Man Charged with Failing to Aid Officer

[Correia]

So what happens when the officer asks for me to help, and in the struggle I kill the kid accidently? Is the department going to step up and pay for my lawyers when I'm charged with manslaughter? The vast majority of us don't know how to subdue a suspect without hurting them. (size 15 boot to the head wasn't on the department approved list last time I checked).

Sorry, Jeff, disagree with you on this one. And I've told you of one instance where I did come to the aid of an officer, (unrequested, but I figured an extra gun wouldn't hurt). It is one thing to volunteer to help, another thing for it to be mandatory. That is like being drafted and sent to war with out having ever been through boot.

 

[rabbit]

Reminds me of the military- you get thrown in jail for refusing to obey an order from an "officer." Also reminds me of why people fled Europe for America- they were tired of being slaves in everything but name. But I have to say if the cop asked me to help, I would. My conscience would bother me too much if I didnt. But on principle I think it is wrong.

 

[buzz_knox]

Reminds me of the military- you get thrown in jail for refusing to obey an order from an "officer."

To combine our observation with Correia's, it is like the military in the sense that: if you disobey, you're courtmartialled (prosecuted); if you obey and the order was unlawful, you're courtmartialled (prosecuted and sued); if you obey but fail, you're likely to be sanctioned (prosecuted and sued); if you obey and succeed, the general (officer) gets the credit and you get (maybe) a pat on the back.

 

[Jeff White]

Corriea,
I don't think I ever stated if I advocated it being mandatory. I knew this law was on the books, but I never have heard of it being enforced.

I wonder how many other states have a similar law?

The disparity in responses between aiding a peace officer and jumping in to make a citizens arrest or take action in a situation where the police aren't present are pretty interesting.

Actually the law is pretty clear on legal protections when summoned or directed to assist a peace officer:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...00&SeqEnd=9500&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

When I used to teach this to the Guard in their annual civil disturbance training (guardsmen aren't peace officers by statute when called up for state active duty in Illinois) I referred to it as the peace officer cloaking the person that was summoned to assist with his peace officer status. When directed or summoned to assist a peace officer at that moment the private citizen becomes a defacto member of the agency that employs the officer, an agent for the state. The statute making assistance mandatory also exempts the person from civil liability.

Jeff

 

[HankB]

So what happens when the officer asks for me to help, and in the struggle I kill the kid accidently?

Good question - I figure if they're rolling around on the ground and the armed LEO asks for help, it's NOT reasonable for legally-disarmed, untrained little old me to jump in, start wrestling, and get bit or otherwise injured by some bad guy with who knows WHAT kind of communicable disease; stepping up and giving a snap kick to the back of the perp's neck is, in my opinion, reasonable.

But I doubt that I'm the one who gets to define "reasonable."

If the bad guy is DRT or crippled by my snap kick, then the cop I was helping will claim he never requested my assistance, that I used unreasonable force, that with no training I had no business butting in, and I'd end up wearing cuffs anyway as a murderous vigilante. (Remember this happened in ILLINOIS.)

No thanks . . . and I still expect charges will quietly be dropped.

 

[Art Eatman]

Good thing it didn't happen in Terlingua. That kid would have been buried under helpful people.

About a year ago, we had some wetback doofus on a minor "crime spree". A rusty, inoperable pistol with which he tried an unsuccessful holdup, and then he kept stealing cars that had almost no gasoline in them. That led to running around in the brush a lot, and an area-wide manhunt by both LEOs and locals.

One of the local deputies, during a coffee break, commented, "Well, I hope we find him before one of our good citizens does; he's got a lot better chance, that way."

(Grins all around). Someone asked, "You sure you really mean that?"

After a brief pause, the deputy responded, "Naaaaahhhhhh..."

, Art

 

[buzz_knox]

Art

I object to the term "wetback doofus." That is wholly inappropriate and very low road.

The high road version is "undocumented slimebag." Once he or she receives their toe tag, they become a "documented slimebag."

 

[Alex45ACP]

I most likely wouldn't get involved unless I knew exactly what was going on. These days, chances are the guy's being arrested for something that shouldn't even be illegal in the first place.

 

[Flyboy]

Art, you know better than to tell a story like that and not give us the end. Who ended up catching the wetb^H^H^H^H undocumented slimebag?

 

[GRB]

LEOs get paid to do it, I don't. I am not stupid enough to do a job like that...

