Jeff, you have made this an interesting (and civilized, thank you) debate!
I agree with you Jeff, we have allowed this discussion to go off subject and I think you may have won your case in some points, so let me answer some more of your questions/quotes.
So PA Civil Tort rules say that if the local police say it was justified you are immune from the suit? Is that codified into law? Are you saying that PA law enforcement agencies are also immune from false arrest/unlawful restraint suits if their own internal investigation says it's justified?
If a law enforcement officer states I was justified and exercised a proper (non-excessive) use of force, if any, to make the arrest, then I would not be considered civilly liable. Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies are not immune even if their own internal investigation states the arrest was justified, but if they were sued and lost, it would be up to that agency/department to make restitution, not the citizen who initiated the arrest. I hope this answers that question.
Testifying is one thing, paying the expenses of your defense is something else. Would they?
To be honestly, probably not. This is why I would be VERY sure I was justified to make an arrest before proceeding with it.
The gain of the arreest of the shoplifter doesn't outweigh the risks involved.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. There was a presumption made in this thread that the risk of others getting harmed was already considered and "ruled out", and I think you make a good point not only as a police officer, but as a observant and intelligent human being in general, that you can never "rule out" that risk, because you don't know what will happen until you are already in it. You also brought up the possibility of an "ambush" by friends waiting outside to "cover his back" and that's a very good point indeed. On duty, there's a "minimum risk" I have to take in order to perform my duties successfully. Off duty though, not having to take a risk, I would probably make the attempt to stop him (this assuming I'm sure a crime was commited and the arrest by the Loss Prevention Specialist was lawful) if I could do so without placing my own safety (or others' safety) at further risk by such an "ambush" (meaning I wouldn't try to chase him across the parking lot). As I said in my last post, I will consider the risk of injury to myself or others before intervening, and if I cannot directly intervene, I will call for police assistance and do my best to keep others from getting in harm's way (direct quote from my previous post).
Now change the situation to where the shoplifter is resisting and the loss prevention specialist needs help to keep himself or others from being injured and I'm right there. We now have the felony of Aggravated Battery being committed.
I'm not sure of how IL law works, but in PA, if a person commits Retail Theft, then attempts to flee apprehension, he IS resisting arrest and the charge then becomes Robbery. If he's physically resisting by fighting the Loss Prevention Specialist and you're witnessing this, then I too would be intervening to prevent the LP Specialist from further injury. If the perp was running without being previously apprehended, then it would still be a Retail Theft, and I would leave it to LP to pursue him. The fact that he was apprehended then escaped made it Robbery and Resisting Arrest (under PA law). This is where I'm saying I would be justified to intervene (but only if I could do so without placing innocent bystanders in harm's way, which is something I ALWAYS make sure of first).
I checked the Illinois statutes to see if differences in the laws between your state and mine are causing our differences of opinion here. As far as a private person making an arrest, they are justified to do so. The same applies here in PA.
But after reading the following, I have a question:
(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)
Would this mean then (in the case of our discussion) that the Wal-Mart perp would be authorized to resist arrest, since the LP Specialist acted on his own behalf and not under the direction of a peace officer? If so, then I can understand not intervening, since doing so would be a violation of the perp's rights. In PA though, the law considers resisting an arrest made by either a law enforcement/peace officer or private person to be a crime, and allows others to prevent the escape regardless.
Too bad you wouldn't want to live in Alma, it's a nice quiet town. I don't work there BTW.
I owe you an apology there Jeff.
Franklintown, PA, where I live, is a small town with a population of less than 500, and is typically quiet, although we do seem to get a fair share of domestic disputes from a few of my nearby neighbors. :banghead: I myself work in Harrisburg.
You're right, you don't know what kind of a cop I am. You don't know me at all.
Again another apology.
I think we both got the wrong impressions of each other at the beginning. I hope through this post we can start to understand each other better, therefore allowing all of us to be better educated on what we can/should and can't/shouldn't do in the kind of situation Smoke presented.
What were you detaining the woman for? Was she violent before you tried to take her into custody or did the fight start when you hooked her up?
OK, here goes the story: I responded to a scene where a woman had just gotten her nails done, and was unhappy with the product/service. When she salon manger refused to re-do her nails or give her a refund, she became irate, and the salon manager asked her to leave. We advised the woman that the salon manager's position was not a criminal offense; that it was a civil matter, and she would have to file a civil complaint with the local District Justice. We further upheld the salon manager's request and asked her to leave. She again verbally and loudly (using profane language) refused to leave. We told her if she did not exit the salon within 30 seconds she would be arrested for both Defiant Trespassing and Disorderly Conduct. During this time interval she stated, "I bet you $30 (the amount in dispute the whole time was $20) that you won't put your
-ing hands on me!" to which my Lieutenant replied to her, "If I have to ma'am, I can bet you $31 that I will." When she continued to refuse and continued to yell loudly, swear, and act in a threatening manner towards an officer, he grabbed her right arm and attempted to place a handcuff on her right wrist. When she attempted to swing a punch with her left arm, I grabbed her left arm, arm-barring her and both physically and verbally ordered her to the floor. She continued to struggle, and at one point my Lieutenant lost his grip on her right arm, to which her and I went over a chair and landed on her back, squaring off with me, kicking me in the chest (thank God for body armor) and striking me in the face, cutting me in the left temple with her nails. I leg-locked her to stop her kicking and used the handcuff already on her right wrist to engage "pain compliance" and thus completed restraining her after a brief further struggle. Note: The District Justice dismissed the Defiant Trespass charge, saying she had legal right to continue to occupy the premises due to her civil dispute with the manager. He did uphold the Disorderly Conduct and Simple Assault charge, also stating that her disruptive behavior, as well as assaulting me, constitued grounds for her to be removed from both the salon and the mall.
