Do YOU intervene?

[TPD211]

Correct me if I am wrong, as a citizen we have no legal duty to intervene in a obvious criminal situation, CCW or not. As a law enforcement officer, on duty, I have a obvious duty to respond, but off duty, unless the situation warrants action, ie. the loss of life, there is no duty to respond unless legally bound to do so. Legally bound means department policy or state/jurisdiction laws.

[FireForged]

If I honestly believe that a innocent life will be forfit (right here and right now) if I do not act....I will act. Other than that situation, I mind my own business. I am not going to chase criminals, breakup fights or investigate odd happenings.

[Jim March]

This weren't my words Jim. Those are the words of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which is the department that issues CCW permits. So apparently that's the way the law does work in Florida.

Scott

Scott, I know exactly whose words those are: the top cop in Florida dealing with CCW.

At age 17, I learned a very important lesson. At a local shopping mall the various local police agencies were doing a meet'n'greet, each with their own table of whatever they thought was interesting. The confiscated prison weapons display was by far the most interesting . Anyways...there were about a dozen agencies present.

I walked from table to table asking about California knife laws. NO TWO GAVE THE SAME ANSWERS. I mean seriously, they were all over the map. At least a couple handed out the "width of your palm" line, which is the single biggest piece of crap ever...NO such law has ever been on the books anywhere in the US - and I've looked. That's what eventually led to my California knife law page and had a big impact on getting involved in the RKBA later.

Never, ever trust a cop's word on weapons law unless you like getting an earful of the southbound product of a northbound male bovine. The majority will flat-out lie, the rest are bone-deep ignorant. Maybe 1 out of 100 are halfway competent in weapons laws in states with moderately complex rules.

Capiche?

I'm telling you, half of that statement you quoted is a lie. The part about "we're not cops" is true - we must not ever punish after the fact under any circumstances. The part about "good Samaritanism" at gunpoint being illegal is false. It must be reserved for extreme circumstances ONLY, for damnsure not petty property theft, and yeah it's risky, but it is legal in the right circumstances.

[Composer_1777]

How can you expect anyone to know CA laws, hell CA doesn't even know CA laws. That place is a cluster F***. The police department probably recruit all kinds of crazies; I wouldn't even consider Cali police as part of a normal police culture. Maybe it's more comarable to mexico. I don't know of many people who know mexican laws?

I know cops, and they are very familiar with laws, judges, courts, and the judicial system in general.

[Wildalaska]

Never, ever trust a cop's word on weapons law

Yeah, so much better to trust guys on the net who have never read a statute, written a charging dpocument, received copistis legal training, or gotten thier butts chewed out by a prosecutor or their Captain for a crap arrest.

WildAlaska ™

[Evan Thomas]

If I thought I could do so safely, I might intervene with force if I thought it necessary to save a life. Otherwise, no. My intervention will take the form of calling 911, and being a good witness; and the latter only up to a point.

For those who think intervening in a property crime, even in a limited way, is automatically a good idea, I recommend this thread, which discusses the recent (ongoing, I'm sure) case in New Mexico in which a "good citizen" followed a pair of suspected burglars while on the phone with the 911 dispatcher... the short version of this is that the suspects stopped and one of them approached his car and broke his window -- he shot one of them and is now charged with murder. Which seems highly unfair, to say the least, but it makes a persuasive argument against doing what he did -- at least in the case of a property crime...

Originally Posted by eclipsetactical

Ky law actually states that as a citizen you have an obligation to stop a felony if it is possible and to kill a fleeing felon in the process of making a citizens arrest.

Aack.

I don't think so. This conflates a couple of very different things. Someone who's more familiar with KY law than I am can probably speak to this with more authority, but I believe that the first part of this, "the obligation to stop a felony," refers not to the use of force but to the obligation not to "aid and abet," which means, roughly, that if you know about a crime and don't report it, you may be charged as an accessory. The case usually cited in connection with this is Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930).

From www.kentucky-concealed.com:
"Officers are allowed and at times required to use whatever force is necessary to perform their duties while a citizen is never legally required to use force."
(my emphasis)

And it's true that under some circumstances, a Kentucky citizen may shoot a fleeing felon, but it's absurd (at best, careless writing) to imply that there's an obligation to do so. And I was under the impression that the decision in Garner v. Tennessee pretty much ended the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect, absent other compelling reasons to do so. But, again, I hope someone who is more knowledgeable than I will chime in on this.

[Mr. James]

Originally Posted by Dannyl

Once again, carrying a firearm gives us a ton of responsibilities, and not one extra right.

