Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Had to look up citizen's arrests...

Alright, but I'm more interested in hearing how you think it should work than reading case law on how it typically plays out. I've been taking "the officer is not at fault" and "but he refused to comply" and so on as statements of reasonability on her part, rather than legal or effective immunity.

I agree with the law here, at least for officers, which avoids any tricky questions about whether she should have broken protocol.

Of note it does depend on whether a felony was *actually* committed.  So a citizen making an arrest better be sure about what they're doing, which I suppose is meant to curb excessive vigilantism.

And how do you feel about that, in relation to whether or not somebody had a gun or being drunk not mattering?

Citizens aren't charged with preventing felonies, just reporting them.  They're allowed to interfere, but only if it really is a crime.
I think intent should matter rather than the fact, but eh.  It works to dissuade people from taking the law into their own hands unless it's absolutely clear.

I found it interesting that a citizen can't legally arrest someone performing a misdemeanor.  Has to be a felony (and sometimes the difference is the extent of damage).  Exceptions include protecting a home or place of business...  Though a security guard can't just shoot a shoplifter, unless the shoplifter is threatening violence first.  Appropriate escalation, etc.

But in short, yeah I think it works the same.

It's also really not hard, people shouldn't reach for hidden items when they're at gunpoint jeez.  That's true whether the armed person is a cop or a robber or a vigilante...  Reaching for a concealed item forces the person's hand.

But in your personal opinion, should a robber be able to claim self defense for shooting somebody who does not comply with their orders and conceals their hands? Obviously it's a poor idea on the victim's part, but when they bring the guy in for armed robbery and triple homicide, do you feel the homicides should get thrown out because it was him or them? And if not, why, and what makes cops or vigilantes different?

This is why I investigated citizen arrests.  A robber can't do that, because they're not trying to make an arrest.  So they don't get any of the waivers of liability that come with making an arrest.  AKA, firing in self defense or the defense of others.

Citizens are allowed to defend themselves in other situations too of course, but those still don't apply to a robber.  They initiated the violent situation.  As for nonviolent criminals, like burglars...  court cases and laws vary between states on how a homeowner can react.

Of course, most law enforcement situations don't escalate to a gun being drawn.  They try to avoid that, because it raises the stakes.  But some people are very unwilling to comply :/

And again, why is an arrest with a gun drawn different from going to the pub or the park? If some little kid has her hands in her jacket, what makes that not a potentially lethal situation, whereas if I've got her mother on the ground at gunpoint it would be?

Because if it's the fact that I've already drawn and therefore escalated the situation, that has some disturbing connotations. If it's that "they're a criminal," likewise. If it's that they failed to comply with my orders, well, I imagine it's not hard to get to that point, and if it's some nebulous legal or authority thing I'd like to hear why you feel that's a good system to have.

It's not "they're a criminal", it's "they're a suspect".  It's also that the situation has escalated.  Police need a reason to draw their weapon.  The suspect being violent or resisting arrest is sufficiently suspicious, though they have to use judgement too.

Again...  This man refused to pull over, drove into a residential area, and tried to run into it.  That raises the stakes because he could be going for hostages or allies.  It's dangerous, and justified an escalating level of force.

And yes, the shot placement and distancing is bizarre.

Yeah I wasn't going to say anything, since obviously he did get shot, but it sure didn't look like it in the video.  I swear the second shot seemed to kick up snow a couple feet away, but multiple sites say he got shot twice.  Maybe only the first shot actually hit, dunno.  Doesn't really matter.

Also that, but I meant her timing; it didn't seem like she fired in response to anything in particular except losing her shit.

He had his hands exposed (a little) but then he moved them back towards him.  When she fired they were hidden behind his head.

Right, but he couldn't have had a gun there, so "oh shit he's about to draw on me" doesn't make sense. It's like she just finally freaked out enough to pull the trigger.

She couldn't see his hands clearly, and he might have had a vest pocket.  All he had to do was keep them up...  If being arrested, crossing one's arms in front of one's chest, for example, isn't enough.  They go in the air or on top of your head, so it takes a clear motion to draw something.

[Frumple]

Citizens aren't charged with preventing felonies, just reporting them.

Cops aren't charged with preventing felonies, either, heh.

I think intent should matter rather than the fact, but eh.

Intent can (sometimes, and probably should) matter for sentencing, but it generally doesn't (and shouldn't) count for conviction. Mostly, intent has no place in determining if a crime occurred because there's basically zero way to prove its existence (or lack thereof). It's pretty close to impossible to provide evidence of intent in the vast majority of cases. There's exceptions (written evidence, recorded statements), but most of the time? All you have is suspect testimony, and it shouldn't need be said how reliable a metric that is.

