Man Charged with Failing to Aid Officer

[buzz_knox]

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?

I'm sure the officer will have changed "help" to "command" by the time the next rendition of the story rolls around. According to the "perp", the cop never asked for help to begin with. Something's fishy.

In actuality, I doubt if it matters. "Summoned or directed" leads me to believe that a call for help from a cop will be interpreted as a command, regardless of how couched.

 

[Warren]

I don't see myself as obligated to help any member of government in any task.

If it is directly in my interests to do so, or the lives of friends and loved ones are at stake of course i'll help to the best of my abilities but other than that.....

Y'all are on your own.

 

[Jeff White]

Buzz Knox asked;

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?

Well I suppose that he could be prosecuted. I do rather doubt he would be though. While there are enough ignorant gun laws nationwide, and there are some examples of where they have been used punitively in some jurisdictions, do you really think that a states attorney is going even check if the citizen who helped the officer retain control of his firearm had a FOID card and was legally able to touch it? States Attorneys are elected here, that would make a good headline come re-election time Hero Who Helped Policeman Regain Control of His Weapon Charged Because He Touched The Weapon Without Possessing a Valid FOID Card

Buzz, you're an attorney, does the kind of legal stupidity you suggest exist where you practice?

Jeff

 

[Joejojoba111]

"Glenn Bartley
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."

Methinks you do not pay close enough attention, to the information available on this site or to the reality of law enforcement. They're called law enforcement officers, not "Rescue Hero Patrol!", and if you would care to take your blinders off, and set aside your television-created false image of reality, you would learn that they have no duty, no obligation, and perhaps on occasion no desire to 'help you' or 'pull you out of danger'.

BTW Jeff White - there was another thread about a man who rescued a drowning person, but was ordered not to do so by the police. Remember? The only consistency that I'm beginning to see is that some people are in favor of the police giving a lot of orders, perhaps IMPOSING an unrequested undesired order on our society.

And until then you say jump, lots of us ain't going to say 'how high sir!?', but 'go flip yourself dude'.


On the other hand, it is the responsibility to be open minded, and I am reconsidering my harsh words. Now that I take the time to consider the other point of view, I come to the conclusion that it would be incredibly good job to be a police officer. Before it used to just sound like a lot of hard work, a lot of being maligned and underappreciated, but now there are all sorts of perks being offered by our new society... Hmm, hmm indeed.

 

[Island Beretta]

what exactly did the request for help mean?? call for backup, jump on the guy, punch out the guy, take the police gun off him to prevent the guy grabbing it? did the teen himself have a gun? what if he pulls it and starts shooting? Guys, there are too much variables here, things could have gotten way worse...

The Illinois law needs to be more specific..I think a lot of us would be more than happy to help a LEO in need (and a lot of us has) as long as we are sure of what we are getting ourselves in..

LEOs have to be careful about ambiguity as well..sometimes they refuse the help and you may even get arrest for 'obstructing the officer in the execution of his duties'..

 

[buzz_knox]

Buzz, you're an attorney, does the kind of legal stupidity you suggest exist where you practice?

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek but it does go to a point: would a person indoctrinated not to do something (i.e. touch weapons) do it when it becomes necessary?

As for the specific question, yes, such legal stupidity does exist here and everywhere. It depends on how embarrassed the agency is, and how they spin it. Would the prosecutor go forward with it? Well, that depends. I know one prosecutor who would, if the hero citizen was a political opponent.

 

[GRB]

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 makes it sound as if some want to whine about how they want it to be one way but, when the SHTF for real and they can do something - such as help apprehend a criminal - they give all sorts of excuses about how the big bad gubermint prevents them from doing anything (or any other excuse that fits at the moment). All this sounds like to me is nothing more than excuses to make up for someone not helping. The thing is, that is how we wound up in the situation we are in, people mouthing off about how brave and wonderful they are, about how terrible was crime, about how bad was this or that, then just making excuses and doing nothing about it except to think all they had to do was depend upon someone else. If that did not work, then the someone else they depended upon to do it all became the scapegoat. If enough people were of the slant that they did instead of they wussed out and cried foul we would be better off. You have to remember that we are truly our own government. You also have to remember to do what is moraly right. Sometimes that over rides your fears about being sued and even over rides your fears about being hurt. if it doesn't - well that is a personal problem of the individual who will risk nothing but who will only whine if he cannot enjoy all the fruits of our labors without laboring himself.