When I said there was nothing wrong with backing off and coming back with the resources needed to reslve the situation, I was referring to an arrest for a minor infraction that was about to turn into an encounter you might not win.
This is true and I agree with you, but we also don't know whether or not the infraction would turn into such an encounter one may not win, either. I don't know whether I would win the encounter unless I was engaged in that encounter. It's like trying to predict the outcome of a baseball game before the first pitch has been thrown. In this case, I would need to size up my "opposition" first. If the perp is twice my size and likely to mow me down if I stand in his way, then Heck, let him run - I'm not becoming a "spot on the floor". However, if we're talking about some scrawny teenage "punk" who's just quick on his feet, I probably would try to help the security guard "snatch him up". Smoke really didn't specify about the perp other than to say "stereotypical thug," which could mean any size/shape/strength of person.
Given your well put argument, I do have to say that Smoke may have "jumped the gun" for the fact he ASSUMED that the security guard grabbed an actual criminal and did not know for certain what the crime committed was. I'm only giving my opinion based on the presumptions of a retail theft being committed. If I were in Smoke's shoes, I'd have to "side-step" this situation, for I don't know all the facts for certain.
Sorry Smoke, I tried to back you up on this one, but Jeff here has made some very good points that have caused me to re-think things.
Young officers need to know how to work safely. They need to learn when to back down. Yes, believe it or not, there are times to back down. Make note of who the suspect is and come back and get them when you have enough help to deal with it.
You're absolutely right, Jeff. I didn't mean to give you the wrong impression. I too was one of those young, inexperienced officers, and even teach the new guys that if there's ever a doubt about the ability to handle a situation, call for backup, and simply keep observation and report until help arrives. I also teach them that you don't have to be a hard-a** to someone whose only offense is parking in a fire lane. Hey! Maybe you could show that same pointer to the rookie officer in my local PD before he ticks off the wrong person on a traffic stop and gets his butt kicked!
Explain to me how the retail theft suspect that this thread is about is the aggressor.
I was actually referring to Mr. "Hyped-out-on-PCP" that you mentioned, not the retail theft suspect.
Horge, even though the fact of CCW wasn't being brought into play in this thread, you did pose an interesting point regarding weapon concealment and retention, since I do carry a CCW. Personally, I carry and retain my weapon in such a way that should I need to defend myself physically against an unarmed person my weapon would remain concealed and retained in its holster. That's not to say the risk still isn't there - it's a matter of how each individual judges that risk. I've had a couple physical struggles when I backed up fellow officers at the mall while off duty shopping, and my CCW concealment/retention hasn't been a problem. As far as accusing LEOs or private citizens (CCW or non-CCW) of lacking courage or convictions, OK I accused one LEO but I do retract that, and for private persons I never did. I simply gave my opinion as to what I would do, and have already stated on a couple of occasions that I understand the position of those who would not get involved. Hope I cleared that up (again) for everyone.
Matt
P.S. Jeff, if I may ask, which department do you work for there in IL? Our department has a collection of uniform patches on our substation wall, and it would be a great honor if I could arrange with you to purchase/obtain one from your jurisdiction. I think it would also be a great story to tell my fellow officers the means that led up to getting that patch. Thanks.
. I'm under no obligation to always act and I'm a sworn peace officer.
That's exactly the kind of mindset that we try to dissuade young police officers from developing. Just because you've successfully subdued and handcuffed a violent 5'6", 260 pound woman doesn't mean that the 5'4", 145 pound man who's wigged out on PCP won't stomp your butt into the pavement. I know a lot of cops and security guards and private citizens and I've yet to meet superman. I see nothing wrong with backing away from a situation and coming back later with whatever resources you need to reslove the situation the way it needs to be. It doesn't make you any less of a man. If you keep charging headlong into every situation because you don't have the luxury of doing otherwise you're eventually going to get hurt. 
Thank you again for not being offended by those of us who would take action. Thank you also for being specific about why you wouldn't intervene based our your state's laws, and I'll agree with you and take heed to that should I get the chance to visit your fine state (I'll also heed the advice to bring a windbreaker when in Chicago 