Double Naught Spy
New member
Right, but if you do it covertly, then it is just downright legal!
Guy chases burglar outside and shoots him away from the house.
- Thread starter cloud8a
- Start date
Right, but if you do it covertly, then it is just downright legal!
mjoy64 said:
That probably depends on where you live. In Arizona, it is legal for a private person to make an arrest. Since it is legal to arrest the criminal, I believe you would not forfeit the right to defend yourself if the criminal you are legally arresting threatens you since Arizona is also a stand your ground state.
ARS 13-3884. Arrest by private person
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Tactically, I don't want to be the test case for something like this. But for those arguing morality, which has greater moral force-letting a known violent criminal go or stopping them before they victimize someone else?
Before we get too involved in these technicalities of the law on whether or not it was a felony vs. misdomeaner and citizen's arrest deal we really need to check back in on the story. If someone has some more information that what was first reported it would help.
Fact is the fellow broke into the house. The report said he kicked the door in but in the long run that is not extremely important. It is assumed that when he broke in he found Bubba and Earl sitting on the couch watching reruns of Bill Dance. So he took off running. Bubba and Earl recognized him and gave chase.
This is where it gets interesting. They found him several blocks away. When we say they gave chase how long/far do you chase a BG that just broke in. Do you lock up before you go SEVERAL blocks after the BG, who incidently you know as a regular at the local Dew Drop Inn. Or do you just run off after him so his buddy can have free access to everything in your house while you are playing cop?
All that is still not important. Finally after probably about 30 minutes of chasing (I know it doesn't say how long but it also doesn't say a lot of other things) the BG you finally meet up with him. You ask him who is going to pay for that door and in not a nice way. He tells you to go do something that is impossible. You threaten to whup his rear end and he doubts you have the power to do it. You offer him a free sex change operation and start walking toward him. He pulls out his gun in fear that you are able to perform the operation that you offered to do. Your good buddy then takes matters into his hands and ends the argument without a fight.
Here is where it really gets strange.
FACT - You don't notify the police about the break-in or shooting. You leave the SOB beside the road. A good citizen comes by, finds the body, calls the police and after some investigation they find out that your buddy did the shooting.
Summary - BG (that you recognize) breaks your front door down, you chase him down, gun fight breaks out and you shoot the BG, you go home so you can see the last part of Bill Dance's tip of the week and don't call the police. Then everyone starts arguing about the technicalities of the law on citizen's arrest!
I know I am missing something here but just don't know what?
Fact is the fellow broke into the house. The report said he kicked the door in but in the long run that is not extremely important. It is assumed that when he broke in he found Bubba and Earl sitting on the couch watching reruns of Bill Dance. So he took off running. Bubba and Earl recognized him and gave chase.
This is where it gets interesting. They found him several blocks away. When we say they gave chase how long/far do you chase a BG that just broke in. Do you lock up before you go SEVERAL blocks after the BG, who incidently you know as a regular at the local Dew Drop Inn. Or do you just run off after him so his buddy can have free access to everything in your house while you are playing cop?
All that is still not important. Finally after probably about 30 minutes of chasing (I know it doesn't say how long but it also doesn't say a lot of other things) the BG you finally meet up with him. You ask him who is going to pay for that door and in not a nice way. He tells you to go do something that is impossible. You threaten to whup his rear end and he doubts you have the power to do it. You offer him a free sex change operation and start walking toward him. He pulls out his gun in fear that you are able to perform the operation that you offered to do. Your good buddy then takes matters into his hands and ends the argument without a fight.
Here is where it really gets strange.
FACT - You don't notify the police about the break-in or shooting. You leave the SOB beside the road. A good citizen comes by, finds the body, calls the police and after some investigation they find out that your buddy did the shooting.
Summary - BG (that you recognize) breaks your front door down, you chase him down, gun fight breaks out and you shoot the BG, you go home so you can see the last part of Bill Dance's tip of the week and don't call the police. Then everyone starts arguing about the technicalities of the law on citizen's arrest!
