Real life scenaria from a non-scenario fan

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: [In response to the statement that one making a citizen's arrest would be liable for injury, etc.] Based on what? What case or statute in TX indicates such?

Common law, which is the basis for most tort law in most states.

This applies to police officers too, but unlike the citizen, they are not on their own. If they were, they would not take the job.

Not to mention, what could i accidentally do to "degrade their well being"? If they act in a way that forces me to "degrade their well being" after hitting the ground its a matter of self defense.

I do not mean for this to be taken personally, but those comments make it increasingly clear that you have been advocating taking action in an area in which you have little if any comprehension of the legal realities involved.

One day i probably will [participate in FoF training] but the more i read and learn about most FoF training the less confident i am it is a reliable predicter of real life outcomes for situations such as this.

Next thing you know, you'll be contending that simulated and real FoF training is not a reliable predictor of real life ouycomes in air combat. (It is.)

The response of a trained instructor acting as the bad guy, knowing that i am sure to try and draw on him, is quite different than some punk on the street who has probably only fired his gun once before in a drive by and is expecting his victims to all S themselves.

First, you will not necessarily be up against a trained instructor, though one or more will be assessing what you do right and what you do wrong.

Second, while it is a common assumption, it would be a serious mistake to underestimate how many times a street criminal has fired his gun, or how well he can handle it.

FoF is a training tool.

Yep. It will teach you what sometimes works, works less often, what you can do well, and what you cannot do very well.

My potential choices are going to be highly influenced by the likelihood of hitting an innocent but from the scenario of the OP that [injuring an innocent] seems highly unlikely.

Come again? If you draw quickly and fire your weapon several times very rapidly at one or more targets who may be moving (that's the nature of a self defense encounter) in an urban area, you cannot reasonably discount the risks of hitting someone somewhere "down range" from your target. And if you do hit anyone, the consequences would be extremely severe indeed.

I believe one should look for a way to resolve a situation without having to draw their weapon but accept the fact that such a way may not exist or be worth what it invovles.

If such a way does not exist, thats that--do your best and hope for the best.

What is involved in not drawing one's weapon includes:

• eliminating the risk of injuring or killing an innocent, and with it, unlimited civil liability;
• avoiding potential arrest, idictment, trial, conviction, loss of a clean record, and imprisonment associated with criminal liability, and bankruptcy resulting from mounting a defense;
• avoiding loss of employment;
• avoiding having the perp's friends drop by to see you afterward; and/or
• avoiding personal injury that would not have been sustained but for your action.

Also on the same ledger, or course, is that you may not be successful in the defense of yourself or a loved one from an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm if the assailant does choose to shoot.

If that cannot be accomplished any other way (for example, by getting out of Dodge, or giving up your wallet), assuming all of the risks that not drawing would otherwise obviate is a no brainer--you do not have a choice. But if you do have an alternative, you should take it.

 

[bubba in ca]

Practical consideration--at this distance, could you draw, shoot to stop both perps before they pounded you into the ground?

Legal consideration--have you read the fine print on your CCW? Does it say something to the efect that you can shoot to save life but not property?

Do you feel lucky today?
Give or throw the wallet to them and quickly and non-threateningly back off. File charges, and testify if they are ever caught.

 

[bratch]

, is quite different than some punk on the street who has probably only fired his gun once before in a drive by and is expecting his victims to all S themselves. FoF is a training tool.

I don't have my notes in front of me but the last FBI study on criminals assaulting leos had the BGs shooting multiple times per month. I can get the exact numbers in a few days if you'd like.

There are also examples of some really bad guys (Platt and Matix) who practiced regularly and preyed on civilian gun owners.

Planning around the LCD for what you will encounter is a bad plan when he isn't who you run into.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They're committing armed robbery so you could draw on them and attempt to detain them verbally until LE arrived. If either went for a gun, or made such a motion, it would almost certainly be a justifiable use of deadly force.

The problem with attempting to detain them is that you are seriously increasing the risk you are shot. We already know one of the assailants has a gun. The scenario happens at almost contact distance. Let's assume you are successful in drawing your gun and achieve complete surprise over your opponent. You yell the verbal command of your choice.

At that point, he goes for his gun. Let's assume he is slow like molassess and has a draw time of 3 seconds. Even in a hyper-alert state, it is going to take you a minimum of 0.20 seconds to recognize his action and react to it - and that's responding ninja-like. You've now got 2.75 seconds to get a CNS hit on the guy with the gun or chances are very good that you are going to get shot. And all of this assumes that you get a clean drop on the guy and his buddy runs like hell at the first sign of trouble.

