Citizen's arrest: How much force is allowed and when

[Euler]

It's a topic that's brought up in the context of the Ahmaud Arbery killing, but it's a good general question that's not discussed enough IMO.

 

CNN

...

Laws governing citizen's arrests vary from state to state, and that's the first problem in understanding what they entail.

...

Different laws -- whether in state codes, precedents set by state court rulings or some other common legal understanding -- sometimes mention use of force, like in New York state, where non-deadly use of force is specifically allowed. Other citizen's arrest laws specify whether the law can be used for felony or misdemeanor crimes. Some also specify whether someone had to witness the crime actually being committed in order to pursue an arrest.

...

Thomas Aveni, the executive director of the Police Policy Studies Council, outlines what comes next:

 

"What's taught to police recruits is, 'Detain both, ascertain the facts, proceed,'" he says. "In my experience, you would see both the citizen making the arrest and the person arrested both detained and the citizen would be compelled to give a statement with regard to what he or she saw."

...

"Generally there are sanctions regarding false arrests or false detention, and then the citizen is putting themselves in jeopardy in terms of liability," he says.

...

[soundguy]

(725 ILCS 5/107-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-3)

Sec. 107-3. Arrest by private person.

Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.

(Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

 

In what sorts of situations am I legally allowed to make a citizen’s arrest?

Frankly, I come down on the side of just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Aside from obvious safety risks, making a citizen’s arrest could get you in trouble for false imprisonment. You could face civil damages if you restrain or confine a person and if you act without reason to believe the person committed an offense. “Probable cause” is for the police, not for ordinary citizens. Nonetheless, the law says you can play hero and detain someone if you have “reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.” So it’s not as if you can apprehend the litterbug you spotted during your lunch hour. Keep in mind, a citizen’s arrest is truly justified only when the person you arrest is guilty of said crime. This is where discretion not only is the better part of valor but could also keep you from being sued.

[Euler]

Very topical on the back of a recent Supreme Court decision citizens dont have qualified immunity. Beyond that deadly force can not be deliberately used just because someone isnt complying with your wishes to detain them. There has to be an imminent threat to life.

 

Its also established case law in Georgia that you have the right to resist unlawful arrest by law enforcement, so Id assume the same for citizens arrest.

...

It's off-topic about whether someone can legally resist (even using deadly force) an unlawful police arrest (i.e., not a citizen's arrest).

 

It's a good point about not using deadly force to detain someone against their will, though. I doubt that detaining someone with lethal force (and hence threat of lethal force) is legal in any state. There's an ASP video (road rage; no good guys, only bad guys; then there's a gun and a citizen's arrest) which I think JC and most of the commenters get wrong about the law.

 

There are so many versions of that story in Georgia that I'm not touching this one.

...

This thread is about citizen's arrest in general, only prompted by that case, as the article in the OP is about citizen's arrest, not that case.

[davel501]

No need to get involved in situations that aren't yours. Even if it is yours, chasing a fleeing felon is a terrible idea.

 

This is a good read on the subject: Violence of Mind: Training and Preparation for Extreme Violence https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07BGJFD7L/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_Yz0UEb4F3TTG9

[Quiet Observer]

 

(725 ILCS 5/107-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-3)

Sec. 107-3. Arrest by private person.

Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.

(Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

 

In what sorts of situations am I legally allowed to make a citizen’s arrest?

Frankly, I come down on the side of just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Aside from obvious safety risks, making a citizen’s arrest could get you in trouble for false imprisonment. You could face civil damages if you restrain or confine a person and if you act without reason to believe the person committed an offense. “Probable cause” is for the police, not for ordinary citizens. Nonetheless, the law says you can play hero and detain someone if you have “reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.” So it’s not as if you can apprehend the litterbug you spotted during your lunch hour. Keep in mind, a citizen’s arrest is truly justified only when the person you arrest is guilty of said crime. This is where discretion not only is the better part of valor but could also keep you from being sued.

 

 

I think that verb tense is important. Illinois uses "is being committed", not "has been" or "did commit".

There have been cases in which an innocent person fleeing a violent act has been mistaken for the perpetrator and shot.

[GSDlady]

Can't resist posting this. Every time I hear citizen's arrest this is what I think of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SoDiZdpqFM

[vito]

Citizen arrests seem like just a sure nightmare for the one making the arrest. I can envision many variations of this same scenario. A licensed concealed carrier comes across a criminal attempting to molest/rape/assault an innocent victim. He draws his weapon and orders the perpetrator to stop and to back away. The perp does stop and back away, but when the armed citizen orders the perp to the ground, instead he just slowly backs away with his hands in the air, showing that he is no longer a threat in any way at that moment. Yelling out "this is a citizen arrest" doesn't appear to change anything. If the armed citizen shoots the perp as he attempts to escape, something tells me that he will be charged since at the moment of the shooting neither he nor the original victim was in any danger of loss of life or injury. I think the only prudent course of action if one encounters a crime in progress or about to occur is to intervene to stop the crime, but after that just be a good witness to relate to the police what has occurred. I would order the perp to freeze, but if he disobeys in a way clearly not a threat to me or anyone else, I could not justify shooting him no matter how much I might feel inclined to do so.

[RandyP]

Everyone gets to play the hypothetical scenario of their choosing. It's a fun mental exercise. MY scenarios mostly involve me keeping a goodly distance and calling 911. If my mind doesn't go blank I might consider taking a cell phone pic?

 

MY personal goal is to be as good a live and unharmed witness for the police investigation as is practical and safe for me to be. It is not likely that my 1st choices of action will involve my getting personally involved in a confrontation with an assailant.

