Man Charged with Failing to Aid Officer

[Orthonym]

I dunno.

IANAL, nor an historian, but I think that policemen are authorized to do anything a private person may do, plus do arrests for misdemeanors. Meaning, that we all have a duty to raise the "hue and cry" and chase felons.

This situation seems to me more like the officer having worked up more of a sweat than he was used to, and being upset that a bystander (who said he'd spoken with the "perp" earlier) was not all gung-ho and rowdy to help him.

Of course, if this were a real republic of free citizens, any criminal, when identified in the act, would run *towards* the nearest police station, to avoid the torches, pitchforks, bullets, pikes, etc...

As in, "Hey, we're the Official Police. We'll arrest you, book you, shepherd you through the "justice" system, you'll get a fair trial and a decent hanging, with due ceremony.

Or would you rather be torn limb from limb by the outraged citizenry, on the spot?"

Ah, just a dream, I'm afraid. I think things are becoming very upside down and backwards.

 

[rms/pa]

this particular situation seems to be an
"LEO said he said case"

on rendering assistance, the basis of police powers in PA are sourced from the old concepts of "watch and ward" and "hue and cry" in english common law.

"watch and ward " requires all persons to look for crimes and try to stop them if in progress. particularly malum pro se crimes.

"hue and cry" requires all persons in sight or hearing to assist in apprehending malfactors escaping arrest and assisting in transport to the nearest magistrate.

these concepts have been expanded/confused/clarified/restricted by later case/statutory law but still do apply to the main extent.

note: if you find that last sentence self contradictory you have to read more of PA law and court cases.

rms/pa

 

[Ridge]

They don't really care about us<>...

(Grammaw stopped by...)

 

[JohnBT]

"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."

No one? Did you even read all of the responses?

In any case, there is still a difference between volunteering to help someone and being required to do so by a law that makes no allowances for individual circumstances. Why didn't they enact a very simple law that anyone assisting an officer who has requested help would not be liable for their actions? You get a lot more cooperation by asking nicely.

John

 

[garyk/nm]

Wow, this is a tough one. So far, I can see the logic in what everyone has said. Jeff White makes a very good point. We (editorial) make a great show of our belief in our Constitutional rights. Membership in the unorganized Militia is not just an excuse to buy more guns. It carries certain obligations as well.
Being middle-aged and somewhat out of shape, I don't know how much help I would be, but I will try to help if needed. It is part of the price of membership.

 

[GRB]

Taurus 66,

Sorry Glenn, but I don't rate my loved ones and a cop (being a complete stranger that is) as equal in my eyes.

This makes my point perfectly, all many of you are concerned about is you and your own. The thing to realize though is that when the SHTF for real - you may not be there but it may be happening to one of your loved ones as it happened to this cop, or to my mother, or a million other victims. Should all the other people who witness the barbarism taking place against your loved ones then just walk on by simply because those other people do not value your loved ones as much as they value their own loved ones - just as you would walk on because you value your loved ones more than some cop who is a stranger to you? Don't you get it, this is selfish, self serving behavior that benefits no one except the bad guys. Should your family travel in pairs for safety and therefore others should just ignore them when they need help?(Certainly not all cops, especially beat cops, are partnered up as you seem to think. Backup officers are often only a fleeting wish in such situations.) Should your family pull out the cell phone to call the cops, while others do as you would do and keep walking as your family is attacked? Should your loved ones stop the fight, let the bad guy beat them all the more, while trying to go for the cell phone as the cop would have to do to go for the radio. There is no magic mojo in technology if you cannot make the call because you are in the heat of a life or death struggle; I know that for a fact and have the scars to prove it.

What you are saying, the attitude you are exhibiting, is the same one of apathy that allows criminals to get away with it as often as they do. This is how gangs come to rule. They become brazen because many people, in essence, act like herd animals and basically stampede to get away instead of going to help. Keep on keeping on for just yourself and your loved ones and, just forget about everyone else and the world continues to change more and more into the place that you do not want it to be - one that is filled with dirtbags who will eventually rule.