[IronyOwl]

Citizens aren't charged with preventing felonies, just reporting them.  They're allowed to interfere, but only if it really is a crime.
I think intent should matter rather than the fact, but eh.  It works to dissuade people from taking the law into their own hands unless it's absolutely clear.

I found it interesting that a citizen can't legally arrest someone performing a misdemeanor.  Has to be a felony (and sometimes the difference is the extent of damage).  Exceptions include protecting a home or place of business...  Though a security guard can't just shoot a shoplifter, unless the shoplifter is threatening violence first.  Appropriate escalation, etc.

-

This is why I investigated citizen arrests.  A robber can't do that, because they're not trying to make an arrest.  So they don't get any of the waivers of liability that come with making an arrest.  AKA, firing in self defense or the defense of others.

Citizens are allowed to defend themselves in other situations too of course, but those still don't apply to a robber.  They initiated the violent situation.  As for nonviolent criminals, like burglars...  court cases and laws vary between states on how a homeowner can react.

-

It's not "they're a criminal", it's "they're a suspect".  It's also that the situation has escalated.  Police need a reason to draw their weapon.  The suspect being violent or resisting arrest is sufficiently suspicious, though they have to use judgement too.

Again...  This man refused to pull over, drove into a residential area, and tried to run into it.  That raises the stakes because he could be going for hostages or allies.  It's dangerous, and justified an escalating level of force.

Why does "they're a suspect" invoke an entirely different form of risk assessment than any other situation, though, and only from police or citizens witnessing a felony at that? If the claim is that something is dangerous or suspicious or justified, it should hold true everywhere; this clearly doesn't in the slightest.

So, again: Where's the difference? Why is "they're a suspect and I'm a cop" turn "is near houses" into "I have to kill them to stop them from taking hostages or collecting allies" when that's not a valid line of reasoning in any other situation? It can't be self defense unless you're arguing that everybody except police have a severely impacted right to defend themselves, and it can't be that the situation is wildly more dangerous unless you've got some statistically backed mechanism to make that the case. Last I heard, "an officer suspected them" is not a scientifically credible indicator of danger to others.

"Refuses to comply with the commands of an armed person" is probably better matched for erraticism, but I have to wonder if it's any better at predicting actual danger. And to even get to that point, you've still got to justify the cop drawing in the first place, which suffers from the aforementioned issue of requiring an entirely different form of escalation and risk assessment than is generally accepted anywhere else.

And yes, the shot placement and distancing is bizarre.

Yeah I wasn't going to say anything, since obviously he did get shot, but it sure didn't look like it in the video.  I swear the second shot seemed to kick up snow a couple feet away, but multiple sites say he got shot twice.  Maybe only the first shot actually hit, dunno.  Doesn't really matter.

Also that, but I meant her timing; it didn't seem like she fired in response to anything in particular except losing her shit.

He had his hands exposed (a little) but then he moved them back towards him.  When she fired they were hidden behind his head.

Right, but he couldn't have had a gun there, so "oh shit he's about to draw on me" doesn't make sense. It's like she just finally freaked out enough to pull the trigger.

She couldn't see his hands clearly, and he might have had a vest pocket.  All he had to do was keep them up...  If being arrested, crossing one's arms in front of one's chest, for example, isn't enough.  They go in the air or on top of your head, so it takes a clear motion to draw something.

A vest pocket on his neck? And I thought I saw some skin over his hair, as though one hand was over his head. It certainly wasn't a good position to fire back at her as far as I could tell.

Citizens aren't charged with preventing felonies, just reporting them.

Cops aren't charged with preventing felonies, either, heh.

I think intent should matter rather than the fact, but eh.

Intent can (sometimes, and probably should) matter for sentencing, but it generally doesn't (and shouldn't) count for conviction. Mostly, intent has no place in determining if a crime occurred because there's basically zero way to prove its existence (or lack thereof). It's pretty close to impossible to provide evidence of intent in the vast majority of cases. There's exceptions (written evidence, recorded statements), but most of the time? All you have is suspect testimony, and it shouldn't need be said how reliable a metric that is.

Actually, that's not quite true, at least on paper. Both intent and action are required for a crime to have been committed; that's why some cases of one person accidentally killing another can be ruled purely accidental and therefore not murder or manslaughter or anything, while fully intending to kill someone is never proper homicide unless you actually go through with it.