 

And that's just MY imaginary guesstimate of my actions. Everyone else gets to have and enjoy theirs.

[vito]

Everyone gets to play the hypothetical scenario of their choosing. It's a fun mental exercise. MY scenarios mostly involve me keeping a goodly distance and calling 911. If my mind doesn't go blank I might consider taking a cell phone pic?

 

MY personal goal is to be as good a live and unharmed witness for the police investigation as is practical and safe for me to be. It is not likely that my 1st choices of action will involve my getting personally involved in a confrontation with an assailant.

 

And that's just MY imaginary guesstimate of my actions. Everyone else gets to have and enjoy theirs.

 

I don't disagree. But if no one else is around, or no one that is willing to come to the aid of a victim, I don't think I could be happy with myself to just stand there dialing 911 while watching a thug rape a women in an alley while I have a legally carried firearm that could force the assailant to cease his attack. If it took shooting the attacker to end the attack so be it. But in other scenarios I might well choose to remain totally uninvolved and only call 911.

[seanc]

Best thing to do is be a good witness, and leave the policing to the police. Unless it's threat of loss of life to myself or my family, my weapon stays holstered and I don't interject myself into the situation. What those guys did was stupid, and will more than likely land them some prison time.

 

^This. Be a good witness (your cell phone to call 911 then video what's happening). If it's an ongoing threat to life or serious injury to another, I would assume I would get involved, I hope that I would have the presence of forethought to use my phone to record the situation and show why I thought the threat was so grave. When the cops show up, they're going to arrest everyone and sort it out later. The more evidence you can provide, the better you'll all be.

[borgranta]

Citizen arrests seem like just a sure nightmare for the one making the arrest. I can envision many variations of this same scenario. A licensed concealed carrier comes across a criminal attempting to molest/rape/assault an innocent victim. He draws his weapon and orders the perpetrator to stop and to back away. The perp does stop and back away, but when the armed citizen orders the perp to the ground, instead he just slowly backs away with his hands in the air, showing that he is no longer a threat in any way at that moment. Yelling out "this is a citizen arrest" doesn't appear to change anything. If the armed citizen shoots the perp as he attempts to escape, something tells me that he will be charged since at the moment of the shooting neither he nor the original victim was in any danger of loss of life or injury. I think the only prudent course of action if one encounters a crime in progress or about to occur is to intervene to stop the crime, but after that just be a good witness to relate to the police what has occurred. I would order the perp to freeze, but if he disobeys in a way clearly not a threat to me or anyone else, I could not justify shooting him no matter how much I might feel inclined to do so.

As far as I know you have no duty to warn a rapist prior to using lethal force to stop a forcible felony. You lose your tactical advantage and potentially your life if you announce yourself to a rapist during a rape in progress in the street. That being said shooting a rapist may be tactically unsound since the victim is in the line of fire as well.

[mauserme]

Some off topic posts have been split to this new topic.

[Euler]

Something that got deleted in the mayhem was my post about a recent ASP video.

 

Something else also probably worth preserving in this thread:

Very topical on the back of a recent Supreme Court decision citizens dont have qualified immunity. Beyond that deadly force can not be deliberately used just because someone isnt complying with your wishes to detain them. There has to be an imminent threat to life.

...

If deadly force isn't justified, then the threat of deadly force isn't, also.

 

In the video, there are no good guys, but I think most of the commenters on YouTube got it wrong.

 

Road rage from an auto collision.

Guy A punches Guy B. (bad)

Guy B pulls a gun. (worse)

Guy C (friend of Guy A) punches Guy B.

Guy B shoots Guy C. (worst)

Guy B executes citizen's arrest of Guy A. (a point for discussion)

 

YouTubers supported Guy B as a Good Guy. The DA declined to file charges against any of them. I'm not sure if Guy B drew his gun intending to execute an arrest or if he just wanted to use it as leverage in the argument. I suspect the latter. Either way, Guy B cannot legally shoot Guy A if Guy A tries to run away, therefore Guy B cannot threaten to shoot Guy A to stop him from running away.

 

IANAL

[mauserme]

Well look what popped up today:

HB5778 Arrest By Private Party - Repeal

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Repeals a Section providing that any person may arrest another when he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.

[John Q Public]

I find it harder and harder to post on the forum without violating the rules.

[Euler]

Ford wants to outlaw Terry stops, too. There's a bill around somewhere this session. I'm inclined to think outlawing citizen's arrests won't go anywhere, either (but don't just forget about it).

 

They may not always be a good idea, but if they're illegal, I foresee bad advice like "You can't arrest them, so just kill them and say it was self-defense" proliferating.

[Lou]

 

Well look what popped up today:

 

HB5778 Arrest By Private Party - Repeal

 

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Repeals a Section providing that any person may arrest another when he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.

 

I'm seriously beginning to have to have an idea of who the "900 guests" were last week.

They are reading our posts and getting ideas

Representative La Shawn K. Ford (D), this guy ran for mayor against Larry.

 

On November 29, 2012, Ford was indicted on charges of bank fraud, alleging he provided misleading evidence to obtain a $500,000 extension on a line of credit. The charges state he used the money for personal expenses rather than rehabilitating an owned property, as stated in the loan documentation. On August 4, 2014, all 17 felony counts of bank fraud and false information against Ford were dropped by federal prosecutors in exchange for his pleading guilty to a single misdemeanor income tax charge, and Ford's trial was removed from the federal docket.

 

He's definitely a Democrat.

 

I’m pretty sure those 900 guests are bots that skim the net to feed sites like Google.