Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eclipsetactical
Here are my exact sources. The Gill case pertains to the stopping a felony part only there is a completely different KY criminal code that allows you to shoot and kill a fleeing felon in the state of KY.
Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)
Sources Stated.....Not much arguing you can do with that.
|
Sigh. The technical term for the passage above is "an unreferenced quotation," not a "source."
The passage above is all over the internet, quoted (mostly) by others who want to interpret it as you do. None of them cite the source, either.
Doing your homework for you... It's from a very short 1994 article, "Citizens' Arrest," by David C. Grossack.
So... how valid is an opinion from a
15-year-old article, based on a nearly 80-year-old court case, which, as Pax and Oldmarksman point out (and as I did in my post above), is well and truly superseded by
Tenn. v. Garner (1985).
Umm... not very valid, IMO.
And as I wrote in my earlier post,
Gill v. Commonwealth speaks more to the issue of aiding and abetting than to that of citizens' arrest: in this case, "taking affirmative steps" to prevent a felony comes under the heading of not "aiding and abetting," which would make one an accessory, rather than imposing some sort of obligation to intervene directly -- the point being that if you have knowledge of an impending crime, you're
obliged to report it. Not reporting it makes you an accessory before the fact.
Quote:
|
Gotta understand we are a Commonwealth and alot of things are different here with law than in non-commonwealth states.
|
Would you care to elaborate?