The problem is that there's a lot of fuzziness and tiers for most stuff, as with situations where negligently allowing something to happen is still a crime even though you didn't intend the actual event, since the act of negligence itself is punishable. Likewise for conspiracy and suchlike; you have to intend to do the crime and then actually do the crime, but frequently portions of the setup or planning for committing the crime are crimes themselves, so you can still get Conspiracy to Commit Murder or Attempted Murder even if the victim's still alive, which is a complete block to any flavor of Actual Murder.

Most intent proving, as far as I'm aware, is essentially tricking suspects into incriminating themselves. Most of the rest is of the "well what else could they have been planning" sort, which as you've suggested can get pretty fuzzy. It's also one reason lawyer quality can affect conviction rate and sentencing; a good lawyer can point out that being arrested heavily armed in a van outside someone's house that you've recently threatened doesn't necessarily mean you intended any particular crime much better than a poor (or god forbid, overworked public defender) lawyer can. The fact that people who can afford fancy lawyers probably know not to say anything without them present also probably skews things quite a bit.

[Sheb]

I must say, if you accept Rolan's line of reasoning, this become a very good argument in favor of gun control: we need to prevent guns from falling into civilian's hands so that the police can stop being paranoid bastards and shooting any confused person.

[sprinkled chariot]

Police officer still can be afraid of civilians having theoretical illegal guns.

[Rolan7]

Why does "they're a suspect" invoke an entirely different form of risk assessment than any other situation, though, and only from police or citizens witnessing a felony at that? If the claim is that something is dangerous or suspicious or justified, it should hold true everywhere; this clearly doesn't in the slightest.

It's because the person has been acting suspiciously, and it does hold true anywhere.  If you seem someone break a window and steal things, it's natural to be worried about what else they're willing to do.  They're far more suspicious than a random stranger who isn't breaking the law (such as a child, as you pointed out).

It's the same risk assessment, it's just that cops and citizens witnessing felonies are allowed to attempt an arrest.  And cops have to do what they can to mitigate the risk, it's their duty to protect people.  They also, theoretically, have the training and resources to do so.

So, again: Where's the difference? Why is "they're a suspect and I'm a cop" turn "is near houses" into "I have to kill them to stop them from taking hostages or collecting allies" when that's not a valid line of reasoning in any other situation? It can't be self defense unless you're arguing that everybody except police have a severely impacted right to defend themselves, and it can't be that the situation is wildly more dangerous unless you've got some statistically backed mechanism to make that the case. Last I heard, "an officer suspected them" is not a scientifically credible indicator of danger to others.

It's not "I have to kill them" it's "I have to stop them".  She only had to kill him because there was a reasonable chance he was going for a weapon...  Again, he had made *every attempt* to evade capture up to being tazed.  He was clearly desperate.  But he would have been fine if he had kept his hands clear.
Heck it would have been safer to shoot him earlier, or keep shooting him once she started.  But killing him was never the goal.

I'd be terrified if I saw someone pursued by cops pull over and run towards my home.  Yes being a fugitive is a "scientifically credible" indicator that someone is dangerous.  They've done something that seemed suspicious, and they're trying to evade capture.  People don't do that for no reason.

Of course nowadays they may be victims of the ridiculous fearmongering, and think that running is safer than surrendering.  Which is so awful.  But I can't know that, just that the person approaching is desperate, willing to break the law, and statistically likely to be violent.  And if a fugitive saw me and reached into their jacket for something, my first thought would be "Shit, I'm about to get held with a knife".  Not that they were going for some relaxing gum.

My threat assessment is essentially the same as an officer's.  I'm just unarmed, so I can't do as much, and untrained, so I'm less likely to draw the correct conclusion.

"Refuses to comply with the commands of an armed person" is probably better matched for erraticism, but I have to wonder if it's any better at predicting actual danger. And to even get to that point, you've still got to justify the cop drawing in the first place, which suffers from the aforementioned issue of requiring an entirely different form of escalation and risk assessment than is generally accepted anywhere else.

No, I think it's the same escalation and risk assessment.
I think our disagreement is whether resisting arrest is suspicious enough to justify escalation.  If I had a gun and a fugitive broke into my house, you can bet my ass I'd draw it.

[Rolan7]

Actually IronyOwl I've been thinking and I think you're kinda right.  The officer misjudged the man's threat and escalated too quickly.  Whether it was technically legal or not, she did make a bad judgement call.  Not because he turned out to be unarmed, but based on what she observed.  It didn't cross the risk "threshold", or whatever I called it.

While yeah, he could have been sneaking his hands toward a concealed weapon...  All the signs pointed to him just being inebriated and also stunned by the tazer.  The officer should have clarified her commands ("Higher!  Way up!") and laid off the tazer.  If he had pulled a gun, she would have had time to shoot (no more tazing at that point, just shoot him).

