DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Cell Phoning Drivers

Try reading more carefully. I said you state to the other individual that use of force with bodily harm is authorized, and also stated that your legal grounds for this is somewhat sketchy. The goal is to not allow them to leave.

You have the same rights as a police officer. They are nothing special. Once an arrest is made, whether by a citizen or by a police officer, use of force to prevent escape is acceptable, also to prevent harm to the arresting individual. The crime itself has nothing to do with this. The crime is the justification for the arrest, and the arrest is justification for use of force. People have been arrested for little or nothing, and shot while trying to escape.

A citizen does not have the policeman's union and city attorneys behind them, so they need to be somewhat more careful. BUT, the right to make an arrest is a citizen's right, just as for a police officer. They are not exactly highly trained specialists, there main advantage is the backing of local government.

You have the right to do anything a cop has the right to do, you are simply on your own in terms of defending it. As you are on your own in confronting a criminal. The cops are not there, you are.

What if the car in question was rendered undriveable in the accident? You going to let them just walk away? If you punch their lights out WITHOUT making an arrest, you are guilty of assault. IF you place them under arrest, and they attack you or attempt to leave, you can punch their lights out and be fully justified. You just need to be careful about excessive force, which of course a "real" police officer would never use, or get away with.

Note the word "can", which is different from the word "will".

Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. Criminals can be arrested. Arrested persons can be forcibly detained. Citizens without an attorney on call and pre-paid need to be very careful. If your car is damaged in an accident and there is no police report, many insurance companies will not pay. Very often vehicle and personal damage is not immediately noticeable.

The safety of yourself and your property is your responsibility, and your right to protect and defend. Relying on somebody else to do this for you is not always a good strategy.

Nelson you are just wrong and are giving out plain horrible legal advice.

Police do have explicit powers that citizens do not, e.g. the right to detain someone if they have probable cause that a crime was committed.

What you are advocating is false imprisonment, a felony.

And it may be a touch more complicated than that, but the advice you are giving out borders on lunacy.

From Wikipedia:

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring. [35]

American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections held by police officers, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including, but not limited to, any infringement of another's rights.[36] Nonetheless many citizens' arrests are popular news stories and criminal prosecutions in clearly justifiable cases are rare.[37]

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both private citizens and police officers outside their jurisdiction.[38] Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.[39] Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent

It would appear that, at least in North Carolina, YOU are incorrect.

I SAID it varies state-by-state. I SAID you had better have an actual crime or you could be in deep do-do.

The crime you could be charged with is false arrest. Not false imprisonment.
The key difference is in saying "you will stay right where you are" rather than saying "you will come over here and stay there".

If anyone has construed this as legal advice, well then that's a comprehension problem on their end. It is clear that a citizen has the right to make an arrest, that is NOT a right reserved exclusively for police officers. I have stated several times that you have little protection from the establishment, and that you run a huge risk.

However, the average person's belief that they are not allowed to do a damn thing to protect themselves and/or their property without having a police officer present is just wrong, horribly, terribly wrong.

Either way your advice is still retarded.

Yeah let's pummel a female on the side of the road after a minor fender bender with NO DAMAGE. I can't possibly see what could go wrong. (note the sarcasm)

Here's what you do: jot down a physical description, license plate #, make/model of car, witness information, and file a police report. You're not apprehending someone on the FBI's most wanted list and you won't get any leeway with the police as such.

Still haveing comprehension problems, I see.

AT NO TIME did I advocate doing actual physical damage to the other person. WHAT I SAID was FIRST, place them under arrest. THEN, AFTER THAT, IF and I will repeat IF they attempt to flee, resist arrest, or assault you, THEN AND ONLY THEN is the use of force authorized and justified.

TELLING someone that you will hurt them if they do something you don't want done is not the same as just cleaning their clock. It is often very, very effective in preventing them from doing what you don't want done. It is a matter of being convincing.

IF the arrest is justified, and IF they attempt to flee, resist, or assault, then physical force is justified.

Once they leave the scene, your chances of succesful prosecution or recovery of damages drops dramatically.

People have called me crazy many, many times. "You can't do that" is something I have heard all my life. I won't say EVERY SINGLE TIME, but the vast majority of times, I have proven them wrong.

Is OJ Simpson guilty of murder? No, he is not, and I can prove it.

Can you jump out the open door of an airliner in flight and pull the door closed? Yes, you can, and I can prove it.

Can you have a police officer pull a gram of cocaine out of your pocket, or a bag of weed out of your glovebox, and walk away? Yes you can, and I can tell you how, because I've done it.

Can you get a new license plate for a car without having a title or registration? Yes you can, and I have done it.

"You can't turn in that paper saying those things about a professor, you'll get expelled" Got an A, and was asked to return for the second class next quarter.

"You can't get the school dress code changed". You should see my graduation picture.

"You can't walk into a bank, ask for a $3000 loan, and when thay ask what you want it for and what your collateral is, tell them it's none of their damn business" Walked out with $3000 in my pocket.

A limitation is NOT a limitation if you refuse to accept it.

I'm coming to this late and haven't read the whole thing but I'm pretty sure a civilians response (just like a police response) to a situation must be commensorate with the threat. If somebody breaks into your home and is coming up the steps you can shoot them, if you walk out of Giant Food and somebody has busted your window and is removing your GPS you cannot run out and shoot them as they try to run away.

In this case it seems to me that the best you could do is say that you were calling the police because you considered this an accident.. you could get her information but if she leaves you pretty much have to let her go but then she could be held responsible for leaving the scene of an accident.

