Posted on 01/30/2007 7:54:05 PM PST by oursacredhonor
Citizen's Arrests are dodgy things at the best of times: it pays to understand the laws that are in force at the place you are at the time: I guess in the US that would mean Federal, State and Local laws... particularly if you use a weapon to give effect to your Citizen's Arrest. Or if you choose to use restraints to prevent the Scroat from fleeing.
Doing an arrest is a dodgy and dangerous matter and you are at personal risk, both from a physical and from a legal viewpoint, the instant you decide to intervene with force.
Guardian Angels are unarmed always: even so, we have to be bloody careful what we do and how we do it, and the laws change pretty much everywhere we operate.
Even cuffing a scroat is difficult: three-on-one is not easy of the one is determined to resist arrest. One-on-one requires special training and a fair bit of luck. We train for hours and hours doing this: so please don't expect to get it perfect the first time thru. Even in practise one or more of us are just as likely to get hurt as not.
It is jolly difficult: most people are better off calling the Police.
In New Zealand, we are allowed by law to use "minimal force" -- that is to say, the minimum amount of force to bring a situation under control (which ain't necessarily the same thing as being gentle). Even then it will vary, depending on the time of day and seriousness of the crime. For the most part, this rule applies to the cops, too.
The NZ Police prefer that we do not go thru with an actual "Citizen's Arrest" as there are myriad legal complications that come with that: despite the fact that the Crimes Act 1961 makes it very plain that any Citizen can do one, under certain well-defined circumstances. Instead, they are happier if we "detain for police".
I have no gripes with their preferences: we're happy to do either. That said, it is recognized that the average beat cop here is unarmed: it's only fair that we abide by similar rules that they do.
Where does all this go? Well, there are parts of the US that apply similar rules of engagement to what apply here. So be bloody careful you know what your rights obligations and responsibilities are before you intervene.
Don't assume: check. You could end up defecation creek with an acute paddle deficit.
Ensure you are in at least as good a condition of training as the crims and scroats are. And be prepared to get hurt, either physically, financially, or legally. Or perhaps a combo of all three.
That's just plain good advice, no matter where you live. And if you live in a place where you are OK to wield firearms or other weaponry to enforce your rights, understand that as soon as you arm yourself you "up the ante" considerably: expect the crims and scroats to do likewise, and then they'll raise ya.
You are in serious poo when they call your bluff...
So why have I taken the time to write this up? Far too many people will dismiss this story with a "well, stupid bloody government!" or a "well, anyone threatens me and I'll kill 'im stone dead!" or "be found here at nite and you'll be found here in the morning!" -- admirable sentiments all, but not overly helpful when the consequences of your actions place you in front of The Beak facing Serious Charges: as the protagonist of this sad story is.
I think the concept of the Fully Informed Jury hit something of a roadblock with the Fourteenth Amendment. To be sure, sometimes white juries may still in some areas ignore crimes against a black who "deserved it", and black juries may do likewise with crimes against white victims, but it's not hard to imagine that telling people they have the right to decide issues of justice rather than just facts would seem to encourage such actions by juries.
Not sure what the proper remedy is. I think the fully-informed juror was very much intended to be a check against an over-reaching government, but was not intended as a means of protecting racist criminals. Any thoughts on how to reconcile the issues?
harder to find 12 racist jurors than 1 racist judge.
harder to find 12 racist jurors than 1 racist judge.
Yes, but it doesn't take twelve racist jurors to protect a murderer whose victim was of the inferior race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.