Citizens arrest / fleeing felon

[Smilez226]

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advive.

What you don't read in these SCOTUS rulings, is the word "civilians". These cases are about LEO's and if I was a civilian, I would never use deadly force to stop a fleeing subject no matter the crime. In other words, once the criminal act has ended and the subject is fleeing, do not use deadly force to stop him. Now if the act is still in progress, well that's a different scenario.

This. Unless I’m being attacked or threatened. Not my business. I ain’t wasting my money on a lawyer because I thought being a hero was going to be a good idea and end up getting screwed over. No way.

[Walleye Hunter]

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Every year I have to attend 20 hours of firearms training and 20 hours of ConEd (Continuing Education) classroom training to stay a Certified PA State Constable. TN v. Gardner and Graham v. Connor are always discussed in detail both times, every year, without fail, to explain one thing to us: When is it legal for an LEO to use force:

TN v. Gardner - In short, it states "the officer has probable cause [to use deadly force] if they believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Before TN vs Gardner, an officer could shoot someone for a wide range of crimes even if they thought there was no indication the person was going to harm someone after the initial crime, the simple act of committing a wide range of crimes allowed the officer use deadly force.

Graham v. Connor - In short, it states "Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." and discusses in length "objective reasonableness standard" when making an arrest. Short answer, the courts will look at what the officer saw at the split second in making force decision and not a 20/20 hindsight review of the arrest/shooting.

What you don't read in these SCOTUS rulings, is the word "civilians". These cases are about LEO's and if I was a civilian, I would never use deadly force to stop a fleeing subject no matter the crime. In other words, once the criminal act has ended and the subject is fleeing, do not use deadly force to stop him. Now if the act is still in progress, well that's a different scenario.

That all sounds legitimate but...what if it's dark in the house and it looked like he was coming my way?

[markshere2]

That all sounds legitimate but...what if it's dark in the house and it looked like he was coming my way?

When did this turn into an event in your house?
Castle doctrine changes your status a lot.

FLEEING = RUNNING AWAY.
APPROACHING = RUNNING TOWARDS.

shoot at fleeing = bad
shoot at approaching = probably not quite as bad.

Is it your job to stop a felon? Prolly not, so MYOFB to stay out of trouble.

This is not rocket surgery.

[Gun]

This is not rocket surgery.

Rockets don't require a surgeon.

[Walleye Hunter]

When did this turn into an event in your house?
Castle doctrine changes your status a lot.

FLEEING = RUNNING AWAY.
APPROACHING = RUNNING TOWARDS.

shoot at fleeing = bad
shoot at approaching = probably not quite as bad.

Is it your job to stop a felon? Prolly not, so MYOFB to stay out of trouble.

This is not rocket surgery.

I apologize for not asking your permission to ask a question first and your response does nothing to answer my question.

[Gun]

I apologize for not asking your permission to ask a question first and your response does nothing to answer my question.

Castle doctrine was mentioned in his response, which in your own home is applicable.

[markshere2]

if you are threatened in your home, you can shoot to protect yourself.

But this thread was about fleeing.... not being threatened.

[Walleye Hunter]

Castle doctrine was mentioned in his response, which in your own home is applicable.

My understanding is that one is not allowed to shoot an intruder in their home unless they are under threat and them fleeing does not constitute being under threat, nor is an intruder with two hands full with your TV set. But I have heard claims on both sides.

[Gun]

My understanding is that one is not allowed to shoot an intruder in their home unless they are under threat and them fleeing does not constitute being under threat, nor is an intruder with two hands full with your TV set. But I have heard claims on both sides.

Did you not mention, what if it's dark in the house, in your question?

[Walleye Hunter]

Did you not mention, what if it's dark in the house, in your question?

Yes office (after I contact my lawyer) it was dark, I could hardly see anything except that the guy was moving fast, I thought he was coming my way, I couldn't tell he was going the other way. I was confined in my house, I was really scared.