In most jurisdictions, you can't legally use lethal force as a means of self-defense unless you have a legitimate belief that your life is in imminent danger, regardless of what a lot of th Billy Badasses around here might say.

As for Nelson's list of achievements up there, I'm sure he's right, you can do any of them if you want. There's just no legit reason to do so.

I don't know of any either, but if I said it that way, someone would've posted that in some Podunk town in the Appalachian foothills or in the middle of the desert, it's legal to shoot a man for looking at you funny. I just wanted to play it safe.

So I can't take a baseball bat and beat people who look funny at me?

What is this world coming to? There's just no fun anymore.

You do now.

Florida satute 771 IIRC, known as the "stand your ground" law. If someone "illegally and forcibly" enters your home, lethal force is authorized. No direct threat to yourself or anyone else, no weapon, no threat, no property damage required. You can blow their head clean off. You are also specifically protected against any civil claim of damages.

I have had very good reason to research this law, and at one time had it posted on my front door.

Also, for those quoting the felony requirement, read the definition again. The crime is NOT required to be a felony, here you go, I'll help you, property damage and/or personal injury qualifies. Also note that prosecution for false arrest, when the citizens arrest is justified, is rare.

They do NOT have to give you a reason for DETAINING you. There is a time limitation which SFAIK was increased by the patriot act. As for how many people who have asked the question and walked away, I know of at least one.

You probably also think there is a requirement to Mirandize you if you are arrested OR detained. This is not true. ONLY if they intend to ask you questions; police are under no obligation to tell you to shut up. They are also allowed to lie to you.

Yeah - Ohio has what is commonly known as the "castle doctrine" - no need to retreat, no need to seek escape, if someone comes into your home.

But I guarantee you, here, or where you are - if you shoot someone and they can prove that person didn't pose a life threat to you - you WILL be charged. Even WITH the castle doctrine.

Now, if that person had a bat, a knife, a gun, a shank....whatever, more than likely you would be vindicated. If they didn't? Hello prison.

If you shoot them in the back - and the authorities think it was because they were leaving? Hello lawsuit.

I will repeat - in Florida, the ONLY requirement is "forcible and illegal entry". The law pre-supposes that such an entry ALL BY ITSELF constitutes an implied threat. No weapon or specific threat required. As long as a criminal case against the intruder is prosecuted, your actions are specifically protected against any civil lawsuit, actually it states "any civil action". Such as a divorce, where it came up in my case.

My ex was under the impression that her 2nd ex, a convicted child molester, could enter my home any time he pleased, that is when my research began.
I used to quote her the law, along with "the only question the police will have for me is how I want the body disposed of. It will be my intention to have it rendered into dog food in order to pay the cost of cleaning his blood and brain matter off my floor and walls."

The only exception is for a police officer in the performance of his duty, but then that would almost certainly NOT be an illegal entry.

The entire law is only one page, at one time I could quote the whole thing from memory. I had it posted on my front door along with her ex's mugshot, which she actually complained to the police that I had "altered" it by putting a bullseye on it. No cop, social worker, or judge had any problem with it whatosever.

Quote:

---

WHAT I SAID was FIRST, place them under arrest. THEN, AFTER THAT, IF and I will repeat IF they attempt to flee, resist arrest, or assault you, THEN AND ONLY THEN is the use of force authorized and justified.

---

So.... if I tell somebody they're under arrest and they laugh and walk away, I'm justified in using force?

If you have a justifiable reason for the arrest, yes. Just like a real police officer. First is an attempt to restrain as in prevent from leaving, from that point reasonable under the circumstances.

I will repeat, AGAIN, you have absolutely no back-up, you had better be real certain that the arrest is reasonable. You will not get the benefit of the doubt that a police officer will, based on their supposed "knowledge of the law".

This can be a very useful strategy. Say you do catching someone stealing your radio, and you beat the crap out of them, you'll get busted for assault. However, if you catch them in the commission of a crime, arrest them, and they resist.........., you may very well be able to avoid serious prosecution.

Note that the first part there is a near-certainty. A somewhat long-shot is not great, but a lot better than near-certain jail tiem.

I am in no way suggesting this action, other than the right to arrest. There does exist, however, an avenue of legal protection which could save someone serious trouble someday.

This whole idea of beating the crap out of somebody has been falsely inserted into this concept, IMO. I did NOT say DO IT, I did NOT say you are automatically ALLOWED to do so, I idid NOT say you should.

I said you tell the dumbass loudly and clearly you arrest them, they will wait for a police officer, and you state clearly and loudly that use of force, including bodily harm (if necessary) to prevent them from leaving is authorized. The second part is only necessary IF thay say FU and try to leave. Use of that particular phrasing would be situational, and may not be necessary at all. I sometimes forget to mention that while doing something, your brain should not disengage and you actually get to use your own judgement. They will bitch, and moan, and start BS'ing at a high rate of speed, but they almost certainly will NOT resist, and will NOT leave. If they sit quietly and wait for the cop, there is no need to explain what being arrested means. If they start to leave, you get to choose.

Your insurance claim for damage will likely be paid, instead of likely not. Any medical problems will likely be covered, instead of likely not. The dumbass will at least hopefully gain a fuller understanding of how they screwed up, and maybe be less likely to do it again.

Crime doesn't get stopped because there are cops everywhere. Crime gets stopped because average Joes refuse to tolerate it. "it's not my job" is in some ways similar to "I was just following orders". It's an abdication of responsibility.

The right to arrest has, to me, a similarity to the right to bear arms. It is a personal right fundamental to independence, serl-reliance, freedom. It is not something we give up and entrust to only a few, it belongs to each and every one of us.