As for the OP, epic, monumental boneheadicity, dude. No way would I intervene as S1 did in this case; no way would I intervene as S2 did in this case. I'm all for the Good Samaritan gig, but I'm not threatening to shoot and possibly kill a man for stealing a duffle bag, unless it's full of human hearts and livers bound for the pediatric transplant center. And why the third man in just John Wayned it and assumed this was a robbery is beyond me. Thank God above everyone walked away from this goat rope.

[Dr Raoul Duke]

Correct me if I am wrong, as a citizen we have no legal duty to intervene in a obvious criminal situation, CCW or not. As a law enforcement officer, on duty, I have a obvious duty to respond, but off duty, unless the situation warrants action, ie. the loss of life, there is no duty to respond unless legally bound to do so. Legally bound means department policy or state/jurisdiction laws.

Hey TPD211, you might have an "obvious duty" as you see it, but even when on duty you may not have ANY legal responsibility to respond. Out of the horrible legal mess that became known as the "Rodney King Incident" came the question of what responsibility, if any, the officers who were standing by their cars, just outside the ring of headlights, had in the case. Despite the future criminal ruling that the officers involved in the beating were not committing a crime, if I had been wearing a badge at that scene, I would have thought so. I would have have been in among those boys, pulling them off the man on the ground. I felt sick watching the tape. When the officers who only watched were sued for negligence in not stopping the beating, the verdict returned was that they had no obligation under law to prevent the crime. So, while you may feel you have an obligation, an "obvious duty", it may not withstand the color of law, especially in civil court, especially in Federal Civil Court. Facing civil court is the ultimate penalty for being a police officer. Like most cops I hated being in court to testify on criminal cases, especially when they were being re-tried, but sitting in civil court seemed to be something right out of Torquemada. I had 5 shootings in 10 years as a cop working the worst sides of a really violent town, and had a nasty civil suit on each occasion. They brought up stuff about me that I had forgotten, fights with bullies on grade schools, my time in Vietnam, tried to paint me as a trigger happy war-warped killer. But, I had the testimonies of my partners, of civilian onlookers, and in one case, the testimony of my supervisor (who was also involved in the shooting, but had hit nothing with his new 9mm semi-automatic). I also had character testimony from my surviving buddies from Vietnam, the most important being that of the River Division Commander who wrote me up for the Silver Star. I try to tell people who feel like they are impervious to the consequences of how they use their firearms that they are only waiting for introduction to what one Saturday Night Live Alumni referred to as the "First Church of the Rude Awakening". Now, as an older medically retired civilian with a CCW, I'm not going to put all I have worked for, all I have, all I will ever have, and the chance I may end up in prison on the line for anything but what Mas Ayoob calls "The Gravest Extreme" (though I have lost my admiration for his perspective after his fanciful portrayal of the Miami Massacre).

I also am not going to play vigilante and try to stop crimes in progress, unless they are against my family and friends and involve lethal force or extreme physical harm. I turned in my badge, and no longer want to play cop. So, my advice to anyone faced with a lethal force situation is not to draw and start shooting as soon as possible. Try and diffuse the situation if possible, un-access they area if there is anyway to do so; practice using the yellow streak down your back. The real winner in a gunfight is the one who manages to find a way out without firing a shot. Take the insults, accept humiliation, because insults and humiliation will not put you at gunpoint with the officers responding to the 911 call, put you in handcuffs, put you in jeopardy of criminal and civil prosecution, and the possibility of being some big guys boyfriend in prison. You may be completely in the right, but you will be suspected as being a BG until proven otherwise. And, as a civilian, even if you are completely in the right criminally, you will have to pay for legal representation in a civil trial that may cause you to hock everything you own, and put yourself in debt that you may never pay off just to survive.

Stay out of high risk environments. Try and develop "situational awareness" so can become aware of threats before they become critical, and be ready to exit quickly. Exit the area before anything develops that puts you in a corner where you have to fight. Know your weapons, train hard and practice regularly, and pray to whatever Higher Power that you can spend the rest of your days without shooting anyone, because shooting someone is easy, but living with it is the hardest thing you will ever do. After coming home from the Mekong, I had a drinking and drug problem that was going to kill me in short order, but I found AA in '73 and have stayed sober since. I had to shoot a man who broke a armed man who broke into our home, and afterward I had sleepless nights and constant fear of living in my home. I had to seek professional counseling to become able to resume my normal life without living in constant fear. This is ABC information about defensive firearms use, but it is almost never heard in most shooting boards. Go out to the range and shoot, play gun games, go and hunt, be prepared to defend you home and family; but pray to God you never have to do so.


Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever

[BillCA]

As the OP said... it has to be obvious what is going on is an illegal act.

With that said, if I didn't see the fracas start, how do I know who is the aggressor and who is the defender? That guy punching out the woman in the parking lot -- is this a violent domestic? Or did she just threaten him with a weapon? That woman on the ground screaming and the guy ripping her pants off -- rape? Or a snake in her pants? (Happened at a camp-out once). Sometimes you just can't tell what's going on.

Intervention doesn't always require a weapon. A loud shout or command may defuse it - or cause the perp to run off.

[TPD211]

Hey TPD211, you might have an "obvious duty" as you see it, but even when on duty you may not have ANY legal responsibility to respond.

I was thinking along the lines of vicarious liability reference to the "obvious duty" to respond in a obvious criminal situation. A civilian has no duty to respond that I am aware of.
You have a good response with good advise to those who do have a CCW.

As per Mr. March I do take some offense to his comment

The majority will flat-out lie, the rest are bone-deep ignorant

That is a pretty blanket statement. Yes, I know some cops who are dumber than a rock, I know a lot with BS & MS degrees. A lot of cops will spout out what they think is the truth about a point of law only to have it partially right. Eventually, they do learn the proper points of law and go on their way. I'm sure I've given wrong information on some point of law in my career, but it was never intentionally meant as a lie. Sometimes a local court will have judicial notice as to a point of law, such as what constitutes a concealed knife, 3" or 5" blade, folder or bali type of opening, etc. Believe me, most officers do not know these decisions from their local courts unless they were involved in the case where the decision was made or they have a top notch training / legal department that stays on top of decisions.
Ignorant, sometimes, Intentionally lie, I hope not. :barf:

[Stevie-Ray]

I'd probably have to be directly involved to intervene. Something petty like this would tend to lead me away from my wife, the main reason I carry a weapon to begin with. I am always hopeful that I can be a good witness, though.

[Tuckahoe]

The first guy was acting like a police officer. Stops his car, announces himself as a police officer, takes the guy down.
I believe a reasonable person who saw this would believe this person was in fact a police officer. Being that he was not a police officer he just gave a jury enough rope to hang him with. He involved himself in a situation with a firearm that #1 was NOT a threat to life or safety of himself or a third party.
In the public's eye he feels his CCW permit makes him a crime fighter and that is not what a CCW permit is intended to do. Had he not been armed he would have not likely chased this person or gotten involved.
Man #2 I see nothing wrong with what he did. He thought someone was about to be killed and stepped in. In this case there was a precieved threat to life and he acted in good faith.
The lesson of this story is if you want to be a cop go be a cop and you can fight crime on a daily basis.

[Mr. Davis]

Ky law actually states that as a citizen you have an obligation to stop a felony if it is possible and to kill a fleeing felon in the process of making a citizens arrest.

Bull...Crap. Quote the statute, and please turn in your ninja garb, because holy crap, you've been hanging out at the gun shop too much.

[Tom Servo]

So, this guy presented a lethal weapon and impersonated an officer to affect a citizen's arrest over a minor property crime?

I have no sympathy. What if the bad guy had resisted and it came to deadly force?

[Jim March]

I base my thoughts on personal experiences. I have seen some of the stupidest stuff you can imagine...arrests over and over and over for weapons ranging from knives to rifles that simply aren't illegal.

You want to check for yourselves? Start with California. Ask ANY cop if double-edge knives are illegal if carried on the street, open or concealed. 99% will tell you they're illegal. Some are lying, some are ignorant, all are wrong.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm still laughing, even after reading this whole thread. Is this Boise IDAHO? TWO concealed carry permit holders drive down the same street and end up being total and complete idiots? Is this a Pink Panther movie?

Does anyone realize how bad this looks for concealed permit holders? The policeman in the news video was obviously trying to hold back guffaws while being interviewed.

If this display of idiocy isn't a wake up call to those who think strapping on a pistol suddenly turns them into some white-hat wearing cowboy, nothing will be, I suppose.

Dr Raoul Duke:
1st: Excellent screen name and yes, Gonzo Forever!
2nd: Great post, should be required reading.

I posted what scottaschultz quoted in the "parking lot incident thread", I hope many who posted in that thread read this one. The current thread illustrates the consequences of not knowing the law and being quick to draw your weapon. The site I quoted from is here:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html

This page doesn't pretend to explain the laws involved, nor do I, but it is a good read for those who may think that their CCW suddenly gives them White-Hat super powers.

Jumping out of your car with pistol at the ready because you saw something "going down" where you have no involvement and no idea what is going on is a good way to a quick trip out of the gene pool, folks.