Personally, that is a real big bet when the only pay off is what I have in my wallet. I think in that scenario you have a very hard choice to make about whether you are faced with an immediate threat of death or serious injury. If you decide that is the case, you need to act and not attempt to detain; but even there, you still face a very difficult time problem. One wonderful thing about force-on-force training is that it illustrates these time problems very well. And I'm not even getting into all the potential aftermath issues that could spring from this... I'm just thinking of the immediate problem.

I think probability-wise the best risk/reward outcome is going to be to hand over the wallet if you aren't successful in avoiding the whole assessment and selection part of this scenario.

 

[JustinJ]

"[In response to the statement that one making a citizen's arrest would be liable for injury, etc.] Based on what? What case or statute in TX indicates such?

Common law, which is the basis for most tort law in most states."

Common laws are a result of rulings that act as precedent so which past case dictates this? Or something published that says this to be true? Regardless I still don't envision what scenario you anticipate to happen to our imaginary criminal while detained in a citizen's arrest for which the arrestor is liable over the course of several minutes until LE arrive. And on a side note if one makes a citizen's arrest most states require that you hand over the arrested to a magistrate or peace officer as soon as possible.

"First, you will not necessarily be up against a trained instructor, though one or more will be assessing what you do right and what you do wrong."

Either way the Bad Guy actor simulating a scenario such as this knows that you are going to make a move which is a huge disadvantage compared to a real life event as you have no way to distract him because of this. And instructor or not he is almost certainly more proficient with fire arms than the vast majority of street criminals. But yes, i agree it is generally a good method of gauging one's own abilities.

"Come again? If you draw quickly and fire your weapon several times very rapidly at one or more targets who may be moving (that's the nature of a self defense encounter) in an urban area, you cannot reasonably discount the risks of hitting someone somewhere "down range" from your target. And if you do hit anyone, the consequences would be extremely severe indeed."

A long brick or concrete wall is behind the bad guys from your perspective. The lay of the land provides the ground as a back stop in the direction you will be shooting. Its late at night and you are in a strip mall/shopping center of which all stores are closed.

Kleanbore, if the bad guys drew a knife only would you consider that a time to draw? How about if eating at a restaurant and a guy comes in and starts randomly shooting people but our actor is able to go out a side exit unscathed. Is it then best to engage or flee in your opinion?



"I don't have my notes in front of me but the last FBI study on criminals assaulting leos had the BGs shooting multiple times per month. I can get the exact numbers in a few days if you'd like. "

I'd like to see the study if you can link it. How the data was gathered as well.

"There are also examples of some really bad guys (Platt and Matix) who practiced regularly and preyed on civilian gun owners."

Were these guys holding up people at Redboxes or ATMs? What were their MOs?

"Planning around the LCD for what you will encounter is a bad plan when he isn't who you run into."

Other indicators of a criminals weapons proficiency may exist such as what gun he displays and how its displayed. Its not somehting to plan around but a consideration as one of many variables.

Bubba in CA, i'm in TX so there are provisions that allow me to defend my property however that is not the reason i would consider drawing as i've already explained.

 

[ForumSurfer]

Regardless I still don't envision what scenario you anticipate to happen to our imaginary criminal while detained in a citizen's arrest for which the arrestor is liable over the course of several minutes until LE arrive.

Hundreds of possibilities. Same way handcuffed suspects get injured while sitting in the back of a cruiser. You'd be surprised. You detained him, so any injury from that point forward could be blamed on you.

not only that, but are you trained in detaining people? I'm not. Do you disarm him, ask him to disarm or hope he lays there completely compliant until LEO's arrive. Can you keep an eye on both subjects during all this...which would require you to stand close enough to be in striking range of both suspects. Contrary to popular belief, the barrel of a gun doesn't instill as much fear as people think.

 

[bratch]

I'd like to see the study if you can link it. How the data was gathered as well.

It'll be a couple days until I have access to my notes but I will once I can. They interviewed the criminals who had assaulted the officers.

Were these guys holding up people at Redboxes or ATMs? What were their MOs?

They were robbing and shooting/murdering shooters at shooting ranges in the Florida Everglades to get cars and weapons for bank robberies.

 

[JustinJ]

"Hundreds of possibilities. Same way handcuffed suspects get injured while sitting in the back of a cruiser. You'd be surprised. You detained him, so any injury from that point forward could be blamed on you."

