Do YOU intervene?

[Dr Raoul Duke]

simply being a citizen under common law is what provides one with the authority to make an arrest

That may be the way it works in Texas, but it may not be so in other States. One problem with your comment for people in California is that in this State there is no "common" law. Example: no "common" law marriages. We invented a new legal term over that. A woman could not request alimony from her long time mate because there was no marriage, but she won it anyway in a landmark legal case that created "palimony".

I may be wrong (that has happened) but my Department training was to never accept a citizens arrest. In ten years on the PD I never saw or heard of a citizens arrest being made. I repeatedly had people want me to take someone into custody that they had "arrested". My response was always, "Tell me what happened, and I will investigate. If there is probable cause I will arrest the person". I did arrest people for assault because they had gone vigilante looney, and either physically assaulted, or assaulted with a weapon, people that they thought committed a crime. It's a pretty good rule to not get involved when a man runs by and a pursuer calls out, "Stop that guy!".

In the classroom a rookie cop would be asked questions like this: Is the guy who just ran by a criminal? Is he a jogger? Is he someone who just didn't want to be around a bad scene, and decided to take it on the shoes? Is the pursuer a credible witness? What do you actually know about the situation? Has there actually been a crime committed? If there has been a crime committed, is it serious enough that YOU want to take responsibility for the outcome? Are you willing to take the confrontation to the next level, possibly to lethal violence for you or the suspect, based on what you know? If you pull your pistol and call for the suspect to halt, and he keeps on running, are you going to shoot him? If the suspect stops, how are you going to hold him until the police arrive? Have the police been notified? Are you alone, holding a suspect at gunpoint, with no back up in route? Once he stops, if he takes off running again, what will you do? How far are you willing to go? This is Cop 101 stuff, but I think anyone who has a weapon and is out among the public should be able to give pretty good answers to those questions.

Someone once said that in any crime there is a criminal and a victim, and the thing to do was be neither. I would re-write it to include the possibility of a fool with a gun.

And, thanks Dr. Strangelove.

Dr. Raoul Duke
Gonzo Forever

[Jim March]

NOBODY in this thread is supporting dude #1 that I know of. I think he was an idiot and could very well be charged. And likely should. A felony bust appears possible, esp. if an "impersonating a cop" charge sticks.

It's guy #2 who at worst wasn't very smart should in my opinion and that of several others go uncharged.

[Mr. James]

Originally Posted by Dannyl

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.

Definitely wisdom - there was no sarcasm at all. I meant it's a gem worth keeping. That is as pithy a rendering of what it means to carry a firearm (or any weapon, really) as I've seen. A ton of responsibility and not one additional right. I wish the two yahoos in Boise, Idaho had read your post before "John Wayne-ing" it in the street. I hope some of the good and well-intentioned folks here take it to heart.

Bob James,
who is still trying to figure this all out!

[csmsss]

Well, Dr. Duke, if you had actually refused to accept a valid citizen's arrest, you would have been poorly serving the public, if not in outright dereliction of your official duty, as California statute specifically provides for citizens' arrests:

Originally Posted by C.P.C. 837

A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

[Uncle Billy]

Every time an everyday "civilian" waves his gun and maybe tosses some lead in some self-assigned duty as an ersatz wanna-be police officer, and gets it wrong, we all face the loss of CCW rights as the public accumulates evidence that CCW rights might bring more danger than good to them as bystanders or innocents who were misjudged by someone with a legal gun. What "getting it wrong" is made of isn't at all clear, its definition varies with each situation and with each witness to each situation which means there's no simple recipe that can be followed that evades a criminal charge every time, except leaving the gun at home. It's my contention that without the legal grounds and the training and experience expected of police officers, too many of the times a civilian inserts himself and his gun into a situation will be a mistake, which is at least bad for his legal situation and the reputation of CCW's, and at worst the unjustified injury or death of someone.

I don't think the two dummies in Idaho are unique or uncommon among CCW permit holders. There are too many of us who think they can help and be heros with their gun, even that they are obligated to do so, but lack everything but the gun to do that legally and correctly.

It appears to me that fully understanding the magnitude of what one takes on when carrying a gun is too often missing. When gun enthusiasts carry a weapon, it might mostly be about their interest in guns, and the legal pitfalls and the mountain of reasons to at least leave it in their pocket, or better on the dresser at home, are dismissed as impediments to enjoying their hobby. Carrying the gun is, to them, more about their hobby and less about their real need for a weapon, and that predisposes them to pull it out at inappropriate times, times when they rush into doing a "gun thing". Not everyone, not all the time, just probably more often unless those that CC pay attention to more than just to the hardware, and realize that any mistake they make in those issues beyond selecting the hardware will bite them hard, because laws against illegal use of firearms have real teeth in them.

[Jim March]

csmsss: THANK YOU, you just showed a classic example of cops not knowing the law.

Maybe it's especially rampant in California, I dunno.

