JustinJ]

Ok...and I never said that it was, and now haven't said that it was, twice. Only that this case is a serious warning about a pitfall that can happen in situations where a citizen's arrest SEEMS like a good idea.

The original comment, "I'm going to mentally file this one away for the next time someone posts about citizen's arrests" came off to me as a broad statement of this is why any citizen arrest is a bad idea given the next post could be in regards to an obvious felony.

I'm sure those two helpful neighbors believe they were clearly seeing a felony in action. They took what possibly could have been a lawful action to stop that breaking and entering and arrest (detain for the police) the "perpetrators" -- if only they'd guessed RIGHT and that's what was happening. They believed they understood what they were seeing. The difference between perception and reality is going to make them felons.

True, but their foolishness does not mean the rest of us lack the ability to exercise better judgement.

The list of things that I believe I need to take on the risks attending performing a citizen's arrest in order to stop right now is very VERY short. I'll be a good witness, call 911, perhaps even try to maintain visual contact with the actors. But drawing a gun and detaining someone? Just like in preserving my own life...somebody is going to have to be nearly about to DIE or that's just not happening.

There are certainly scenarios in which one would not need to draw a gun to detain someone. Also, saying "stay there, you're under arrest" does not mean one is required to necessarily touch the perpetrator. Wether or not to pursue them if they flee could be a whole other discussion.

I think the list of situations in which there is a potential for ambiguity that cannot be detected by the actor is longer, but even in clear cut cases involving actual felonies, the actor will almost always have to depend upon corroborating testimony from witnesses and/or the victim, and when for whatever reason they provide a different story (or none) after the fact, the actor is in a bad way. Happens to sworn officers, too.

As stated already i believe there are definitely scenarios in which the associated risks are worth it but its not a long list from my perspective.

 

[saltydog452]

Fuel for the fire

Determining exactly who is the 'actor' and who is the 'victim' is the heart of the issue.

Because words were spoken to the effect that a 'phone call to a relative would make everything all right just might not carry much weight at that time.

A couple of years ago, prez BHO and veep Biden hosted a chat where a LEO (Caucasion) and a Homeowner (Black) had a confrontation dealing with suspected intrusion. Lots of air time prior to, and afer, the initial incident.

It isn't a perfect world and assumptions are made.

salty

 

[Sam1911]

The original comment, "I'm going to mentally file this one away for the next time someone posts about citizen's arrests" came off to me as a broad statement of this is why any citizen arrest is a bad idea given the next post could be in regards to an obvious felony.

It was a broad statement that citizens arrests are very dangerous ground and that this is EXACTLY the kind of situation where folks get into trouble. It is a cautionary tale, and example to learn/teach from. Hence, I mentally file it away as an example to point to when the subject of citizen's arrests comes up. ---> "Here is a danger you need to avoid when contemplating taking this action."

True, but their foolishness does not mean the rest of us lack the ability to exercise better judgement.

I didn't say that YOU wouldn't have executed better judgment. Only that this (and a lot of very similar cases -- often even when a crime WAS afoot!) are poignant examples of instances where someone's judgment about the events taking place was flawed, their beliefs about the law seem to have been quite mistaken, and they compounded the gravity of their errors by basing on that flawed judgment an action that is very risky, both tactically and legally.

That could happen to lots of people. (Maybe not you -- that's very good!) But many people (a majority of people, probably) do not have any better an understanding of these things than the Canoleses did (though they're probably getting quite an education on those matters now). So, cautionary tales like this can be useful to keep on hand.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: As stated already i believe there are definitely scenarios in which the associated risks are worth it but its not a long list from my perspective.

So, what constitutes sufficient upside to outweigh the very considerable potential downside?

I'll provide the following as a start, for food for thought:

Absent a sworn duty, sufficient training, approved procedures, proper equipment, indemnification by the community, and the support of a fellow officer, attempted detention of a suspect is contraindicated unless....

• the actor has reason to believe that unless the suspect is apprehended immediately, he or she will contitute an immediate and serious danger to others; or
• the actor has reason to believe that the suspect is a violent felon and that if he is not detained at the time, there is a high risk that he or she will not be apprehended for some time.

Absent either of those, I do not see a lot of value in putting oneself at high risk. Someone may have committed a rather serious crime, but unless the circumstances are such that he or she is likely highly dangerous to others, immediate detention by a citizen would seem to provide little benefit over methodological pursuit and arrest by the authorities, but it would certainly entail high risks of several kinds.

 

[JustinJ]

So, what constitutes sufficient upside to outweigh the very considerable potential downside?

It sounds as though you are asking for a black and white answer to a very gray topic. The number of potential factors are enormous. There are also a huge number of potential ways to go about attempting a citizen arrest from just stating the words to wrestling to the ground and handcuffing. One could simply say "dont' move" and it may or may not work. If they abide you are technically detaining them but if they fail to comply we now have a whole new scenario. At one end of the spectrum, if one stumbles upon a malnourished 120 lbs bum molesting a child detainment would certainly be the right course of action, imo, and physically if need be. If not apprehended immediately the bum could escape and assault again. On the other end of the spectrum one could witness a group of young healthy men egressing from a liquor store with guns and cash in hand. In such a situation attempting arrest has such a low probablity of success that it would be foolish to try.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: It sounds as though you are asking for a black and white answer to a very gray topic. The number of potential factors are enormous.

Well, I did offer a proposed set of standards....

