Gov. Kemp says repeal citizens arrest law

[Malum Prohibitum]

So are you John Q. Citiizen prepared to accept the liability of engaging in hot pursuit, waving your hogleg, chasing an alleged criminal . . .

It is this kind of mocking dismissive crap that makes you feel superior to those that you think you are mocking. Yet you have the moral low ground here. You want to criminalize the conduct of good men who undertake a duty of citizenship that you find either too dangerous (because you are a coward) or too bothersome.

You, supporting criminalization, are the immoral one in this conversation.

All of the mocking nonsense in the world does not change the fact that your political position is evil. You support criminalizing good behavior, growing government, and removing not just another piece of liberty, but a duty incumbent upon all members of the public who are good citizens.

Your mocking statement is also another straw man fallacy (you seem to like that particular fallacy, as it seems to be the only way you argue). Nobody here is advocating "waving a hog leg" (seriously, do you write antigun editorials for the AJC in your day job?) and chasing some guy down the road with no idea whether he committed a crime.

Go and read the Georgia citizen's arrest statutes. They detail when you can make an arrest. Once you read them (it is obvious you have not), then you will have a better grasp of what the law does, and does not, permit. Arresting an "alleged criminal who you think maybe, might have committed what could possibl[y] be a crime" is not authorized and legal for a citizen's arrest or for a police officer, and your suggestion that anybody here is arguing in favor of such misconduct is a classic straw man.

Read up a little on logic, reason, and fallacies. It will help you in the future outside of this thread, to better understand both your opponent's argument and your own. Logic and reason are basic skills that they ought to require in high school, but, as you so aptly demonstrate, obviously that is not a required piece of the curriculum.

 

[Ken Ford]

You still haven't answered the question, what if he doesn't submit to your "arrest" and continues to escape or try to escape? Are you going to shoot him? Beat him senseless? Run over him?

Unless he presents a clear danger to the public, or you, you can't do anything physically to restrain him.

In your case, you were only able to "arrest" the criminal because he submitted to the arrest.

Apparently you don't comprehend the limitations on your "arrest powers", especially in your case where the only felony committed was a property crime. You just keep repeating the law without evidencing an understanding of the scope (or lack of scope) of a citizen's arrest powers.

And when making a citizen's arrest, you aren't operating under color of state law, or have qualified immunity, both of which protections the police have.

The same law, as to the use of force, applies to both LE and citizens. Georgia Law and US Constitution applies the same.
But you are right you don’t have qualified immunity, and your liability risk is very high. You damn sure better be right...

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

There’s no need for citizens arrest anyway. That’s why we have cops. Seriously when was the last time you used a citizens arrest??

When's the last time you needed to shoot a home invader? You should probably sell all your guns and dial 911 to defend your home.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Pretty sure that is exactly what Mrs. Esterhouse has been saying for days. Until he, she or it got called on it.

Got called on what? I didn't use deadly force.

 

[yardboss1]

Kemp trying to get ahead of this .......... Ain't no fun when the rabbit got a gun. Let's put a price tag on a citizen's arrest and let everyone have some skin in the game.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Kemp trying to get ahead of this .......... Ain't no fun when the rabbit got a gun. Let's put a price tag on a citizen's arrest and let everyone have some skin in the game.

 

[spencer60]

You either have not read the law in Georgia, or you do not understand it. Please stop posting false things about the law in Georgia.

The law itself is quite plain. The only relevant section to what we're talking about is the first one, below.

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Please show me where it contradicts my statement that an LEO can chase down a non-felon while a citizen cannot. The law specifically says you can chase and use force to restrain a felon. It says no such thing about a misdemeanor.

It is this kind of mocking dismissive crap that makes you feel superior to those that you think you are mocking. Yet you have the moral low ground here. You want to criminalize the conduct of good men who undertake a duty of citizenship that you find either too dangerous (because you are a coward) or too bothersome.

You, supporting criminalization, are the immoral one in this conversation.

All of the mocking nonsense in the world does not change the fact that your political position is evil. You support criminalizing good behavior, growing government, and removing not just another piece of liberty, but a duty incumbent upon all members of the public who are good citizens.

