Force Used for a Citizen's Arrest

There are some excellent stickies here about using deadly force for self defense, but what about its use to detain a bad guy once the threat is over. I understand that in my state, California, a non-leo can arrest or detain a felon, but only use reasonable force to affect the arrest, but shooting a fleeing BG to affect an arrest is not exactly reasonable. Am I close to being correct or would any of the firearms law experts wish to chime in.
 
...shooting a fleeing BG to affect an arrest is not exactly reasonable...
Shooting in defense of property*, and shooting at someone fleeing/no longer
presenting immediate danger to yourself or others will likely put one in front
of a jury.

... a general rule.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* There is some great uncertainty when that "property" might be your home
(i.e., a man throwing Molotov cocktails into your living room window); and/or
a man "fleeing" in the direction of others to whom he would then be a threat.

But if you can't say "...I was in immediate fear of my life," you will have some
extensive/expensive explaining to do.
 
Last edited:
I've stopped many a bad guy, but I've never tried to arrest one, nor have I entertained shooting one once the threat has turned away.
Civilians making arrests aren't the norm. It's the rare instance when they're much bigger, or there are many people to pile on the BG when and if the time is right.
Ever heard "Well. it seemed like a good idea at the time"? You don't want to be on the wrong side of that equation. Being armed is to defend yourself or loved ones. Not play cop. You don't suddenly get powerful, nor do you suddenly become an officer.
 
This is going to vary widely from state to state based on state laws. And how it works in practice often won't be how it works in the letter of the law. Even Law Enforcement are limited in shooting fleeing suspects. The Supreme Court has said this about law enforcement and deadly force

such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

In other words, they'd likely be safe if they shot The Green Goblin while he was running away with a grenade in his hand. They'd be much less safe if they shot Peter Parker running away with a camera in his hand that may or may not have stolen.

My state has deadly force laws in at least two locations. Peace Officers and those under their direction and Use of (unspecified) force by anybody as well as Justifiable Homicide

There is also a legislative note at the bottom of the Peace Officer section acknowledging a double standard in favor of John Q Public over peace officers. To continue the fictional example from above, I would probably be pretty safe if I shot The Green Goblin running away. You and I both know that even with that legislative note, you and I would be in infinitely more hot water than a police officer for shooting Peter Parker.

To draw a parallel from the Zimmerman trial- he was neighborhood watch'ing for burglars. How much does a stereo cost? How much did his legal defense team cost? And he shot someone who wasn't running away, involved in a felony on his person, AND in theory had no duty to retreat (not that SYG played a role as it was straight up Self Defense being argued).

That case alone should tell you all you need to know. If you're going to do it, make sure it's worth it.
 
While the concept of citizens' arrest is legal in many states, the practice can get you into a great deal of trouble.

Law enforcement have training in use of force and its limits. They have immunities to certain prosecutions and attorneys dedicated to their defense. The normal citizen does not have these things. The slightest mistake or misuse of force during a citizen's arrest could result in charges ranging from unlawful detention to battery, kidnapping, manslaughter, or murder.
 
Thank you all. I have seen a lot of chatter about home justifiable shoots, in a home invasion scenario, and many posters talked about keeping the intruder for the police. No one ever talked about the kind of force they could use to affect a detention and I fear that too many think that if they would have been justified in shooting the knife wielding BG at one point they may still shoot him after he drops the knife and the imminent threat has passed.
 
Last edited:
Using deadly force to detain a bad person once the threat is over is typically not advised. In my state (NC) there is no citizens arrest, only detention. The issue is, I see it, once they are detained then they become my responsibility for better or worse. That's a liability that I do not wish to take on a personal level outside of work.

Best advice, let them run away, and be a good witness.

eta: OP I guess I was typing when you replied.
 
Last edited:
Using deadly force to detain a bad person once the threat is over is typically not advised.
I don't think it should ever be advised, to be honest. If I draw a gun and the intruder is no longer a threat, I'm not justified in shooting. If I tell a jury I was using deadly force (or the threat thereof) for any reason other than stopping violent aggression, I can expect to land in hot water.
 
Fish Cabin and Tom Servo, I 100% agree. Let law enforcement take care of any detention or arrest. If the guy is leaving the risk to me and mine diminishes the further he/she is from us. Thanks all for the thoughts.
 
If you have make a citizens arrest wait for the cops*

They are trained and equipped to do just that. Trying to detain/restrain someone when you have a gun is going to end up all sorts of WRONG. If the guy tries to leave the scene of a crime then let him go. Give your info to the police and let them track him down.

* In other words. DON'T!
 
shooting a fleeing BG to affect an arrest is not exactly reasonable

As the OP is in California; I will summarize Ca. specific.

From Ca. BSIS Powers of Arrest Manual:

REASONABLE FORCE
in an arrest situation is a degree of force reasonably
needed to detain an individual and to protect oneself. (People v. Garcia,
(1969) 78 Cal.Rptr. 775)

In the state of California these subjects are covered in the Security Guards required Powers of Arrest and Firearms training since a Security Guards power of arrest is the same as that of any other resident / citizen. Guards do not have Penal Code arrest powers or protections like a PC 832 LEO. That is why guards are taught to Observe and Report!

