Gov. Kemp says repeal citizens arrest law

[spencer60]

This is a sad attitude. For whatever it is worth to you, your second sentence is simply untrue. I have made a citizen's arrest more than once and received nothing but thanks from law enforcement (and the victim). Back when I was a police officer I took into custody persons who had been arrested by citizens as well. Where did you come up with this nonsense? Do you have any facts to back up your statements?

A citizens 'arrest' is simply consent on both sides to stay where they are until people with actual, statue defined arrest powers (cops) show up.

If the perp walks away and you tackle them causing them any injury you will most likely be charged with battery and sued in civil court for damages to boot.

I'm glad that it worked out for you in your pre-LEO days but it's essentially putting yourself in a situation where you are at great legal risk for no particular gain.

As an ex-officer you are certainly aware of how much scrutiny a cop gets when they bring in a banged up suspect because they resisted arrest. Are you suggesting that people without police union lawyers, qualified immunity and the backing of statute try to forcibly restrain criminals?

I certainly don't have any handy statistics but the fact that any decent lawyer will tell you a citizens arrest is a dicey legal area to get involved in should be testament in and of itself.

Under HB 479, if a criminal steals a bottle of booze from a liquor store, he could be legally arrested by any store employee. If he rapes your wife or daughter, you cannot touch him if he is retreating from your property.

Kemp and Co. places a $10 bottle of booze as more worthy of arrest protection than Georgia's women.

Will you take action, or sit back and let it happen? Are you a man?

Actually, at that point he's a fleeing felon, which is a different area of law.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Actually, at that point he's a fleeing felon, which is a different area of law.

And? Where does HB479 leave us when a fleeing felon retreats? I hope you're not implying it would be legal to arrest said fleeing felon under HB479.

 

[Kman]

You are 100% correct.

That was not a citizen's arrest, though, as there was no probable cause to arrest. Even the defendants in that case claim they just wanted to "talk" to Arbery. They are not claiming that they wanted to detain him because they know that they had no basis to do so.

HB 479 would not have changed the outcome in that situation.

It will, however, prevent you and other Georgians from arresting criminals, and it won't take criminals long to figure out the new law and use it to their advantage.

Literally, a man could run up, punch you in the eyeball, then turn and jog away. The attack has ceased. There is no self defense to be exercised in that situation. Under current law, you could tackle this man and hold him for the police. If HB 479 passes, you would be committing a criminal attack and arrested for a violent crime for detaining this man.

Essentially, criminals will be able to get away with whatever they want if there is not a police officer nearby.

This law turns victims into criminals.

Hmm, So we can assault criminals before a potential crime and then run away and legally they can't fight back after the assault? Would we would be scott free? I'm liking the sound of this!!!!

 

[spencer60]

And? Where does HB479 leave us when a fleeing felon retreats? I hope you're not implying it would be legal to arrest said fleeing felon under HB479.

Completely different section of law. Just as full of traps for a citizen though. Even cops don't like to shoot "fleeing felons" unless they are on very solid (legal) ground and can prove that they are a 'clear and present danger' so to speak.

From what I saw in the bill it didn't look like it would change your ability to detain someone who had committed a felony. It seems to be limited to misdemeanors and property crimes.

And again, it doesn't seem to change very much.

If you use 'excessive' force today you are liable to be arrested and charged both criminally and civilly, and it'll be up to a judge (and maybe a jury) to define 'excessive'. Different states have different views and the same state has different judges with different views.

And then if you do injure the 'criminal' they could easily lawyer up and sue you for everything you are worth.

The simple fact is that if you come across a crime that just happened, you would be better off all around to 'be a good witness', help the injured if possible, and get the cops on the scene as soon as you can. Trying to play LEO when you aren't one is a good way to lose all your worldly possessions and spend lots of time behind bars.

 

[spencer60]

Hmm, So we can assault criminals before a potential crime and then run away and legally they can't fight back after the assault? Would we would be scott free? I'm liking the sound of this!!!!

Except that by assaulting them BEFORE they committed any crime, you are now the criminal. So they would need to assault you before you assaulted them to actually be criminals, who you would then want to assault first and run away... but then you are the criminal... So...

Never mind

 

[Gaffer1968]

Completely different section of law. Just as full of traps for a citizen though. Even cops don't like to shoot "fleeing felons" unless they are on very solid (legal) ground and can prove that they are a 'clear and present danger' so to speak.

From what I saw in the bill it didn't look like it would change your ability to detain someone who had committed a felony. It seems to be limited to misdemeanors and property crimes.

And again, it doesn't seem to change very much.

If you use 'excessive' force today you are liable to be arrested and charged both criminally and civilly, and it'll be up to a judge (and maybe a jury) to define 'excessive'. Different states have different views and the same state has different judges with different views.

And then if you do injure the 'criminal' they could easily lawyer up and sue you for everything you are worth.

The simple fact is that if you come across a crime that just happened, you would be better off all around to 'be a good witness', help the injured if possible, and get the cops on the scene as soon as you can. Trying to play LEO when you aren't one is a good way to lose all your worldly possessions and spend lots of time behind bars.

The reason for this is one "BLM-inspired" incident of an actual crime committed that was handled under existing law, IIRC...there's no need to repeal another law to placate protesters and whiners, IMO.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Completely different section of law. Just as full of traps for a citizen though. Even cops don't like to shoot "fleeing felons" unless they are on very solid (legal) ground and can prove that they are a 'clear and present danger' so to speak.

From what I saw in the bill it didn't look like it would change your ability to detain someone who had committed a felony. It seems to be limited to misdemeanors and property crimes.

And again, it doesn't seem to change very much.

If you use 'excessive' force today you are liable to be arrested and charged both criminally and civilly, and it'll be up to a judge (and maybe a jury) to define 'excessive'. Different states have different views and the same state has different judges with different views.

And then if you do injure the 'criminal' they could easily lawyer up and sue you for everything you are worth.

The simple fact is that if you come across a crime that just happened, you would be better off all around to 'be a good witness', help the injured if possible, and get the cops on the scene as soon as you can. Trying to play LEO when you aren't one is a good way to lose all your worldly possessions and spend lots of time behind bars.

The bill eliminates all citizen arrest powers regardless of the crime being a felony or misdemeanor except for the four "private persons" categories defined in HB 479.

 

[spencer60]

Could be. I didn't cross reference to see which parts of the current code were being stricken.

Still doesn't change my opinion that 'citizens arrest' is of no real use anyway, and that you would be hard pressed to find a place where being able to use 'reasonable force' legally to affect one would be of any use, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Kman]

Except that by assaulting them BEFORE they committed any crime, you are now the criminal. So they would need to assault you before you assaulted them to actually be criminals, who you would then want to assault first and run away... but then you are the criminal... So...

Never mind

Yeah, this just isn’t working out. Need a new plan lol!

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Could be. I didn't cross reference to see which parts of the current code were being stricken.

Still doesn't change my opinion that 'citizens arrest' is of no real use anyway, and that you would be hard pressed to find a place where being able to use 'reasonable force' legally to affect one would be of any use, but that's just my opinion.

I used it on my own property after I caught a thief in my car.

I recovered my $300 sunglasses, my $100 binoculars, other people's three stolen car remotes and three stolen cell phones.

I had a pleasant time conversing with the cops after they cuffed him.