I am not saying the guy in this particular story was wrong. Maybe the cop did not ask for assistance, maybe the guy was not physically to give it, there could be lots of variables. Yet in general if a cop asks for help when it appears he is acting legally and really needs help - you tell me - would it be better to let the bad guy take him down and now have a gun to do more evil? I choose to think not and I would choose to assist if at all feasible. Best regards,
glenn B

 

[Double Maduro]

I don't see myself as obligated to help any member of government in any task.

If it is directly in my interests to do so, or the lives of friends and loved ones are at stake of course i'll help to the best of my abilities but other than that.....

Y'all are on your own.

Good to know where you stand. Does that mean you wouldn't help a strange woman being acosted in a parking lot? What about a kid being pulled into a car screaming "help"?

I know, now I've gone and made you think.

I personaly would have helped the officer. But then I'm just a young idealist, who thinks that anyone who routinely puts their life on the line to protect me and mine, should be given assistance if he asks for it.

I don't know about being compelled to do so however.

Yeah, before you go crazy on me, I'm not young, but at 58 I'm not old yet either. Actually my wife tells me I act like a teenager quite often.

DM

 

[Jeff White]

Buzz,
By and large the citizens of Illinois are not indoctrinated not to touch firearms. The "You can't touch a gun without possessing a FOID card or allow someone to touch a gun without making sure they have a FOID card" didn't start until the anti gun Ryans (George governor, Jim attorney general) started sending details of state troopers out to gun shows to make arrests for this "violation" four or five years ago in an attempt to run gunshows out of the state. I doubt if the average citizen of Illinois knows that the Ryan administration interpreted the law this way and I'm not aware that this practice has continued under the proudly anti gun (except South of I80 where they try to say they're progun) Blagojevich administration. Before then, you could walk into a gun shop or gun show and examine a firearm and no cared if you had a FOID or not unless you were purchasing it. It's funny, but allowing a customer to examine a firearm (especially at a gunshow) without first checking his/her FOID was a transfer of that firearm and a violation of the law but those class III dealers who rented machine guns at their ranges weren't actually transferring the the machine guns illegally. It all depends on which political ox they intend to gore that day. I'd say that the average THR member who doesn't live in Illinois knows more about our insane gunlaws then the average citizen or police officer or states attorney does.

But talking about things like that just confuses the issue. What makes this law any different then oh say; The Milita Act? Doesn't federal law, that members are so fond of quoting here at THR compel involuntary servitude if called? Do you think you should have the option of not reporting were the president to callout the militia? Doesn't the milita act require you to serve, and fight and die if necessary? Aren't you all members of the unorganized milita by federal statute?

Hmmm one could look at this law as making you members of the unorganized police reserve, or you could even look at it as a militia call up....

Joejojoba111 said;

Before it used to just sound like a lot of hard work, a lot of being maligned and underappreciated, but now there are all sorts of perks being offered by our new society... Hmm, hmm indeed.

This law isn't a new perk. It's been on the books since 1977.

Jeff

 

[JohnBT]

I'd do what I could to help, but I'm not really looking to have another back surgery because I was commanded to help wrestle some huge drunk crack addict. I don't have much feeling in my lower left leg(it beats pain though) almost 2 years post surgery and I don't figure the police are going to cover for me at work for 3 months or so if they have to peel the sciatic nerve root off my spine a second time. Nope, not looking for trouble. After 3 days on the morphine machine I talked my way out of the hospital and 16 oxycodone pills the first full day home didn't touch the pain. Nope, don't want to go there again...

I suppose I could ask, "Which ear you want me to shoot him in?"

John...let me go get a vest and some steel-toes boots.

P.S. - A month after the surgery I turned down a prescription for 70 oxycodone because I'd quit taking them. Then I found out how much they were worth apiece on the street. I still can't believe people take it when they don't have to. Yuck.

 

[Warren]

Good to know where you stand. Does that mean you wouldn't help a strange woman being acosted in a parking lot? What about a kid being pulled into a car screaming "help"?

Who said that i wouldn't?

Perhaps you should read that as "government agent" as opposed to member of government.

They don't pay me, in fact they force me to pay them, they control what weapons I can have etc. They can punish me for stuff that they get away with and since they are not obligated at all to do anything for me, why would they expect me to help them. But then I expect nothing from them so it evens out.