In Ca. the Dept of Consumer Affairs / Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) is the licensing agency for guards, PI's, Locksmiths, etc. You might want to review their publications. Also review PC's 833 - 851.90 and you can see the differences in LEO and citizen powers and immunities.
 
An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the custody of an officer. The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.

Pen. Code, § 835

Pen. Code, § 837 Arrests by private persons. 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.

Pen. Code, § 841. Formalities in making arrest; exceptionsThe person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest, and the authority to make it, except when the person making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, or the person to be arrested is pursued immediately after its commission, or after an escape.
The person making the arrest must, on request of the person he is arresting, inform the latter of the offense for which he is being arrested.

(2) Citizen's arrest—The court also instructed with the following instruction, designated as “INSTRUCTION A”: “A private person may arrest another person for a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. [¶] An arrest by a private person is made by actually restraining the person arrested and the person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonably needed for his said arrest and continued detention. [¶] A violation of Vehicle Code section 20002(a) (Hit and Run with Property Damage) is a public offense. [¶] An individual making a citizen's arrest may use reasonable force to detain the person who has committed a public offense. There is no **387 right to defend against a valid arrest. When a valid citizen's arrest is being made, the person being arrested has a duty not to resist. [¶] If the person making a citizen's arrest uses unreasonable or excessive force while arresting or detaining another, the person being arrested or detained may lawfully use reasonable force to defend himself or herself....”

People v. Adams (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 946, 951 [98 Cal.Rptr.3d 383, 386-87]
 
While I'm not as well-read legally as many others here, it seems to me that simple common-sense should answer this question adequately. To my mind, the primary goal of people using a gun for self-defense should be to minimize the risk of harm to themselves and their loved ones. To this end, I think that engaging in unnecessary confrontation is detrimental to this goal and thus should be avoided.

Where things become a bit murky is at what point, exactly, that you cross the line from minimizing risk to unnecessary confrontation. For example, if I were to find an intruder in my home, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to command said intruder, at gunpoint, to get on the floor and place his hands behind his head as such a position would minimize his ability to harm me or my family. Whether or not holding an intruder in such a position until the police arrive would constitute a citizen's arrest I cannot say, but it seems to be a prudent and reasonable course of action to me.

What is not so clear-cut, however, is the appropriate course of action if the intruder does not comply with such a command. Personally, if the intruder does not comply but is obviously trying to leave my home without harming me or my family, I will not attempt to impede his escape as that would cross the line into unnecessary confrontation. If, however, the intruder does not comply and is not obviously trying to leave without harming me or my family, then he represents a threat to my safety and that of my family and he may very well suffer the most dire consequences for his actions.

What I absolutely would not do, however, is physically confront someone who does not pose an imminent threat to me or my loved ones. For example, I would not leave my home to confront someone attempting to steal a vehicle from my driveway. At most, I may shout at said person to vacate the premises as I have called the police whilst remaining in the safety of my house. More likely, however, is that I would simply attempt to get a good enough look at the thief to provide a thorough description to the police when they arrive.
 
Re "detaining" someone, here is something to consider.
A local businessman I know caught a shoplifter and as many businesses do-detained the perp and called the police. After several hours and calls (seriously-hours) the police still had not showed up.:mad: He convinced the perp to go with him to the police station nearby. :confused: Now this may be a surprise to many, but generally the police are not at the station, the job requires them to be on the street... So the office staff there actually had to call for an officer to return to the station! And yes, it is a true story, I showed up after it happened and the employees were still still talking about it, and the owner and I discussed it.
And I also wonder why the idiot sat in a chair at the front counter for hours and agreed to ride to the station. But being a crook really does not require either common sense or a very high IQ.
Depending on the crime your call maybe way, way down on the priority list.
Listen to a police scanner on your computer or phone and you will be shocked when you hear some of the conversations btween dispatch and officers. "when seconds count...."

So how long are you willing to "baby sit" someone? :cool:
 
You may find that the perp gets a lawyer and sues you. You don't have anyone paying your legal costs except yourself. There are a lot of lawyers out there eager to help these miscreants. Do you want to pay?
 
Like a real estate salesman once said, location-location-location. In Texas you might be able to do so and the odds might be more in your favor. In Seattle, that might bring a different result. A great reader response can be read on the American Handgunner March/April issue p17 titled, Are you worth it? That is also the essence of the first part of the Ayoob article in the same mag p46 about sue happy folks. Like Zimmerman, even if you are right, you lose. It isn't worth stopping a perp who's just going to be released to do it all over again for the 50th time when property is involved. Unless your life is in imminent jeopardy, use a good portable camera and let the catch/release system make another buck off the system they perpetuate. Use the insurance you pay for to resolve property issues. Until they start out sourcing criminals to 3rd world prisons so we have enough space in ours, it will never change because there is no reason for it to change. What ever happened to that Judge Roy Bean anyway????
 
Not sure why anyone would choose to remain in the company of a criminal.
It's doubtful a criminal would refrain from thinking and acting like a criminal, just because they were temporarily bested.
All kinds of nasty things could still happen.
 
Back
Top