I know I am missing something here but just don't know what?
Big Ugly Tall Texan
New member
When the BG pulled a gun, it was a whole new deal
If they had of chased him down and killed him, they would have been in big poo.
But when the guy turns and pulls a gun, it's open season on bad guys.
Clearly a case of self-defense. The bad guy had the option of giving up and living a bit longer, but chose a different path to the afterlife.
If they had of chased him down and killed him, they would have been in big poo.
But when the guy turns and pulls a gun, it's open season on bad guys.
Clearly a case of self-defense. The bad guy had the option of giving up and living a bit longer, but chose a different path to the afterlife.
skydiver3346
New member
Question?
If burglary is not a felony as some of you say here in your posts, then what the heck is it called then, (when this dirt bag kicks down your door while you are in your home at the time)? A misdemeanor? A misdeed?
I believe that you would get at least a year in prision for committing this crime and that is usually considered a felony in most cases.
The only reason this guy didn't continue into the home was the victim was in the room and his brother with him.
If burglary is not a felony as some of you say here in your posts, then what the heck is it called then, (when this dirt bag kicks down your door while you are in your home at the time)? A misdemeanor? A misdeed?
I believe that you would get at least a year in prision for committing this crime and that is usually considered a felony in most cases.
The only reason this guy didn't continue into the home was the victim was in the room and his brother with him.
PT111 gave voice to the same thing that bothered me: Why would you not call 911 after what you believed to be a justifiable SD shooting? And leave the scene so that a passerby finds a dead body and reports it? That really doesn't smell right. There is no mention of a weapon, either: Article to brief? Wasn't there? Lifted before LE arrived? Another reason to call promptly, it would seem to me.
There have been some reasonable SD scenarios presented here, such as following the perpetrator to report his position to the police and then being forced to fire when he confronts, that would seem to be belied by these significant details.
There have been some reasonable SD scenarios presented here, such as following the perpetrator to report his position to the police and then being forced to fire when he confronts, that would seem to be belied by these significant details.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
If the homeowners truly "tracked the man down" as is stated in the story then it is probably straight up murder. THEY became the aggressor.
Why does it matter if it's 5 minutes later or the next day? If they saw this guy on the street the next day and approached him with a gun then he would have every right to defend himself. So where do you draw the line? 2 minutes later? 20 minutes? 3 hours? Why? This man started a conflict and then made it clear that he was withdrawing from the conflict. In most any area, withdrawing from a conflict creates a necessary end for the other parties use of force. If the other party continues the use of force, the withdrawing party almost certainly has the right to defend themselves. He withdrew, they attacked, he defended, they killed him.
From all appearances, this is a case where the defender lost the fight, IMHO.
Why does it matter if it's 5 minutes later or the next day? If they saw this guy on the street the next day and approached him with a gun then he would have every right to defend himself. So where do you draw the line? 2 minutes later? 20 minutes? 3 hours? Why? This man started a conflict and then made it clear that he was withdrawing from the conflict. In most any area, withdrawing from a conflict creates a necessary end for the other parties use of force. If the other party continues the use of force, the withdrawing party almost certainly has the right to defend themselves. He withdrew, they attacked, he defended, they killed him.
From all appearances, this is a case where the defender lost the fight, IMHO.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
There was the TX case that was well-known of a guy who followed someone who broke into his car (Austin, IIRC). Then he shot the guy - claimed the thief threatened him. But he was charged and went to trial. The claim of self-defense was quite ambiguous.
The thing that saved the guy's bacon was that the 911 operator told him to follow the thief. Great advice.
As far as if you follow the guy and he pulls a gun, it is SD - not a lawyer but that's iffy. If you are not in the right when you follow and the BG says he felt he was threatened by you - then you can be the BG and shot. If you said - stop or I'll shoot - then you are in the wrong, for example.
If you said you shot him to prevent a later crime - that would be a bad idea.