Again, I will admit that laws saying you must help, in light of court decisions that the police are not likewise obligated to help you, are not to my taste either. Those laws though should have nothing to do with tempering you enthusiasm about helping someone who needs help in such a situation, and by someone I do not mean the bad guy. Whether it be your loved ones, a cop, a dog catcher, or a complete stranger like in the case with my mom you should, in my opinion, be in there helping if you can, as best you can once you realize your help is needed. In the case where someone is calling out for help, you can be pretty certain it is needed.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[Sam]

$5.00 proze to Orthonyn who got it correct on the first try.
Criminally speaking a LEO's only additionally authority is in ealing with misdemeanor crime.

There are some administrative authorities granted in some jurisdictions but the bottom line is he can write you a ticket or haul you in for spitting on the sidewalk.

Sam

 

[ksnecktieman]

I think I would help the officer (If he asked, or commanded). As soon as the situation was under control I would beat feet away from there. The leo has no need for my name.
I would be thinking of the guy mentioned before that saved the guy from drowning, and the police had him swim back across the river that was too dangerous for him to enter so they could arrest him.
I would be thinking about the local cabbie that called pd for a skip out on his fare. He was standing at the door the man entered using a cell phone. A woman answered the door for Leo, and told them there was no one there but her. The Leo wrote the cabbie a ticket for parking too close to an intersection.
I would be thinking how difficult it would be for additional responding officers to distinguish between me and the car theif.
I hope the cruiser camera has enough video to prove or disprove the demand for help. If it is not on tape, the guy should walk.

My personal opinion is that the "Hue and Cry" laws of the distant past were good things. If you witnessed a crime, it was your duty to raise a "Hue and Cry", and if you heard the "Hue and Cry" it was your duty to respond and assist.

 

[GRB]

I placed this in a seperate post because this is nothing personal directed at anyone in this thread, this is just a general observation and opinion I have about this matter.

When it comes right down to it, I do not believe that people simply do not get involved because it is a stranger who needs the help and because they do not care about the stranger. That is just part of it. I believe they do not help more because they are afraid of being hurt, a totally self centered fear of injury is in my mind the key. With family they are compelled to protect their own familes because they would be too afraid to face their own loved ones after the fact of their not having helped them in a SHTF situation; they are more afraid of being hurt like that. The fear of being shamed by family (or by our own conscience in the event a family member is lost because of your inaction) is what helps you overcome the fear of actually getting involved and possibly inviting harm upon yourself when you dive in to help your family (not necessarily a conscious thought process). With strangers you don't have as strong a fear of being shamed so there is less incentive to help. With strangers you usually have an easy out, you will never see them again so don't have to be afraid of facing them after you turn your back on their pleas for help. You can always say I feared for my welfare and that of my family, I had to move my family out of the way, I would have been sued had I helped, I had to be able to go to work the next day to support my family, and any other excuse you can think of to not help and place yourself in harm's way at the same time. This is the easy out. The sad part is that you are ignoring a moral obligation to assist, you are allowing fear to control your actions and you are simply reacting to fear instead of taking action to assist. You are aloowing all the same things you fear to happen to you to happen to the victim, you give impetus to others to do as you have done (how often do we hear the excuse "everyone else did the same as me and walked by, we really didn't think it was our obligation") and you empower the bad guys who become more brazen when they realize that people are so intimidated by them that they will turn and flee instead of help other citizens.

I think you should compel yourself to help and, you should try to get others to help too. The world would be a better place for it.

All the best,
GB

 

[RangerHAAF]

I look at it this way; SCOTUS ruled that the cops don't have an obligation to protect the public. Their mandate really is to preserve order. Why should the cops expect any help from the public when they(cops) have said numerous times that they don't want civilians acting within a law enforcement capacity. Fine, I have no problem with that but they can't have it both ways.

 

[Zach S]

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.

