jlrhiner
US Veteran
You would not think an escaped felon trying to get a ride would harm someone if allowed to flee?
Would you draw your weapon?
- Thread starter Ziggy2525
- Start date
- Status
You would not think an escaped felon trying to get a ride would harm someone if allowed to flee?
jlrhiner
US Veteran
Lets take this in another direction.
What would a uniformed Law Enforcement Officer do in the same situation?
What would a uniformed Law Enforcement Officer do in the same situation?
Obviously we disagree. But one fact remains. You will have a very difficult time explaining your actions to the police, a judge, and jury. All that because you think the man is a threat. I suggest you take your own advice sir and check your testosterone and realize that the world doesn't see things through your eyes.
I'm done before I get myself in trouble.
You just answered your own question. You're not a cop.
jlrhiner
US Veteran
But I am responsible for my own safety and that of my loved ones, right? Or do you believe the police will take care of you?
jlrhiner
US Veteran
Alright, I'll change the question.
What would an off duty LEO do in the same situation?
What would an off duty LEO do in the same situation?
InsideWaist
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2017
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 91
jlrhiner
US Veteran
You don't have to have a law degree to know whats right.
Oh, come on, Jim. That's just not true. It's how the district attorney perceives it. After they look at details that you'd never think mattered in a million years, making your life miserable in the process, they'll probably offer a plea bargain for your trouble.
Not really trying to give you a hard time, just been there-done that during my police career. We always think we are completely in the right, but government lawyers take that as a challenge to prove you wrong.
That said, now that I'm retired, I'm no longer getting paid to take risks that may or may not be worth it or change my life in ways no one imagined. I know how non-cops that use deadly force are perceived by the system. And I firmly believe that "no good deed goes unpunished." So unless my life or that of my companion is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, then I'm just gonna concentrate on being the best possible witness.
Of course we had criminals and streakers. What we have today is anyone with a camera or iPhone desperately seeking there 15 minutes of fame. You have idiots falling off cliffs trying to take selfies. This era of Facebook and YouTube has taken stupid to a whole new level.
I believe that you are mistaken about that in the case of a citizen's arrest. Many years ago, in one state, I believe that one had to be right, not reasonable.
Obviously, this is something best checked out with a lawyer, to learn both the applicable statutes and a practical view of the law in your location.
jlrhiner
US Veteran
From Missouri Statutes;
563.051. Private person's use of force in making an arrest. — 1. A private person who has been directed by a person he or she reasonably believes to be a law enforcement officer to assist such officer to effect an arrest or to prevent escape from custody may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such officer's direction unless he or she knows or believes that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized.
2. A private person acting on his or her own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force to arrest or prevent the escape of a person whom such private person reasonably believes has committed an offense, and who in fact has committed such offense, when the private person's actions are immediately necessary to arrest the offender or prevent his or her escape from custody.
3. A private person in effecting an arrest or in preventing escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only:
(1) When deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he or she reasonably believes deadly force is authorized under the circumstances and he or she is directed or authorized by a law enforcement officer to use deadly force; or
(3) When he or she reasonably believes such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to arrest a person who at that time and in his or her presence:
(a) Committed or attempted to commit a class A felony or murder; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)
Effective 1-01-17
I believe paragraph 3(a) covers this scenario.
563.051. Private person's use of force in making an arrest. — 1. A private person who has been directed by a person he or she reasonably believes to be a law enforcement officer to assist such officer to effect an arrest or to prevent escape from custody may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such officer's direction unless he or she knows or believes that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized.
2. A private person acting on his or her own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force to arrest or prevent the escape of a person whom such private person reasonably believes has committed an offense, and who in fact has committed such offense, when the private person's actions are immediately necessary to arrest the offender or prevent his or her escape from custody.
3. A private person in effecting an arrest or in preventing escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only:
(1) When deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he or she reasonably believes deadly force is authorized under the circumstances and he or she is directed or authorized by a law enforcement officer to use deadly force; or
(3) When he or she reasonably believes such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to arrest a person who at that time and in his or her presence:
(a) Committed or attempted to commit a class A felony or murder; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)
Effective 1-01-17
I believe paragraph 3(a) covers this scenario.
jlrhiner
US Veteran
And this is a +;
563.074. Justification as an absolute defense, when. — 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force as described in sections 563.031, 563.041, 563.046, 563.051, 563.056, and 563.061 is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.
2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.
(L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41)
563.074. Justification as an absolute defense, when. — 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force as described in sections 563.031, 563.041, 563.046, 563.051, 563.056, and 563.061 is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.
2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.