[MLeake]

... haven't seen that one, BillCA, but did once see something similar involving a jellyfish in a swimsuit.

It's always good to be sure of what you are observing, because the consequences of misinterpreting what you see can be really, really horrible.

[csmsss]

Just a point of clarification. Possession of a CHL permit does not also comprise authority to make an arrest; simply being a citizen under common law is what provides one with the authority to make an arrest. That said, you have to actually witness the crime (and be able to effectively identify the law(s) broken). The authority to make a citizen's arrest is completely independent of (and frequently contradictory to) the right to draw one's concealed firearm and point it at another human being. By that standard, CHL #1 is very possibly toast for three reasons - first, he didn't see the duffel bag actually being stolen, so he didn't observe any crime he could legally make a citizen's arrest for. Next, he fraudulently claimed to be a law enforcement officer. That's a big no no anywhere you step in these fifty states. Third, and independently of the first set of circumstances, he drew on someone who doesn't appear to have been of any imminent physical threat to himself or to anyone else. CHL #2, while one can argue with his judgement (I won't, as I wasn't there), doesn't appear to have committed any chargeable offense. What happens to CHL #1 will be strictly up to the DA and how merciful he feels like being.

[csmsss]

Oh, and one other thing. The ability of LEO's to comprehend, articulate, and fairly enforce weapons laws is definitely a mixed bag. They are not lawyers, they are not statutory nor constitutional scholars, and at the end of the day you can count on one thing and one thing only - the overwhelming majority of them will interpret and enforce the law in the manner which they believe best helps them get home safely that night. If that means overreaching in the determination of what is a legal vs. illegal weapon, so be it.

[Wildalaska]

The ability of LEO's to comprehend, articulate, and fairly enforce weapons laws is definitely a mixed bag.

Really? Got any stats from the criminal justice system to back that up? Specifically, the percentage of weapons offenses dismissed by the Courts or dismissed by prosecutors or aquittals vis a vis the number of arrests?

WildiknowwhatoyuranswerisAlaska TM

[csmsss]

Really? Got any stats from the criminal justice system to back that up? Specifically, the percentage of weapons offenses dismissed by the Courts or dismissed by prosecutors or aquittals vis a vis the number of arrests?

Do you? I do happen to know plenty of cops who will echo what I said above - in the absence of absolute and unequivocal knowledge of what can be very arcane weapons statutes, they will do whatever they feel will keep them and everyone else most safe. It's not an unreasonable perspective - in fact, what's UNREASONABLE is your implied assumption that cops always have a scholarly and encyclopedic knowledge of state statutes and interpretations, as well as the relevant constitutional precedents, when making these sorts of decisions on the street. Your position is, in all honesty, quite laughable.

[Wildalaska]

I do happen to know plenty of cops who will echo what I said above

And I know plenty of cops who will dispute it

in fact, what's UNREASONABLE is your implied assumption that cops always have a scholarly and encyclopedic knowledge of state statutes and interpretations, as well as the relevant constitutional precedents, when making these sorts of decisions on the street. Your position is, in all honesty, quite laughable.

tell it to the judge

Most weapons statutes are pretty clear cut. Most weapons violations are pretty clear cut.

But hey, its a "weapon", so looks like some oxen get gored

WildimnotsayingcopsareperfectbuttheyprobablynomorethantheaveragemessageboardexpertAlaska TM

PS check your local conviction rates

[Dannyl]

Hi Mr James,

You quoted part of my post calling it a gem. It could be that you considered my words to be wise, or that you were being sarcastic.

If I misunderstood your comment, and there was no sarcasm from your side please don't take offense, but I feel that I need to clarify what I meant to say.

What I meant tto say is:
IMO carrying a firearm makes it imperative that we act in a very responsible manner at all times. not that it is our responsibility to fight crime wherever we see it.

carrying a firearm gives us a means to defend ourselves and our loved ones (or the occassional by-stander) but does not give us any rights other than the laws state for everyone else.

Therefore what I meant in my post is that while I believe that a good person (aren't we all?) will be inclined to help others in need or act to prevent crime, a firearm needs to be the last thing we resort to, and only in circumstances that otherwise will result in injury or death to an innocent person.

let us not forget that in most circumstances there will be people around, and they be put at great risk if firearms are to be used. so drawing a firearm is something that you really want to do only as a last resort.

Brgds,

Danny

[onthejon55]

Bottom line: Would you want someone to intervene if you were the one in trouble?

[MLeake]

Bottom line: Would I want somebody to pull a gun on somebody, and impersonate a police officer, in order to retrieve my duffel bag?

Of course not! Some people should not carry....