I personaly would have helped the officer. But then I'm just a young idealist, who thinks that anyone who routinely puts their life on the line to protect me and mine, should be given assistance if he asks for it.

I would need to see an itemized list of times they "routinely put their life on the line to protect me and mine", otherwise it is just PR blather.

For-profit companies can send me an itemized bill, why not the government?

 

[Double Maduro]

Quote:
Good to know where you stand. Does that mean you wouldn't help a strange woman being acosted in a parking lot? What about a kid being pulled into a car screaming "help"?



Who said that i wouldn't?

Seems to me that you did when you wrote.

If it is directly in my interests to do so, or the lives of friends and loved ones are at stake of course i'll help to the best of my abilities but other than that.....

Y'all are on your own.

and here I thought I'd made you think, wrong again.

DM

 

[Warren]

Y'all means "government agents" not random innocent citizen.

Though given my general out of shapness, bad knees, back etc.. if you are relying on me you'd best have a plan B.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I believe I'd pitch in as needed. I'd be cautious. I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but the right thing to do remains the right thing to do.

That said™, I disbelieve government has the right to demand my participation in police work.

 

[Remington788]

This is why everone should own a Mosin M38. When the officer asks for help, you walk back to your truck, load the M38 and proceed to fire one round in the air at about a distance of ten feet from the struggle. Everyone will be so def from the muzzle blast and concussion that there will be no more fight.

If the officer tells you to drop the gun, hey it only cost 60 bucks, so let it fall and say (or yell) "you asked for assistance"





Truthfully, though, I would leave the area once a cop shows up since it was just some guy stopping to help a motorist with a flat tire. The fight didn't happen until the cop found out the car was stolen.

 

[beerslurpy]

This is highly ironic news considering the outcomes of Riss v NYC, Deshaney v Winnebago County Dept of Corrections and Gonzales v Castle Rock.

How is it that the police have no obligation to protect us, but we are obliged to risk our lives on their behalf?

 

[cracked butt]

My whole problem with the situation is not about helping the police- I would help, but with the aftermath if something goes wrong. These days, civil suits seem to get filed against officers if the struggling suspect gets anything more than a scratch on his person from being apprehended. If I were to help an Officer and end up hamhandedly seriously injuring the suspect, will the Police deparment and police union pay for my defense in a civil or criminal suit, or will I be hung out to dry?

 

[Taurus 66]

When officers get killed in the line of duty, they get what? The medal of valor, medal of honor? ... What?

If I get killed assisting an officer, what will I get? A metal urn and then be forgotten about 2 days later?

 

[sctman800]

The law needs to be changed!!! There are a couple LEO's I know personally I would probably help, it would still depend on the situation at hand. Although it isn't really obvious, I have a bad shoulder and a bad back plus I am not a kid any more. Now, add in the allready stated fact that a LEO has no obligation to protect me or my family, and Illinois laws prevent me from carrying a concealed weapon even though 28 states do trust me to do so. I will probably walk away. Jim.

 

[GRB]

Assisting an officer in such a case does not necessarily mean jumping into the fray although in some cases that may be what is called for and is likely what I would do. If however you have a bad back, or are otherwise physically incapable of fighting, then why not call for help to 911? Why not call out to neighbors or passersbye to also help. Why not start yelling at the bad guy to cease. Distract the bad guy enough so the cop can get the edge. Why would you just walk away. is that what we should do when one of your loved ones is getting beaten to a pulp by some monster or a kid is being kidnapped? It should be the same for a cop.

The obligation we have to help one another in such situations is a moral one, the right one! To walk away from something like that is just plain wrong if you are capable of doing something to help, be it a cop, a molested child, a woman being raped, a guy being mugged and so forth. It is because people walk away from such things that they keep happenming as frequently as they do. Many do not see it as their own problem until it is themselves in a bad situation! I have been in the situation of being beaten down by 4 assailants. I had a crowd of about 30-40 ???????s watching it happen to me. One guy in the crowd had a set of balls and helped me. I got to my car and took out a gun and it was over quickly. That was many years ago, now the gun stays on me. My mother had a bum attack her on the street in NYC, a real psycho bum. He picke dup a piece of cinder block and hit her with it, then proceeded to beat her mercilessly. Hundreds of people walked by and did ABSOLUTELY nothing just as many of you would do nothing for the cop in this story.