I work in sheetmetal fabrication. Getting minor cuts or some requiring stitches isnt part of my job, but it has happened. Getting fingers crushed or even cut off in a brake press isnt part of the job either, but it's happened to some of my past and present coworkers, and it will likely happen again. It's not an expected part of the job, but it is a risk that everyone is made aware of the fisrt day on the job. Yes, training on how to aviod being sliced up and/or having our digits crushed or cut off, and we have protective equipment, but like all protective gear, it has its limits.

As a LEO, you know the risks involved with the profession. Just like my profession, you (hopefully) also have the training and equipment needed to do that job. As a citizen, I dont. Some of the LEOs I know feel most citizens would probably just get in the way due to the lack of training.

I'd probably offer help if I feel its needed, or depending on how bad it is I may just jump in. Other times I'll walk away.

 

[Harve Curry]

QUOTE :" If the police have no duty to the individual, the individual has no duty to the police"
On a case by case basis I agree.
As I understand it today police are not required to put themselves in jepordy and are protected from doing so. Maybe thats why the police car doors no longer say "To Serve and Protect". But today we have LEO's whom are not all or always concerned about the Constitution as they are Law and CYA.

 

[BryanP]

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

Now now Jeff you should know better. THR membership has plenty of "I want it both ways" types. Just as many as ye olde DU membership.

Me, I would have tried to tackle the guy or at least give him a good kick in the temple or something to distract him while the cop was wrestling. Or maybe just sit my big fat butt down on his head. That should take the steam out of him.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

City v country

It seems that the number of people possibly willing to help an LEO is directly proportional to their distance from a big city.

IOW, few, if any, would assist a Chicago cop. However it sure seems that Officer Opie has friends he's yet to meet.

 

[El Rojo]

As a LEO, you know the risks involved with the profession. Just like my profession, you (hopefully) also have the training and equipment needed to do that job. As a citizen, I dont.

Exactly. That is why regular Joe citizen does not need to carry a handgun or any kind of firearm for that matter. I mean why would we want citizens walking the streets with guns if they don't have the training? Citizens are not trained to be police, so as a result, they don't need guns or fast cars as their lack of training endangers everyone and the police are the only ones professional enough in this room that I know of capable of handling Glocks and arresting bad guys.

Usually High Roaders harp on the police for having the right to carry firearms, yet we don't. They argue that we are not different than police and we should be able to defend ourselves and others. I guess that is until they feel like they have some legal or moral obligation then suddenly they do not have the required training and they can't be bothered with such obligations. Which way is it going to be ladies and gentleman?

Second this whole argument that cops have no obligation to protect you so why should you protect them is selfish bunk. There are rare cases where the cops don't protect people. How many other times do cops put their butts on the line to help others and do the right thing? I would venture millions. Just like the armed citizen who helps out but gets no praise from a vicious and cynical pack of dogs, it appears that the good cops are in the same boat. The hypocrisy of High Road members is enough to make me choke. We should rename this place "The High Road (when it suits my needs)".

 

[Art Eatman]

Control the emotions, folks...

Art

 

[Taurus 66]

Should all the other people who witness the barbarism taking place against your loved ones then just walk on by simply because those other people do not value your loved ones as much as they value their own loved ones - just as you would walk on because you value your loved ones more than some cop who is a stranger to you? Don't you get it, this is selfish, self serving behavior that benefits no one except the bad guys.

Yeah, I see it now from your point of view Glenn. Hell ... I like the way you think. Now if you would excuse me, I'm gonna take the kids out and down to the corner for some ice cream. Who knows ... if we're fortunate we will get to see quite the action as some lone officer struggles to apprehend a suspect all by himself *WITHOUT BACK UP. Oh we'll just jump right in. Susie can afford to give up an eye and some facial skin. Johnny's only 8. He can have a broken arm and if he wants, lose his front teeth. My insurance will cover it. And as for me, I'll take the brunt of the attack beit a gun or knife wound. It's all good.

* Notice the Underlined

 

[Jammer Six]

Buzz, "wetback" is not a pejorative in Texas, at least not among us rural old folks

Your post wasn't made in Texas. It was made on the The High Road.

It's a disgusting term.

Whether rural Texans know that or not is irrelevant.

