I woudn't want to try it.
In fact, I wouldn't want to try to arrest anyone. A peace officer, who acts under approved departmental procedure, is indemnified against civil suits. A citizen is not. Even if he should win the civil trial with no damages being awarded, the citizen may end up spending a very large amount of money just to achieve that outcome. Kinda dumb to try to arrest a robber just to end up owning next to nothing.
And that could be the best case scenario. Claiming to have necessarily and reasonably used deadly force to effect an arrest may well not prove successful as a defense against a murder charge.
Not for me, thanks!
Once again, it's a matter of taking into account the whole picture. In some cases it's better to offer no resistance and to allow the criminal to take what he or she wants. A good example would be a gunman entering a bank or a crowded store and announcing a robbery. If you can't be sure of incapacitating the gunman immediately and avoiding a prolonged firefight with innocent bystanders in the way then it may well be best to stay your hand unless forced to act.
In New York State using deadly force to effect an authorized arrest is on par with using deadly force to defend your life or the life of another and is just as likely to result in an acquittal as asserting that you were in fear for your life. There have been a number of cases over the years of store owners using deadly force against escaping robbers and a handful of rape victims who shot or otherwise killed their attackers in mid-flight. None of the cases that I saw ever resulted in a homicide conviction or civil judgement against the store owner or rape victim.
Imagine you are a father who has been blitzed in the middle of the night and forced to watch the rapes of your wife and daughter. If you managed to free yourself while your attackers were in the process of loading your property into their truck, after having first called to summon an ambulance and the Police, would you simply let them escape assuming you had the means to stop them?
These types of scenarios, while extremely rare, do play out. And it pays to seriously consider what you would do and why. You also have to go beyond the issue of financial cost. Can you live with yourself if these people attack another family and you could have stopped them?
The Legislature included the 'deadly force to effect an arrest clause' in the Penal Law because of the type of scenario envisioned above and because its authors recognized that it is human nature to chase someone who has just murdered, raped or robbed another human being in front of you. They also recognized the continuing danger that such individuals pose.
Frankly, I consider it quite fortunate that NYS has this provision in its Penal Law because some states do not. I remember a case some years ago in, I believe it was Tennessee, where a man used deadly force to stop an armed murderer from fleeing immediately after having killed his victim. The man was put on trial for murder because state statute didn't allow for the use of deadly force to make an arrest. There was talk at the time of amending the law. I don't know what the final disposition was.
I wouldn't use deadly force against a thief in my home simply because he was stealing but there are circumstances where an individual criminal or group of criminals is so dangerous or depraved that to allow them to escape is unconscionable.
Every case is different, however, and should be judged on its own merits.