List a few for which the detaineer could be held liable. And better yet list a case where a person has been held liable for harm to a detainee while performing a citizen's arrest that was legally justifiable.

"Can you keep an eye on both subjects during all this...which would require you to stand close enough to be in striking range of both suspects."

It would require no such thing. You instruct them to lay prostrate with hands out above their heads, farthest point from where a gun could be carried. If they complied with "get on the ground" they are likely to comply with this.

 

[Kaeto]

Kleanbore why do you even bother to carry? The simple showing of a gun by the BG is an indication that he will use it. From your arguments you wouldn't use your carry gun until the BG has already shot you, and by then it's too late.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JJustin: Common laws are a result of rulings that act as precedent...

Go to the head of the class.

...so which past case dictates this? Or something published that says this to be true?

Which case? Which precedent?

Good heavens!

It has been an established legal principle for centuries that if one harms someone else, or even causes apprehension of harm, without cause, that he or she is liable for that harm. And by the way, the fact that he may have tried to rob you does not constitute "cause". You cannot punish him.

It has been an established legal principle for many years that if one detains someone and either uses excessive force or prevents him from seeing to his own physical well being, that person is responsible for the well being of the detainee.

There are also criminal sanctions.

Look, anyone who does not understand these things has absolutely no business even considering the idea of "ordering someone to "get on the ground".

You live in Austin. Why don't you consider taking some law classes?

Regardless I still don't envision what scenario you anticipate to happen to our imaginary criminal while detained in a citizen's arrest for which the arrestor is liable over the course of several minutes until LE arrive.

I'm afraid that neither one's refusal to recognize a risk nor one's inability to foresee an outcome will either mitigate the risk in the slightest or protect anyone against liability.

[Regarding FoF simulation] Either way the Bad Guy actor simulating a scenario such as this knows that you are going to make a move which is a huge disadvantage compared to a real life event as you have no way to distract him because of this.

Are you trying to find fault with process you have no knowledge of to win an argument?

In FoF simulation, you can play the good guy, the bad guy, a bystander, what ever, and then trade places and try numerous different variations on the scenario. You will find out what techniques work best and which ones do not for either party, and you will also find out whether one party or the other--attacker or defender-- has an inherent advantage over the other.

And instructor or not he is almost certainly more proficient with fire arms than the vast majority of street criminals.

Maybe, maybe not, but we have enough of our well trained police officers gunned down by street criminals around here to cause me concern. Do not confuse real life with Gangsta films showing people holding there guns sideways. That might be the most costly mistake you ever make.

[Regarding risk to others] A long brick or concrete wall is behind the bad guys from your perspective. The lay of the land provides the ground as a back stop in the direction you will be shooting. Its late at night and you are in a strip mall/shopping center of which all stores are closed.

Are you saying that you would only draw under such circumstances?

List a few [possibilities] for which the detaineer could be held liable. And better yet list a case where a person has been held liable for harm to a detainee while performing a citizen's arrest that was legally justifiable.

There have been countless instances in which sworn officers have been found liable for injuries to arrestees and for illnesses and impairments suffered by people in custody, and fewer involving civilians because there are fewer citizen's arrests. The fact that the officers are trained in the subject does give them the advantage in terms of risk.

Again, it is an established principle of law. We are not going to list a few cases for you, nor is it our duty here to help you with your legal education.

Your continued denial of a very well known liability, of which you apparently had no awareness at all before earlier today, is not helping you learn anything.

Earlier, I made the following suggestion: "You should also consult an experienced, qualified attorney, and discuss the potential outcomes of firing your gun in a public place." Make sure to ask about citizen's arrests, too.

 

[sjohn26]

"I would have drawn my gun and ordered them to the ground. I mean yell at the top of my lungs "GET ON THE GROUND NOW!" Am I interested in detaining them? Not at all, but they are probably going to run no matter what I say. But if they obey my command then I have no problem holding them their till the police show up."

You watch too much TV----flashed a gun??? If I show my gun its because I intend to use it - I will assume they intend to also.

Draw and fire on them........detain them AFTER they bleed out!

 

[JustinJ]

"Go to the head of the class."

I can be sarcastic and snarky too! Watch!

"It has been an established legal principle for centuries that if one harms someone else, or even cause the apprehension of harm, without cause, that he or she is liable for that harm."
Your earlier comments imply that there is some additional responsibility for the apprehendeds safety so i would like to know what this is based upon. Or am i mistaken and you were just stating something completely obvious for the purpose of....?