It's why the South defended slavery- it's the way it was in the South, and it wasn't offensive in the South.

Well, it wasn't offensive to the owners, anyway...

To make this clearer, you don't get to dictate what offends me.

I'll tell you what offends me, whether we're standing in Texas, Washington, or Bora-Bora.

I don't care what the Good Ole' Boys back home think about it.

Once you know that a given phrase is offensive, particularly on such a basic value as the differences between tribes, what you choose to do with that knowledge, whether you choose to continue offending others with your choice of words reflects directly, solely on you, and is a crystal clear, perfectly focused snapshot of your values, your respect for others, and your manners.

Men treat others with dignity and manners.

Even when they're wrong.

That duty is amplified when a position of authority, like the one you hold here, is present.

Sir.

 

[Joejojoba111]

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

Quote:
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"


Here's the thing - a lot of people aren't refusing to help because he's a police officer. I see some of you guys slanting it that way, trying to put words in their mouths. But that's not the case. What they don't like is being ORDERED to aid or being a CRIMINAL. See? To clarify, for those still pretending not to understand, they don't object so much to the act (which may injure them, or may be a wrongful arrest) as they object to the loss of personal liberty.

So I guess logic doesn't work, honesty is pointless, I'll use your trick and make it a zero-sum game. What if the officer is breaking the law? What if he's dragging a dead teenage-girl's body to the creek, and order's you to help? What if he's beating some hippie's and one starts crawling away, and he orders you to stop him? According to you the law is clear, we have to obey orders.


And furthermore, the 'militia' you quote is as farcical as many of your other arguments. IF it were real, and respected, and enshrined in law, then anyone between the ages of 17-47 would be able to own rifles with a calibre greater than .50 inches. But they don't. And light machine guns, and rotary cannons, and 60mm mortars. But we don't. Because the 'law' has made it illegal, despite being in a militia. Despite the 2nd amendment.

So when we see police arresting people and charging them with crimes, crimes that are perfectly legal by the constitution which you are in fact quoting, then we wonder why they do this. Some people take it as an insult, and blame police. But many realize that the police only do what they're told, they 'follow orders'. A little more thought and you realize that it is the legislation that is the problem. And when you look at the legislation, it's once again the police who are behind it! So they pass the legislation they like, enforce it as they like, and then tell you that you are part of a militia and should help them, no matter what.

 

[rabbit]

There are rare cases where the cops don't protect people. How many other times do cops put their butts on the line to help others and do the right thing?

Police are not around when you need them because bad people do not assault, rob, and other things in front of Police Officers (usually). Police are not there to do "the right thing", you got that from watching too much
TV. They are there to enforce laws upon you and me. They put their butts on the line because that is what they chose to do, like fireman, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, and cab drivers and convenience store clerks. You know which of those occupations is the most hazardous? I have been glad to have the police around on a couple occasions and not glad on others. I agree with both sides to a certain degree but will do what my conscience and the situation tells me.

And you are really one to talk about controlling yourself Art.

 

[Art Eatman]

Jammer Six, if it's not offensive to them, per my own eyeball experience, why is it so offensive to you?

If it's not offensive within our own local culture, where is it written that outsiders can come in and dictate what is or is not politically correct?

We should have a Constitutional Right to be unoffended by other cultures' manners, morals and mores?

Art

 

[Blacklabman]

Cop would have been own his own, whether he was cracker, a boo, a wetback or a Heinz 57.
End of Strory.

Last time a person helped a cop here, the so-called victims family sued that person. Quote laws all you want to. 99% of the time, they do not work in the Real World.

 

[Flyboy]

El Rojo:

Second this whole argument that cops have no obligation to protect you so why should you protect them is selfish bunk. There are rare cases where the cops don't protect people.

I believe a large part of the sentiment here is not a refusal to help, but a resentment of a legal duty to help, when the courts have ruled that no such legal duty extends the other way. I'm not saying I wouldn't help an officer in need, but I would consider the totality of the situation, including risk to myself, before I jumped in.