Your mocking statement is also another straw man fallacy (you seem to like that particular fallacy, as it seems to be the only way you argue). Nobody here is advocating "waving a hog leg" (seriously, do you write antigun editorials for the AJC in your day job?) and chasing some guy down the road with no idea whether he committed a crime.

Go and read the Georgia citizen's arrest statutes. They detail when you can make an arrest. Once you read them (it is obvious you have not), then you will have a better grasp of what the law does, and does not, permit. Arresting an "alleged criminal who you think maybe, might have committed what could possibl[y] be a crime" is not authorized and legal for a citizen's arrest or for a police officer, and your suggestion that anybody here is arguing in favor of such misconduct is a classic straw man.

Read up a little on logic, reason, and fallacies. It will help you in the future outside of this thread, to better understand both your opponent's argument and your own. Logic and reason are basic skills that they ought to require in high school, but, as you so aptly demonstrate, obviously that is not a required piece of the curriculum.

This is rich coming from you. You turned a conversation about an obscure legal statue into a mudslinging contest, complete with 4th grade-level name calling.

I always figure that when someone's arguments degenerate into name-calling you know they have lost and are simply trying to salvage some ego. You came into this thread name calling and mocking people though... Did you know you were wrong before you even started?

When's the last time you needed to shoot a home invader? You should probably sell all your guns and dial 911 to defend your home.

But that's a completely different section of law than citizens arrest, and a completely different situation ethically as well as legally.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

The NAACP and BLM must have KYed the **** out of Reeves' and Kemp's asses.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

The law itself is quite plain. The only relevant section to what we're talking about is the first one, below.

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Please show me where it contradicts my statement that an LEO can chase down a non-felon while a citizen cannot. The law specifically says you can chase and use force to restrain a felon. It says no such thing about a misdemeanor.

The law you quoted contains two statements.
Each statement is true and stands on its own.

The first statement says, basically, that IF you're sure the person has committed the crime because they committed it in front of you or otherwise within your immediate knowledge, THEN you can arrest the person! This part of the law does not say only if it's a felony, nor does it say "only if they stay there and let you arrest them."
This law does not say "only if they run." This law simply says you can arrest them ; therefore you can chase them if necessary. Therefore you can use physical force to overcome their resistance, if necessary.

The second statement of this Code section says that if the crime in question is a felony, and IF the bad guy is attempting to escape / flee, THEN you can arrest based on less certainty, and the crime need not be all that recent, and it did not have to unfold in front of you. All you need is probable cause, not to know for sure because you saw it happen.

[You might get your probable cause from talking to the victim or an eyewitness to the crime, which happened a few minutes ago, and the eyewitness / victim asks for your help in finding the suspect, believed to be nearby.]

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The law itself is quite plain.

And yet it is still beyond your grasp. If GAgunLAWbooklet's explanation does not help you to understand it, then ask any relevant questions, and I will try to assist you.

This is rich coming from you. You turned a conversation about an obscure legal statue into a mudslinging contest, complete with 4th grade-level name calling.

Wait. Obscure? I thought you just said, "The law itself is quite plain."

Note that the post you are quoting does not call any names. It simply points out the immorality of gh1950's position (and I suppose yours, as well, since you share it). That is not "name calling" or mud slinging, nor is it "mocking." Nor does it contain a straw man fallacy. Re-read it. It is post #141.

"You support criminalizing good behavior, growing government, and removing not just another piece of liberty, but a duty incumbent upon all members of the public who are good citizens."

This is not mocking or name calling. It is simply pointing out that supporters of this law are supportive of growing government power, removing a piece of liberty, and criminalizing good citizenship.


So, there it is.

You are simply wrong on the facts (what the law actually says). I am not sure why. As you said, the law is quite plain. You are then using your misinterpretation of what the law says to push an agenda by mocking a law that you claim is useless because you do not really understand the law. Now you have been called on it.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is not "name calling." It is injecting facts and reason into the discussion.

I know facts and reason are not popular commodities on the internet, but they should be a part of the lawmaking process, and that is what this thread is about.

Why do you want to criminalize good conduct by honorable men? Please answer.