(L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41)
So not applicable to this situation.
So, acting on one's own, one must both (1) reasonably believe the target has committed an offense, and (2) even if the belief was reasonable, the target must have in fact committed such offense; if the target didn't in fact commit the offense, one's reasonable belief is not at all relevant. And even if both conditions are met, one's acts must have been immediately necessary.
So - even if one somehow overcame the limitations on a private citizen attempting to make an arrest, once that attempt gets up to the use of deadly force (and - sidenote - in many jurisdictions pointing a deadly weapon at someone could constitute the use of deadly force) one still has to show that the target committed or attempted to commit a Class A Felony or murder in one's presence. I'm not going to research what constitutes a Class A felony in Missouri because I think your goose is cooked.
Your sympathies may be in the right place, but I believe you are wildly mistaken on how the justice system would treat your proposed actions in this circumstance.
(this is not legal advice, etc.).
Doesn't matter.
You're not a cop (off duty or otherwise)
You don't have a duty to respond
You don't have qualified immunity
You don't have a union lawyer who will defend you at taxpayer exspense.
I'll say it again.
I'd leave.
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
This discussion is a great illustration of just how freaking careful you have to be in potential lethal force situations where your (subjectively perfectly justified) perspective may be objectively completely wrong.
Setting the matter of personal judgment aside, there is no question that, had Mr. Rhiner and his gun be present, the risk of a bad outcome would have been significantly increased. Worst case, the idiot would have died needlessly and Mr. Rhiner would have ruined the next few years of his life (and potentially much more) with a legal nightmare, no matter how righteous he felt about his actions and how the criminal and civil actions ultimately turned out in court.
Keep in mind that lots of people will be interpreting the law if you're involved in a case like this, but you won't be one of them. So the fact that you've decided that the suspect you shot was "out of any reasonable protection guaranteed by law" and has "forfeited his rights" isn't going to impress anyone. In fact, using that kind of language isn't going to help at all. Giving the impression that you've appointed yourself to dispose of other people's rights is a surefire way to turn everyone including a jury against you.
Setting the matter of personal judgment aside, there is no question that, had Mr. Rhiner and his gun be present, the risk of a bad outcome would have been significantly increased. Worst case, the idiot would have died needlessly and Mr. Rhiner would have ruined the next few years of his life (and potentially much more) with a legal nightmare, no matter how righteous he felt about his actions and how the criminal and civil actions ultimately turned out in court.
Keep in mind that lots of people will be interpreting the law if you're involved in a case like this, but you won't be one of them. So the fact that you've decided that the suspect you shot was "out of any reasonable protection guaranteed by law" and has "forfeited his rights" isn't going to impress anyone. In fact, using that kind of language isn't going to help at all. Giving the impression that you've appointed yourself to dispose of other people's rights is a surefire way to turn everyone including a jury against you.
jlrhiner
US Veteran
By being an escaped felon, they have met the parameters set forth in the above section of statutes. You who twist the meaning of words to suit your own agenda can claim anything you wish. The LAW clearly states otherwise.
Its clear to me, that if most of you had been there, a potential child raping murdering animal abuser would have walked right out of the place while you shrugged your shoulders and said to yourselves "It's none of my business". Sure, the OP's scenario ended with a "it's only a joke". But you didn't know that. What if it had been Manson? Or Dahmer? Or one of the 10's of thousands like them?
No, you don't have a duty to respond. Your not obligated to do anything.
How could you live with yourselves?
No, LEO and the court's perception of your perception are what matter . . .
Okay, I'll play. What Class A Felony or Murder did this person commit in anyone's presence? In Missouri, escape from custody is a Class E Felony, one step more serious than a misdemeanor . . .
Like I first posted, the solution to this issue is an elbow to the jaw. Solves several problems. No deadly force, dude quits acting like an idiot, if he is actually escaped, he's down for count, and he probably won't do this again. Problem solved . . .
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Would you draw your weapon?
I may not have had the situational awareness to see what appears to be an escaped convict running right at me from behind, but having read threads on situational awareness I know many here do.
In the below pic.... Seems reasonable to me that if an armed person (say the guy in the dark red shirt) believes an escaped convict is running directly at them would draw his weapon.
In Tennessee I believe it would easily fit the definition.
(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
-----
I may not have had the situational awareness to see what appears to be an escaped convict running right at me from behind, but having read threads on situational awareness I know many here do.
In the below pic.... Seems reasonable to me that if an armed person (say the guy in the dark red shirt) believes an escaped convict is running directly at them would draw his weapon.
In Tennessee I believe it would easily fit the definition.
(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
-----
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