The thing that saved the guy's bacon was that the 911 operator told him to follow the thief. Great advice.
As far as if you follow the guy and he pulls a gun, it is SD - not a lawyer but that's iffy. If you are not in the right when you follow and the BG says he felt he was threatened by you - then you can be the BG and shot. If you said - stop or I'll shoot - then you are in the wrong, for example.
If you said you shot him to prevent a later crime - that would be a bad idea.
Peetza, At least in florida, the guy commited a heinous violent felony... Home Invasion, he can't stop what is already done. Crime was commited, citizen in florida (I know this ain't a florida case) can use any force required up to and including lethal force to stop and hold the criminal for LEO's.
Brent
Brent
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
For how long and where? Certainly you couldn't find the guy the next day and shoot him claiming that he invaded your home. What about 5 hours later? 3? 15 minutes? There's no logical reason why any particular time would be the standard. If an hour later is no good then why is 10 minutes OK? Imminent and immediate threat is the answer. When the guy invades your home he is an imminent and/or immediate threat. If you track him down on the street, even 5 minutes later, YOU are the imminent and/or immediate threat.
If you saw a guy who invaded your home 3 days ago and approached him with a gun, would YOU not be the aggressor? It's no different if it's 10 minutes later.
Last edited:
If I reasonably feel an individual commited a violent felony, I can detain him/her at anytime following the act so long as he hasn't already been arrested and charged officially by the LEO... The wording in the law doesn't have a time restraint nor an expiration date on it.
Brent
Brent
A_McDougal
New member
The right to justice is a universal right, in the constitution (under the penumbras and emanations section).
Since the police aren't obligated to protect me or get my property back after I'm robbed, why does society think that justice should only be available when the police and courts choose to dispense it?
Since the police aren't obligated to protect me or get my property back after I'm robbed, why does society think that justice should only be available when the police and courts choose to dispense it?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
No, but it still has the "reasonable man" clause attached to it. Something like "if the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to affect the arrest or prevent the escape."
Such as NY Penal Code 35.30
4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.
Note the "immediate flight therefrom"
What is the wording of the law in FL.
Yes, if they were looking to beat him. The term "aggressor" implies a self-defense analysis, and once the BG flees, self-defense is no longer available.
No, if they were looking to find and hold him for the cops. If they were looking to find and hold him for the cops, they were looking to effect a citizen's arrest even if they didn't think of it that way. Then self-defense is irrelevant for the pursuit, and the pursuit is eminently legal. If the felon uses deadly force to resist arrest (even by a citizen), the felon is the aggressor, and the citizen is entitled to a claim of self-defense.
A felon does not have a right to resist arrest. Believe it or not, there have been robbers who have shot police and claimed self-defense because the police were shooting at them. The courts have said self-defense is not available as a defense in that situation.
But wouldn't that citizen call LEO's? Leaving a dead body beside the road for someone else to find is not a way to make a citizen's arrest, even if one were so inclined.
We have very little information right now, but I won't be surprised if this goes badly for the shooter and WildAlaska is dancing in hideously decorated spandex again.
Not everyone has a cell phone?
If I had one on me I am not sure I would want to incur the 911 use fee of $1.99 or waste minutes calling the regular number... Heck I done wasted the money of a shell on the guy...
I am not sure if these guys had returned home to a phone or not...
Brent
If I had one on me I am not sure I would want to incur the 911 use fee of $1.99 or waste minutes calling the regular number... Heck I done wasted the money of a shell on the guy...
I am not sure if these guys had returned home to a phone or not...
Brent
Posters say things like this quite frequently in this forum, and they should understand that it is a fantasy defense ungrounded in reality. Anyone who makes that argument in his own defense should simply plead guilty and save himself some time and money. That argument has zero chance of winning. The law is very clear that fear of future harm does not allow a claim of self-defense.
See this thread that I started on California law on self-defense. It's laid out there in black and white.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=364416