I probably didn't want to admit it because a lot of those shitty comments were calling her a "crazy bitch" and otherwise focusing on her being a woman.  But she (like many other officers!) *was* panicking, and that caused her to make a bad call.  And a fatal one.

I still blame the man for most of the situation, but the officer's response was unsatisfactory.  She needs remedial training or to be discharged.  We should expect more from cops (and provide the training, equipment, and salary budget appropriate to that expectation.  This wouldn't have happened if she had a partner).

I must say, if you accept Rolan's line of reasoning, this become a very good argument in favor of gun control: we need to prevent guns from falling into civilian's hands so that the police can stop being paranoid bastards and shooting any confused person.

Seems to work well in Britain.  Would it work here, IDK.

[Jopax]

Another question is, what the hell happened to subduing people? Like, if you have him tazed and sprawled on the ground, why the hell do you pull a gun on him instead of just cuffing the guy? Not like he can pull some wierd joint displacement and pull a gun on you while you're sitting on top of him and cuffing his hands :S

This is a seriously huge problem with US police, that for some reason (I'd wager shit or non-existant training) their first response to anything happening out of the line is to pull a fucking gun.

I think what the brits have is a pretty good system, and could work in the US somewhat, if most officers didn't actually get guns, or atleast, not immediately. Like, be a cop for atleast a year and prove you can keep your cool and not fuck shit up and then when we see you can be a reasonable adult that can be trusted with the safety of others will you get your gun. Subsequently, if you fuck up you lose it. Should reduce these situations either by having cops with self control or cops without guns.

[Helgoland]

Propose something like that and you'll have the media hounding you the second an unarmed cop is killed.

[scriver]

Another question is, what the hell happened to subduing people? Like, if you have him tazed and sprawled on the ground, why the hell do you pull a gun on him instead of just cuffing the guy? Not like he can pull some wierd joint displacement and pull a gun on you while you're sitting on top of him and cuffing his hands :S

Well, I think how the officer is on their own probably has something to do with it. I really don't like when police have to go alone, it makes everything more dangerous for everyone involved, whether police, suspects, or just bystanders.

Lack of education and focus might have something to do with it general, but if I recall the article this was a police veteran with a not tiny amount of years under her belt, and I don't think it's too much of a leap to assume she doesn't have a history of shooting people (on the basis that the article would probably have mentioned it if that was the case) so it's not like lack of self control or "thug-in-a-uniform syndrome" was a problem before this happened.

[Jopax]

And if my knowledge of the media is correct that would peter out after a month or two tops, unless cop deaths are treated differently to unarmed folk deaths :S

Also the type of expirience matters greatly, sure, she's been a cop for 15 years, but my bet is that she's never had something like this happen to her, nor was she trained for it properly and regularly. So that 15 years might as well be nothing if she's going to panic in every situation like this.
Still, this incident might force her to try and keep her cool better if something similar happens, tho it's a shame a man had to die to get her to do that :I

[SalmonGod]

In addition to that, they're told and trained to only ever shoot if they feel that either they or another person are in immediate danger, which... I'm not sure if that's ignored by a number of ignoramuses or the police are just told 'If you feel like you're in danger, shoot', but regardless is probably something that needs outright drilling into the minds of the police.

I dunno... I've seen conflicting stories regarding the Use of Force Continuum.  I'm sure some of it has to do with variation by jurisdiction.  The basic idea is an officer has to follow certain steps to an escalation of force where there is a lack of immediate danger, but so long as each step fails to result in compliance, they generally won't be penalized for taking it to the final step (deadly force), regardless of the circumstances of the initial encounter.  This is supposedly why you have police getting seemingly nothing more than a slap on the hand in many cases where encounters begin with calm resistance over small matters that escalate to reckless endangerment, serious injury, or death of a suspect.

[Strife26]

The modern police mindset in America has slipped from "protect and serve" to "win the drug war" and "get home to my family at all costs."

Police militarization, the thin blue line, the TV cop delusion, and near immunity to prosecution have certainly not helped things.

[Strife26]

And in today's cops wasting someone under questionable situations, call a rancher to put down a bull, then kill him.

Edited for clarity! Kill the rancher, not the bull. They tried to kill the bull, but doing it properly isn't actually all that easy, (hence the calling of the rancher), so the bull bled out instead.
  http://fusion.net/story/229723/jack-yantis-police-shooting-idaho-rancher/

[Loud Whispers]

And in today's cops wasting someone under questionable situations, call a rancher to put down a bull, then kill him.

  http://fusion.net/story/229723/jack-yantis-police-shooting-idaho-rancher/

Why? Again and again. Almost as bad as grenade baby.