There are also a huge number of potential ways to go about attempting a citizen arrest from just stating the words to wrestling to the ground and handcuffing.

I know of no qualified trainer who would suggest that anyone, much less a civilian, undertake handcuffing a suspect alone. That's a very good way to get killed.

....if one stumbles upon a malnourished 120 lbs bum molesting a child detainment would certainly be the right course of action, imo, and physically if need be.

I really do not think it prudent to get into a situation in which one might exchange bodily fluids with any stranger, much less a malnourished bum. Do you?

If not apprehended immediately the bum could escape and assault again.

Unlikely. An APB with digital photos should bring him in before another opportunity presents itself.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Protecting an empty house is not a high priority with me but would warrant a 911 call no matter how slow response would be even in the county. And the rule is use of lethal force (which includes brandishing) is justified in response to an imminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm. Not to a break-in at an empty neighboring house.

And comparing what these guys did to what is known about the Zimmerman case is an insult to Zimmerman, een with the jury out on that one.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It sounds as though you are asking for a black and white answer to a very gray topic.

It actually isn't gray at all, it is even more clear when you don't have a sworn duty to stop a crime.

It should be the action taken when there is no other option to prevent on-going immediate (not potential) physical harm to another person.

That means you witness and rape/stabbing/choking in progress.

As a lawful CCW, traveling alone, I certainly wouldn't close and grapple with a stranger. If something can be stopped with a verbal command, it likely isn't serious enough to bypass a 9-1-1 call

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
There are also a huge number of potential ways to go about attempting a citizen arrest from just stating the words to wrestling to the ground and handcuffing.

I know of no qualified trainer who would suggest that anyone, much less a civilian, undertake handcuffing a suspect alone. That's a very good way to get killed.

That has not been advocated. I for one don't travel with handcuffs. The point, that i thought obvious, is that there are numerous potential scenarios and possible ways to attempt detainment.

I really do not think it prudent to get into a situation in which one might exchange bodily fluids with any stranger, much less a malnourished bum. Do you?

So then if said bum refuses to quit you will allow it to continue until LE arrive to avoid the risk of contamination? God, i hope not.

Unlikely. An APB with digital photos should bring him in before another opportunity presents itself.

Okay, so said bum has a mask on or your cell phone has no camera or your battery is dead. I'm not trying to play "what if". I'm illustrating that varying degrees of risk exist in different situations. The point at which the risk outweighs the reward to a person is not something easily quantified. And maybe "unlikely" is good enough for you in preventing a second sexual assault but if i can do more i see it as a moral obligation.

Personally i'm glad i don't live in a world where all men only do what's right or stand up to heinous acts only after a swearing in ceremony or when there is no risk to themself.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: So then if said bum refuses to quit you will allow it to continue until LE arrive to avoid the risk of contamination? God, i hope not.

We were speaking of citizens' arrest, not the use of force to prevent a forcible felony.

 

[mgkdrgn]

it is even more clear when you don't have a sworn duty to stop a crime.

Ummmm, if you think POLICE -do- ... think again.

The police have no legal duty or obligation do to anything, at any time. They have no legal obligation to protect anyone or any property. The Supreme court has upheld this may times.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mgkdrgn: Ummmm, if you think POLICE -do-[have a sworn duty to stop a crime] ... think again.

The police have no legal duty or obligation do to anything, at any time. They have no legal obligation to protect anyone or any property. The Supreme court has upheld this may times.

You are confusing a couple of different things.

Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have an enforceable constitutional duty to protect a citizen. That simply means that a citizen cannot collect damages from the Government in the event of losses resulting from a criminal act perpetrated by another citizen.

Sworn officers have a professional duty to enforce laws and ordinances, maintain order, and so forth. They therefore have the authority to make arrests, perform investigations, and so forth.

The sworn officer is indemnified by the community against claims for damages resulting from the performance of his or her duty.

While the private citizen may, in most jurisdictions, detain a suspect for committing certain serious offences, he or she has no duty to do so; his or her authority is very limited; and he or she will bear the full consequences of any claims for civil damages.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
Posted by JustinJ: So then if said bum refuses to quit you will allow it to continue until LE arrive to avoid the risk of contamination? God, i hope not.

We were speaking of citizens' arrest, not the use of force to prevent a forcible felony.

I understand that but the risk of contamination is the same. A number of other risks are shared as well. So i'm curious if the risks are too great to detain him are they not to stop him as well in your opinion?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: I understand that but the risk of contamination is the same. A number of other risks are shared as well. So i'm curious if the risks are too great to detain him are they not to stop him as well in your opinion?

The risks of contamination and other risks are such that I would not engage in grappling or risk close physical contact for any reason, particularly when I am armed. It is a good way to become infected and/or be disarmed, stabbed, shot, and so forth.

The are other ways to stop him.

 

[mole]

How about walk over and ask? If you are going to carry, keep it concealed. If your inquiry determines something not right, call 911. Drop back to observation mode while waiting.

The same thing happened to me a few years ago. I was cleaning the carpet before new renters moved in one of my dad's rental houses that had been empty for a few months. It was during a heat wave and the house didn't have air conditioning (metal thieves), so I decided to do it in the middle of the night when it was cooler. Some neighbors just happened to see my flashlight as I was poking about at 2 in the morning and came to see what was up.

They were friendly and polite and judging by how how they were acting at first, armed while keeping the weapons out of sight. I was carrying concealed. If they had acted like the guys in the article then things might have turned out badly. Instead my father found out that he had some good neighbors at one of his houses.