[markj]

So now I gotta ask the dude holding the weapon if he has a concealed permit and is doing a "citizens arrest"? Just another reason to stay the heck out of town, folks in the city are plumb crazy. Heck I bet if he gave the homeless guy 20.00 he would have forgotten all about that duffel.......


2 guns pulled over a duffle bag? Now that is crazy.

[OldMarksman]

Several of the above posts by knowledgeable people have articulated very well the position that intervention to protect a third party can expose one to the very real risks of losing virtually everything. My idea of what to do and when mirrors that of Dr. Raoul Duke as set forth in a couple of posts above.

For those who might choose to be less risk averse, they should at least not proceed in ignorance. State laws vary a great deal.

This subject as come up from time to time, and during one of its earlier orbits, Marty Hayes, president of The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, LLC. offered the following comment:

For all of you pontificating on this subject, answer this question please.

Are you in a jurisdiction where you "stand in the shoes" of the 3rd party you are purportingly defending, or are you in a jurisdiction where you must simply "act like a reasonable person" when coming to the defense of another?

If you cannot answer this question, then I submit you had better spend some time researching this topic, because to get the answer wrong, means perhaps a long time in prison.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...6&postcount=94

Here's more on the network.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/

As an illustration of the intricate but crucially important complexities involved, I noted with interest something in the link on Kentucky law posted above by Vanya in Post #31: In Kentucky, as in most places, the use of deadly force for self defense is justified if there is a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious bodily harm is imminent and that the immediate use of deadly force is necessary to prevent it. However, when it comes to the defense of a third person, a reasonable belief will not suffice--the imminent danger must actually exist. Wow.

Laws and case law in other states vary, but I think it likely that one thing is the same all over: the citizen is not indemnified against civil liability.

For those who might be traveling in Kentucky, and that includes me, this might prove worth your careful perusal:

http://www.kentucky-concealed.com:/I...20Homicide.pdf

The whole paper is worth reading, but the following excerpt applies to this thread:

Justifiable Homicide is a legal defense as long as the belief that the Defendant’s life is in danger is reasonable. Deadly force can be used to defend a third person. However if deadly force is used to defend the life of another the threat must be actual not just believed under KRS 503.070.

Although 503.100 says that the Defendant must believe that the threat existed it does not remove the requirement that the threat actually existed when deadly force is used to protect another.

I am confident that the above is not the case where I live. As Marty Hayes advises, it is a good idea to find out just what does apply.

[Jim March]

The time I came the closest to using a weapon in defense of another, he was being actively stomped into the ground by four lunatics with heavy boots, while lying flat on his stomach trying to cover up and bleeding from the scalp. A few seconds later I learned that two of the assailants had standard household claw hammers out, one visibly dripping with the victim's blood.

I believe he had only moments more to live.

That's the level of problem it would take to get me to draw, point and fire a gun to defend another.

[Daugherty16]

I imagine that Actor # 1 had just received his CCW; the card may still have been warm from the lamination. He certainly didn't spend much time here at TFL, otherwise he'd know that he should have shot the duffel bag multiple times, then arrested its contents. Those damn things are always at the center of major crime outbreaks and need to be rubbed out.

Then Actor #2 could have shot him for unlawful discharge of a weapon, and given his gun to the homeless guy to protect himself against further efforts by the duffel bag to bring order and respectability back into his life.

Sorry, i couldn't help myself. Actually, saying anything more about the grossly dumb and potentially dangerous intervention where, as a driver going by, neither of these men could possibly have ascertained enough facts to understand what was going on, would be redundant, repetitive, unnecessary and duplicative, and in addition i would just be parroting what everyone else said.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Daugherty16

Actually, saying anything more ... would be redundant, repetitive, unnecessary and duplicative, and in addition i would just be parroting what everyone else said.

Goes for others in this thread too... undisirregardless.

[onthejon55]

Originally Posted by 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....

Depends on whats in the duffel bag....

[SAIGAFISH]

you can step in without the gun being the first option,elbow,punch,head butt
knife then gun.then trigger .in many times only if its needed.

[MLeake]

Sorry, sometimes stuff is just stuff. And if it's that important, I'll pursue, myself. Strangers shouldn't pull guns over stuff, it's unwise, and in most cases illegal. And it's never a good idea to impersonate LEO's; the real LEO's take that very, very badly.

[Jim March]

Saigafish: NO, the last thing you want to do is start a fistfight over property while armed. It can escalate to gunfire and if so, it's your fault because you started the violence.

No, you only get involved if it's DIRE.

[tommyb]

I don't have a CWP because I live in Illinois, but if I had one, I would NOT have intervened.

A concealed weapons permit gives you the right to carry, and defend yourself against life threatening situations. It does NOT give you the authority to be a LEO, and stop a petty crime like this.

Had this BG been beating the homeless man with a pipe, then thats a different story. But watching somebody stealing somebody else's bag does NOT give you the right, as a normal citizen, to draw your weapon...period. However, I do not wish this man to be convicted.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by WildAlaska

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.