It is stuff like this posted on this site that gets me wondering how anti-cop people who use this site truly can be! You are probably the type to be quite happy that someone has been "stupid enough" to take such a job when your butt winds up in in trouble they can pull it out of the danger and save you or yours! yet when you are looking at it from the sidelines you are one of the first to badmouth those who would at another time be your saviors.

By the way, LEOs do not get paid to be hurt or killed - it is not something expected of them as part of the job. Yes they do get paid to subdue criminals but; it is also true that you are required by law to assist them if they request such assistance. That would be called being a good citizen as opposed to a useless slouch who expects everyone else to do something. Just because you are a citizen does not give you some inalienable right to be useless.

With due regards,
Glenn B

 

[cpileri]

no... No... NO!!!

You all are looking at this all wrong!

We should prevent the case that if the citizen commits and offense if he refuses to obey a request by an officer to assist and is therefore obligated to assist, and

that "A person commanded to aid a peace officer shall have the same authority to arrest as that peace officer", while being obligated to help;

then the citizen should not be put in physical jeopardy by being forced to assist without being properly equipped and trained to do so!

Training? I'll get the training, don't worry! heck, now it will be mandatory!

So do you think they will allow citizens to carry ALL the standard LE gear? or will they change the law so a citizen is not required to help out?

Those are the only 2 choices I can see.

Any legal eagles think this could work?!

C-

 

[GRB]

So what happens when the officer asks for me to help, and in the struggle I kill the kid accidently? Is the department going to step up and pay for my lawyers when I'm charged with manslaughter?

Actually thie answer is yes sort of. The locality, not department, whose officer had you help is now responsible for covering your actions. So if it was a city cop, then the city and state should be covering you; if it was a federal agent then the fed. gov. should step in. I have a question for you:

So what happens when the officer asks for you to help, you do not help, the bad guy overpowers the cop and takes his gun and then kills the cop and shoots you or one of your family members dead too?

There is always a twist to the 'what if' questions. It could as easily happen this way as it did your way. Long before I ever even thought of becoming an LEO, I assisted a cop who needed and requested some help. It was a good feeling I had after that because I kinew even then, it had been the right thing to do.

Best regards,
Glenn B

 

[Art Eatman]

Aw, one of the locals spotted him and called the deputy. All peaceful and quiet. I think the lack of food and water and sleep, plus some cactus thorns, sorta took the ambition out of the Bad Guy.

Buzz, "wetback" is not a pejorative in Texas, at least not among us rural old folks. Many times I've asked some guy, "Tienes papeles?" and he'd respond with a grin, "No, soy moja'o." The ones working in ranch country have always seemed like pretty good folks.

In recent years the term has become inaccurate, in that the Rio is commonly so low that swimming is unnecessary. (The Hannity & Colmes "news lite" show from Lajitas was done right after some heavy rains upriver.) They keep on adding irrigation in Chihuahua state and our river-rafting outfitters are gonna start doing bicycle trips down Santa Elena Canyon.

'nuff drift.

Art

 

[buzz_knox]

Saying that one isn't stupid enough to do a job isn't necessarily anti-cop. There are many jobs I'm not dumb enough to take, and one that I was dumb enough to take (i.e. being a lawyer). It might be disrespectful to those who choose to follow the career path at issue but that isn't restricted to cops.

As for being useless, we certainly have obligations as citizens. But in our society, the gov't has told us that: 1) our right to defend ourselves and others is contingent on the state saying we can, and approving the means by which we do so; 2) denying us the means to do so in many cases; 3) telling us to rely almost exclusively on their agents for defense while at the same time telling us that said agents have no duty to defend us; 4) allowing a legal system to exist whereby wrong does can sue us for activities much like that requested by the officer. It's kind of hard to work up a real zeal to come to do one's civic duty right then.

This doesn't mean I wouldn't help. But I fully understand why some wouldn't. And it's not anti-cop. It's just a case of people reacting to the very different and incompatible messages being sent by the gov't.

 

[Sindawe]

By the way, LEOs do not get paid to be hurt or killed - it is not something expected of them as part of the job.

It IS however one of the known risks of the job, just as being spayed with nasty chemicals is one of the risks of working in a chemical manf. plant, or being involved in a spectacular crash is one of the risks of auto racing. Don't like the risks? Don't take the job.

 

[buzz_knox]

Art, I understand completely. But the joke was worth making but wouldn't have been worth much without the lead in.