"And by the way, And by the way, the fact that he may have tried to rob you does not constitute "cause". You cannot punish him."

You mean i can't beat him up once detained for trying to rob me? Shucks, thank god i found that one out in advance. Is that the harm that may befall our detained subjects you refer to? Seriously? Maybe i'm just slow but i still fail to see what event could reasonably happen after our bad guys lay on the ground that will result in their harm that i will be liable for in civil court. Maybe a meteor will fall out of the sky, strike them in the head and i'll be liable for not stopping it?

"It has been an established legal principle for many years that if one detains someone and either uses excessive force or prevents him from seeing to his own physical well being, that person is responsible for the well being of the detainee."

Actually, the well being of a detainee isn't seen to until they are secured. So if one does not ask the detainees how they're feeling while waiting for LE to arrive i somehow doubt it will be held against them.

"Look, anyone who does not understand these things has absolutely no business even considering the idea of "ordering someone to "get on the ground"."

Understand what? That you are liable if you harm somebody without justifiable reason? Am i the only one who assumes that i am conversing with other people that posses a basic level of knowledge of how the world operates?

"Are you saying that you would only draw under such circumstances?"

As i said, it would be a variable strongly considered.

"Earlier, I made the following suggestion: "You should also consult an experienced, qualified attorney, and discuss the potential outcomes of firing your gun in a public place." Make sure to ask about citizen's arrests, too."

Sorry to contradict your presumption but i don't make decisions to do something just because you suggest.

Now i'm still waiting. Do you think a person should draw if a knife is pulled and should they engage a bad guy shooting up a place if able to flee?
I am still waiting for the

 

[ForumSurfer]

List a few [possibilities] for which the detaineer could be held liable. And better yet list a case where a person has been held liable for harm to a detainee while performing a citizen's arrest that was legally justifiable.

I can't give you specific docket numbers, but there are hundreds of cases. My best friend spent 7 years as a cop. One detainee bashed his head against the window a few times while cuffed. He attempted to sue the city and got nowhere. Then he sued the officer personally. That got nowhere, also...but the city left my friend high and dry forcing him to pay $7500 in lawyer fees.

I've spent some time doing contract work in jails and I wouldn't trust those types to lay flat on the ground. After a minute or two they would likely get antsy and make a break for it. They stand a pretty good chance even with your gun drawn.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Maybe i'm just slow but i still fail to see what event could reasonably happen after our bad guys lay on the ground that will result in their harm that i will be liable for in civil court.

What you see that "could reasonably happen", or what you do not see, is unimportant. What will prove important is what does happen.

Actually, the well being of a detainee isn't seen to until they are secured.

What happens to his or her well being is important to the detainer and to the court from the time the citizen's arrest is effected.

Most civilians who understand the risks will refrain from effecting a citizen's arrest unless there is a cogent reason to do otherwise.

Some time earlier today, you were informed here, apparently for the first time, that "ordering" a person to "get on the ground", which you apparently had thought to constitute a viable tactic, would involve effecting a citizen's arrest and would incur very significant liability. Since that time you have been trying to argue the point.

Why?

 

[amflyer]

You watch too much TV----flashed a gun??? If I show my gun its because I intend to use it - I will assume they intend to also.

Actually, I don't watch too much tv. I didn't make the scenario up. That's the way it happened.

 

[NMGonzo]

If get to draw on them and command them on the ground, I'll give the .5 seconds to make a decision ... including running away will be fine with me.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MMGonzo: If get to draw on them and command them on the ground, I'll give the .5 seconds to make a decision ... including running away will be fine with me.

Are you under the impression that if they do not do something within that time you can lawfully do something about it?

 

[trex1310]

Go to the head of the class.

What an elitest comment.

 

[Unistat]

You watch too much TV----flashed a gun??? If I show my gun its because I intend to use it - I will assume they intend to also.

Drawing a gun is using a gun. Using does not mean firing.

Draw and fire on them........detain them AFTER they bleed out!

And if the gun wasn't in the assailant's waistband (as the OP said) or if he made a furtive movement, I would fire. I might fire anyway because without a doubt, my life would be in danger. But you can't take bullets back.

My response is only what I would have probably would've done, not definately. It's hard to say until you are in the situation yourself. I can only say what I would do based on my training and personality.

As for too much TV, well, I do have Food Network on quite a bit...