One guy on a passing bus made the driver stop the bus, got off and grabbed hold of the whacko. The bus driver then also helped out. They very likely saved my mother's life. She was hospitalized in very serious condition but made a good recovery. My mother was not obligated to help anyone either, just like cops. Should those others all just have passed on by and let this dirtbag kill her because she had no obligation to help them? So what if the law says a cop can order you to help him. You may fault the law, but that is not the fault of the cop. Does a law like that really make the cop any less worthy of your assistance if he needs it? Does it make anyone less worthy of your assistance?

What happened to all the macho men and women of THR who talk often about being ready for anything and, who claim to take the HIGH road and do the right thing. What I am seeing here is an awful lot of people who seemingly would let someone who needed help like this go without the benefit of your help simply because he or she is a cop?

 

[beerslurpy]

I think we resent being held to a higher standard of liability than those for whom protection is a profession and an official duty.

I dont think any of us have any moral difficulty with assisting fellow citizens (police or otherwise) when they are attacked by bad men.

 

[El Rojo]

Second is the fact that the person you are obligated to help represents the gov't (in Illinois at least) that has largely denied you the most effective tools to help.

A gun in this situation is the most effective tool for help? Who wrote this? Are you a member of the London Metro Police? "I saw the officer and the man fighting each other. The officer asked for help and so I walked up to the subject and shot him 7 times in the head at point blank range." Give me a break. A handgun wouldn't do much good in this situation. The officer asked for help, you need a baseball bat or some steel toed boots.

It also cracks me up about how I read at the beginning of the thread this quote form the IL law.

(725 ILCS 5/107‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑8)
Sec. 107‑8. Assisting peace officer). (a) A peace officer making a lawful arrest may command the aid of persons over the age of 18.
(b) A person commanded to aid a peace officer shall have the same authority to arrest as that peace officer.
(c) A person commanded to aid a peace officer shall not be civilly liable for any reasonable conduct in aid of the officer.
(Source: P.A. 80‑360.

Then most people say that they wouldn't want to get sued if they helped the officer. Do THR members bother to read the threads before they comment?

I am with Glenn, another great case here at THR where no one wants to take the High Road and help out, they just want to look out for number one and everyone else be damned. That attitude is so tiring around here. It is true we get to hear about all of this bravado about SHTF and shooting bad guys, but God forbid if it actually comes around to it, everyone else is too self-important to take the risk.

As far as the situation goes, it is a he said, he said. The law is on the books, if the officer can convince a jury the guy broke it, then he pays the fine. Change the law if you don't like it. Everyone wants to complain about the Supreme Court case where cops have no duty to protect you, well pass a law saying otherwise. Obviously the people of IL passed a law stating you have an obligation to help the police. Do the opposite as well. No one is stopping you.

 

[c_yeager]

When it turns out that the "suspects" rights have been violated and lawsuits/criminal charges start making the rounds, our friends LEO has his entire union behind him, the citizen has only as much protection as they can afford. That alone is enough to make the difference.

 

[Taurus 66]

is that what we should do when one of your loved ones is getting beaten to a pulp by some monster or a kid is being kidnapped? It should be the same for a cop.

Sorry Glenn, but I don't rate my loved ones and a cop (being a complete stranger that is) as equal in my eyes. Of course I'm going to put my life on the line for my wife or child! A cop is not my wife and is certainly no child, first of all. Second, he/she should have their own backup already on scene instead of looking absolutely rediculous asking Joe Citizen for help in a tough situation. Or is this the only cop available in Opieville?? Third, if more than two is required, get on the radio and call for back up! That's the true magic behind this technology. More police should learn about radios.

 

[Jeff White]

Well, it's a little more then 10 hours and 14 posts since I asked this question:

But talking about things like that just confuses the issue. What makes this law any different then oh say; The Milita Act? Doesn't federal law, that members are so fond of quoting here at THR compel involuntary servitude if called? Do you think you should have the option of not reporting were the president to callout the militia? Doesn't the milita act require you to serve, and fight and die if necessary? Aren't you all members of the unorganized milita by federal statute?

Many members here even brag about being in the unorganized militia in their signature lines. Yet no one has explained what the difference is between the federal statute that compels all able bodied men of a certain age to be members of the unorganized militia, and the Illinois law that compels you to assist a peace officer if summoned. Why? Is it because the membership here would rather make emotional arguments and statements then look at their obligations as a citizen to help maintain an orderly society?

Jeff