I'd trust some folks on a few forums over some of the California cops when it comes to firearms law. I'm sure Alaskan laws are pretty straightforward compared to California, MA, or NJ. You might be able to trust that your LEOs will know the law -- or at least read ALL of the statute -- before arresting someone. Not always the case here.

Apparently the cops in a large central California town never heard of People v. Clark which defined what constitutes a loaded firearm. I just read where the PD claimed someone's gun was "loaded" because he had ammo inside the locked gunbox.

A couple of bay area residents have been arrested for "assault weapon" violations. One because the officer ignored the "centerfire rifle" element of the crime and seized his .22LR AR rifle as an "assault weapon".

Another was arrested because the magazine appeared to be detachable -- yet the officer, evidence-room officer and the PD's armorer couldn't figure out how to remove the magazine, so they pounded it out with a mallet. (Sound like a fixed magazine to you?). It cost him almost $10k to defend himself.

An officer at a central coast range arrested a patron for possesing an "assault pistol" - despite his Broomhandle Mauser being a C&R firearm and thus exempt from the laws. This was pointed out prior to his being transported to jail. Took him 37 days to get his pistol back.

Most cops in California couldn't tell an assault weapon from a frackin' BB gun.

[Sportdog]

After reading all, well, almost all of the posts on this thread no truer words have ever been spoken as the comment made to me during a break of my CCW class. The young man said: "It sounds like this CCW can get you in more trouble than it can get you out of!" I think that I'm starting to agree with him.

[FireForged]

I am very pro Police but I think there is a huge difference between knowing enough about codified elements to effectively get your job done and actually understanding legal construction of a statute. I honestly do not think that the majority of Police in this Country would tell you to get your legal advice from them.. I think they would tell you to speak to a lawyer.

[onthejon55]

Originally Posted by MLeake

Sorry, sometimes stuff is just stuff. And if it's that important, I'll pursue, myself. Strangers shouldn't pull guns over stuff, it's unwise, and in most cases illegal.

Ive heard plenty of stories and know of one personally in which a bag was stolen that contained medicine which the victim was dependent on such as an inhaler. In one case the victim died as a result of not getting her severe asthma under control in time.

And it's never a good idea to impersonate LEO's; the real LEO's take that very, very badly.

No one thinks so. We've all made that clear.

[MLeake]

... is to call 911, or drive the asthmatic to the ER.

Pulling a gun to retrieve a duffel bag is STUPID.

[Jofaba]

I don't think that I would intervene with strangers until the gunman fired his first shot, be it at an inanimate object or a human being (he can shoot as many animals as he wants).

In my eyes he has to show intent, and just brandishing his gun is not intent enough for me to get involved.

If I happened across a guy holding a gun to another guy, I would hide and call the cops and keep an eye on him. I'd figure he's either a plainclothes cop or a mugger, and muggers don't usually shoot their victim, especially if there are people around.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Ive heard plenty of stories and know of one personally in which a bag was stolen that contained medicine which the victim was dependent on such as an inhaler. In one case the victim died as a result of not getting her severe asthma under control in time.

Yep, and I know people who survived car accidents because they weren't wearing their seatbelt.... But I still wear mine. Why? Well, because there are 10,000 who died because they weren't wearing a seatbelt for every one who survived because they weren't.

In other words, I'm not involving myself and my gun in a stolen purse situation just because somebody somewhere died because they lost their allergy medicine.

The odds of things going very badly for all of us are a whole lot higher than the odds of someone needing the medicine in the bag.

[flyguyskt]

WOW...im going to go out on a limb here... and let everyone flamne me>>>

BUT: guy #1 was trying to do the right thing...and stopped the crime...NO one was injured

i think the old school western law should be in effect here... its bull stuff that you are all bashing him saying hes an idiot...whgat makes you better than him.

how many of you have ACTUALLY ever unholstered your firearm? other than to polish it or plink at targets? yes i know some of you are experienced.

I have unholstered a pistol and pointed it right at a dirtbag! he was beating the stuffing out of a girl in our hotel parking lot and i felt pretty confident in the fact that he would have raped her....so did i do the wrong thing? YOU might think so but i can bet you SHE doesnt think i did!

the ones you should be criticizing here are the ones who arrested these 2 GOOD citizens AND the DA for not immediately letting the free and rewarding them with medals!

IF more good people got involved and didnt hide out of fear from the "LAW", (OUR law) this would be a better country and even world. 50 years ago they would have slapped the snot out of the guy stealing the bag and shook the hands of the 2 who stopped the crime!

Go back and read some of the stuff you guys wrote down...shocking

[Brian Pfleuger]

how many of you have ACTUALLY ever unholstered your firearm? other than to polish it or plink at targets? yes i know some of you are experienced.

I have unholstered a pistol and pointed it right at a dirtbag! he was beating the stuffing out of a girl in our hotel parking lot and i felt pretty confident in the fact that he would have raped her....so did i do the wrong thing? YOU might think so but i can bet you SHE doesnt think i did!

1)Never have, hope never to, having done so doesn't make you better or smarter.

2)A girl getting beat in a parking lot is decidedly different than a stolen duffel bag.