 

[bratch]

I'd like to see the study if you can link it. How the data was gathered as well.

The Study was "Violent Encounters" by the FBI. I found various chapters from it in Google but didn't see the entire report. I have been told you can order a copy of it from the FBI.

In bullet form my notes regarding weapons in the gang member subset:

37% reported weapons training
37% carrying handgun since 15
40% carried back up weapon sometime
81% of offenders regularly shot their handguns, average number 23 times per year
offenders overrated how often cops practiced
44% reported in being in prior shooting
25% reported involvement in 5 or more prior shootings
36% had been shot before

 

[bubbinator]

I was a victim of an armed robbery attempt in Thailand in 1974. I was USAF SP working Town Patrol on my way to work one evening in a "Baht Bus" (Toyota PU w/ seats &conopy over the bed) ,lone passenger. Enroute to the Thai Police Station to meet my team, the driver turned off the highway into a tapioca field. His teenaged passenger jumped out and got into the seat across from me and pulled out a long knife, demanding my wallet and watch. I had a briefcase on my lap, upright, that concealed me pulling a 1911A1 from under my belt buckle( I carried it there because the bar girls hugging us on duty wouldn't feel it there-hazzard of the job!!) I got the knife from the boy, smasmed popasan's back window with the barrel and made him drive me to the Thai Police Station in Ban-Chang. My Thai Police partner and interpreter took over from there, it was not a pretty site. Was I armed legally-No. Did it save my ass-Yes! My unit went on to arrest 3 groups of armed robbers in the area robbing GIs, one of which involved a gun fight using Thai Police provided full auto weapons for us.

 

[JustinJ]

"What happens to his or her well being is important to the detainer and to the court from the time the citizen's arrest is effected."

If the actions of the detaineer cause undue harm to the detainee absolutely.

"Most civilians who understand the risks will refrain from effecting a citizen's arrest unless there is a cogent reason to do otherwise."

Being open to an option that you are not does not imply one does not know the risks.

"Some time earlier today, you were informed here, apparently for the first time, that "ordering" a person to "get on the ground", which you apparently had thought to constitute a viable tactic, would involve effecting a citizen's arrest and would incur very significant liability. Since that time you have been trying to argue the point."

Why?"

Why am i arguing that ording a threat to get on the ground is a viable tactic? Because in some circumstances i believe it could be for reasons i've already indicated. And no, this is not where i first became aware that detaining a criminal could be construed as effecting a citizens arrest.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: If the actions of the detaineer cause undue harm to the detainee absolutely [the detainer is liable].

When one becomes responsible for the well being of someone, it goes beyond that, I'm afraid.

During the encounter, the civilian or officer must make every effort to avoid the use of excessive force. After an arrest, the responsibility is much greater.

ForumSurfer said this:

You detained him, so any injury from that point forward could be blamed on you.

That's almost the way it is. Add "illness" (of some kinds) and you have it.

Sworn officers have a duty to effect an arrest, they have training and procedures on which to rely, and they are indemnified aganst liability.

None of the above applies to anyone else.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And aside from liability issues, an unlawful citizen's arrest can actually hurt your case against the perpetrator. To give an example, there is a 1982 Texas case where a woman was raped in her apartment by a man carrying an umbrella. Driving with her husband the next day, she spotted her attacker still carrying the umbrella. Her husband and his brothers detained the man at gunpoint. The citizen's arrest was illegal and the rapist motioned to have evidence obtained via the arrest (such as the umbrella) excluded from his trial. The appeals court ruled that allowing the evidence was non-reversible error (meaning it should have been excluded but that the error did not effect the outcome under this set of facts).

 

[heeler]

Well I certainly wont get into any debate about a citizens arrest nor will I deal with the lawyers guild here either.
I will state that it is very common here in Houston Texas for armed robbers, for zero reason what so ever,except of course in their own minds,to shoot and kill the person they are robbing.
This IS quite common here.
On the other hand we had a situation just yesterday where a jewelry store owner decided to draw and fight it out with the armed robbers and lost his life.
This aint GunSmoke or the Rifle Man series so if someone has the drop on you, you had better be real fast and deliberate and even then that might not be enough.
Chances are it wont be enough.
Truely a tough call when your already dealing with a felon who's intent is to take by deadly force your possesions and possibly your life depending on his mood at the moment.
I guess most will have to decide right at that very moment what to do and all this talk of law and citizens arrest dont mean very much at all at that very scary moment.