While I think the "stupid enough" comment was out of line, the underlying point is that police officers voluntarily, and with understanding of the risks, choose to put themselves in harm's way. That they do so is a testament to their sense of duty and responsibility to the community, and is to be commended, but the fact remains that it is a voluntary assumption of risk. I, and I believe most of the posters in this thread, resent the idea that the government, from its comfortable seats in the house and senate (assembly, council, whatever your state calls it), can scribble out a few signatures and involuntarily bind all of us to that service. Further, the wording of the law, "...shall not be civilly liable for any reasonable conduct in aid of the officer," raises legitimate questions about what constitutes "reasonable" conduct. In a legal system in which burglars have successfully sued homeowners for injuries sustained while practicing their "trade," fear of legal repercussions arising from such assistance is quite reasonable. In fact, we need look no further than this very board to find examples of debate on what's "reasonable:" just run a search for "taser," and you'll come up with a couple of dozen threads. If we, as generally like-minded people, can differ so radically in opinion, what can we expect from the public at large? Further, what is the liability associated with assisting an officer if he's not "[a]pprehending a person whom the officer is authorized to apprehend?" Is the city (county, state, etc.) going to come to my aid if I assist an officer who, say, goes to the wrong house? I know that's rare, but it's a legitimate risk. Most jurisdictions indemnify invidual officers (all government officials, frequently), shifting liability to the department (agency). Do those laws cover me?

Jeff White:
Your question is a good one. I'm still thinking about it. Actually, I've been wondering about such things for years, but that's another question entirely. I'd like to say it's different because a military invasion is a threat to society as a whole, but I know that's just a rationalization. I'm inclined to think you may be on to something there.


As for myself, I would take up arms in the case of an invasion, and I'd probably assist the officer, but in both cases, I'd do it on my terms, after my own assessment of the situation. If I thought the risk was unacceptable in the former case, I'd find a different way to fight. In the latter, I'd probably try to exit the situation and call for backup. I'm not saying I won't help, just that I resent being involuntarily impressed into service.

 

[El Rojo]

Fair enough. I understand the critism of one set of laws for the police and another set for us. Living in an occupied state, I understand it is our duty to get that law turned around. Until we do we have to live with it.

I guess part of me that sort of blows this guy off is the only reason this is an issue is because he didn't help the officer. Had he helped the officer, then he wouldn't have been charged. I guess I am thinking had the civic mindset already been in place, he would have never just watched what was going on and he would have helped out and then he wouldn't have been charged. I mean we all understand that we don't have the full story here too. Who knows what this guy was really up to and if he might have been involved. We don't know. It is one word vs. another.

I guess I just don't see much difference in wanting to help and being obligated to help. The end result is the same either way. I understand the liberty centered mindset that takes issue with being asked and being commanded, I just don't subscribe to it as much. I tend to look at end results more than what it took to get there.

Anyone still care to answer to the charge that if we don't have the training to help cops, we don't have the training to carry firearms?

Also the back up issue is sort of a mute point. As we all know there is a thing called Murphey's Law. You aren't always going to have the time to call for back up as situations are fluid. Justifying that an officer deserves to get beat up and possibly killed because he signed up to be a cop and he didn't call for back up is weak at best. Bad things happen, but it is an opportunity for good to come out of it. Judging by some of the responses here, good only prevails when it is in someone else's convience or own interests.

If I thought the risk was unacceptable in the former case, I'd find a different way to fight. In the latter, I'd probably try to exit the situation and call for backup. I'm not saying I won't help, just that I resent being involuntarily impressed into service.

Calling for help is helping. That is some action, better than just standing there and watching. We agree that no one wants a death wish and no one should have to throw their life away just for the sake of "helping". In this case, this man did absoluetely nothing. A few on this board have advocated doing absolutely nothing. I think inaction is a sad commentary on the selfishness of society. No biggie, it is human nature and it is much harder to take action than do nothing. Some people just aren't up for the task.

 

[Double Maduro]

Glenn Bartley,

The obligation we have to help one another in such situations is a moral one, the right one!

I couldn't have said it better.

DM