Citizens arrest / fleeing felon

[Parrisk]

While being a huge proponent of the Peelian principles, theres is a clear stop line to me. Unless society/law shields my ass 110% legally and medically if needed, I am not inserting myself into any situations, when lives are not in jeopardy beyond reasonable doubt. Passively fleeing felon? Adios; catch you later, alligator.

+1 for me also

[SevenMilePete]

I'm not a lawyer but I think if you shoot someone who is running away you are absolutely going to jail.

IANAL either, but I think if you witness someone beat someone else within an inch of his life, or kill someone, you are not going to jail if you shoot him. That's what the ruling was in the Erie shooting. The DA said that the the shooter was protecting the public by shooting the offender.

[knight0334]

I'm not a lawyer but I think if you shoot someone who is running away you are absolutely going to jail.

Not always. If the crime is one of the forcible type felonies listed in the Chermansky ruling, odds are in your favor.

[WCMG]

Not always. If the crime is one of the forcible type felonies listed in the Chermansky ruling, odds are in your favor.

I understand what you are saying, but Chermansky conviction was upheld with the old definition of when deadly force could be used. They convicted the guy on the old rules (which were way more relaxed than now on when deadly force could be used by a cilivian) and then narrowed the use even more for future rulings.

I think the Chermansky ruling should tell every civilian if a guy is running away from you and is not immediately threatening someone, don't shoot them. Sure, your local DA might not charge you but the family could sue you in civil court, "My baby boy was running to church".

[TaePo]

I understand what you are saying, but Chermansky conviction was upheld with the old definition of when deadly force could be used. They convicted the guy on the old rules (which were way more relaxed than now on when deadly force could be used by a cilivian) and then narrowed the use even more for future rulings.

I think the Chermansky ruling should tell every civilian if a guy is running away from you and is not immediately threatening someone, don't shoot them. Sure, your local DA might not charge you but the family could sue you in civil court, "My baby boy was running to church".

Change that to include civilians or police. It appears the East Pittsburgh case is working on redefining that for police officers, too.

[JustinR]

Change that to include civilians or police. It appears the East Pittsburgh case is working on redefining that for police officers, too.

Follow along, but Pittsburgh is a 4 season city, and nobody protests when it's 15 degrees outside.

The more that comes out about the Rose shooting, the more inclined I am to call it a justifiable shoot. Maybe not "good", but justifiable.

The cops stop a car with a shot out back window that matches the description of a car used in a drive-by 10 minutes before, and the victim says he shot the back glass out.

Car is stopped for a felony stop, perp gets out and starts running after having just been involved in a shooting. I'd reasonably assume he's armed and is going to hurt someone else, bang, dead perp even if I only meant to stop him.

This is where we pick back up on Pittsburgh being a 4 season city. The protestors are blocking streets demanding charges, and the city is on record saying they don't want to antagonize the protestors by demanding they get parade permits.

So file charges against the cop to get the protestors placated, then come October drop the charges. Tada, no more protests.

[Gun]

Follow along, but Pittsburgh is a 4 season city, and nobody protests when it's 15 degrees outside.

The more that comes out about the Rose shooting, the more inclined I am to call it a justifiable shoot. Maybe not "good", but justifiable.

The cops stop a car with a shot out back window that matches the description of a car used in a drive-by 10 minutes before, and the victim says he shot the back glass out.

Car is stopped for a felony stop, perp gets out and starts running after having just been involved in a shooting. I'd reasonably assume he's armed and is going to hurt someone else, bang, dead perp even if I only meant to stop him.

This is where we pick back up on Pittsburgh being a 4 season city. The protestors are blocking streets demanding charges, and the city is on record saying they don't want to antagonize the protestors by demanding they get parade permits.

So file charges against the cop to get the protestors placated, then come October drop the charges. Tada, no more protests.

Might happen if the Bucs are in the World Series.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

That is how we ended up with police.

Before that, we only had an elected sheriff, a couple of his appointed deputies - and WE would be responsible for arresting criminals, then handing them over to the sheriff/deputies.

But since most of society decided they didn't want to get involved for some reason or another, the need for police became apparent.

If/when you ask why we have police, or have the abusive police in situations, your reply above is why.

Exactly. There is very little need for police. And the number of State Police we have is more then sufficient. Municipal police should be eliminated.

[nfafan]

+1 for me also

Same here. Unless a family member, not risking it in today’s USA.

[JustinR]

Exactly. There is very little need for police. And the number of State Police we have is more then sufficient. Municipal police should be eliminated.

Not all municipal police, but no BS like 6 cops for 8,000 people.

The police and FDs need to be broken down into populations of around 25k. That's when you get a fire chief, that's when you get a police chief.

Every ity bitty municipality doesn't need it's own police force, consolidate and save overhead to increase patrolman salary, and become more selective of who gets hired.