Actually thie answer is yes sort of. The locality, not department, whose officer had you help is now responsible for covering your actions. So if it was a city cop, then the city and state should be covering you; if it was a federal agent then the fed. gov. should step in. I have a question for you:

I'd be real cautious about heading down that path. While you would be acting as an agent of the gov't, it would be very easy for said gov't to say you acted outside the scope of said agency. "The cop told him to help by holding the guy, not hitting him in the head." And if the argument is a violation of civil rights under color of authority, you might not be indemnified by the gov't regardless of how it feels about the issue. Civil rights violations tend towards personal liability (and jail time) as a matter of public policy.

 

[Oleg Volk]

No to mention that anyone who brings weapons to help the cop in IL will likely be charged with illegal carry...or be shot by other responders.

Getting into other people's fights is generally unwise. Getting involved with helping government employess is usually even less wise. I'd make exception for Jeff White because he is a personal friend, but not for a stranger in uniform.

 

[Art Eatman]

I guess if I had to put the ideas into words, I'd just leave it that I'm part of the community, and I'll help out with whatever is needed in keeping the peace. (We're not, as a group, much interested in enforcing laws.) I guess it wouldn't even occur to me to not at least offer to help.

But we have two LEOs to cover an area some forty by forty miles, and most of the roads are dirt. "Response time, ma'am? Aw, twenty-thirty minutes, if all the gates are open."

Art

 

[Control Group]

That would be called being a good citizen as opposed to a useless slouch who expects everyone else to do something. Just because you are a citizen does not give you some inalienable right to be useless.

I beg to differ. I think that's exactly what being a citizen of a free country gives me. I'm certainly not entitled to have someone else pick up the slack for me, of course - but then, by the same token, no one else is entitled to have me pick up the slack for them.

Now, just because I have the right to do something doesn't mean I'm right to do it. If a cop asked for my assistance in making an arrest, I'd do everything I could to help (which ain't much, I gotta say). That doesn't make it right for there to be a law demanding I do so. After all, why do we have police if not to enforce the law so we don't have to? Why should I have a legal duty to assist an officer whose job it is to enforce the law, when the officer has no legal duty to assist me, whose job has nothing to do with enforcing the law?

In both cases, of course, providing assistance is the right thing to do. I've got no particular use for slackers who'll let everyone else do the dirty work. But there's a big difference between "ought to do something" and "legally required to do something."

 

[grimjaw]

The article mentions that the suspect tried to wrest the officer's gun from him. If the officer commanded the citizen to help him, before or after, against an armed and deadly foe, what would the feeling be then? What right do we have to expect then to defend ourselves (and remain armed) if we are expected (by law) to assist with these sorts of situations?

I don't disagree with the law, I disagree with the removal of the RKBA.

jmm

 

[buzz_knox]

On a related question, if the citizen didn't have a valid firearms owner ID card and he got the gun from the bad guy, would he be prosecuted?

 

[Sam]

If anal orifices/orifi (don't know the proper grammer on this one) like Sheriff Rick stopped claiming special privilege (like unrestricted access to arms) he might get more support for himself and his officers.

Anyone ever really sit back and take a look at what a policeman can do that common Joe citizen cannot?


Sam

 

[bogie]

Does all this mean that if I grab the car thief's foot, and proceed to take 3-4 turns on it, that you wouldn't love me anymore?

 

[waterhouse]

Just out of curiousity, perhaps maybe one of you lawyer types can answer this for me:

We live in legal system which seems to live and die on technicalities. The police officer put in his report that he "asked" for help. The law clearly says if an officer "commands" you to help. Is there a difference in the legal world? My parents used to ask for my help all the time. I damn sure knew the difference when they commanded me to do something.

Once in new orleans I saw a drunk knock a cop's handcuffs away. The cop slammed the guy into a wall and held him up against it, but the cuffs were about 8 feet away. The cop looked at our group, and then down at the cuffs, and said "Hey, little help?" I was more than happy to pick the cuffs up and hand them to the cop, but before I got too close I told him to hold on real tight to the drunk I even got his business card out of the deal, which in a place like new orleans can come in pretty handy.

 

[buzz_knox]

Does all this mean that if I grab the car thief's foot, and proceed to take 3-4 turns on it, that you wouldn't love me anymore?

Only if it doesn't pop off. Then again, which is better: a dislocation so severe it'll never function again and will be a constant reminder/impediment or an amputation that will be a reminder but can be adapted to?