Results 1 to 10 of 53
Thread: Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
Hybrid View
-
July 17th, 2014, 07:57 PM #1
Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
I found this from a thread several years ago and was wondering g if the law is still the same. This seems to say that if you witness someone commit a felony (of certain types) and they attempt to flee, that you are justified in killing them in an attempt to stop them.
Got me thinking about the nightclub bouncer who was attacked after closing and shot the attacker in the back. I am guessing the law has changed or there was so e other type of circumstance I was not aware of. Anyone have any further info?
-
July 17th, 2014, 08:08 PM #2
-
July 18th, 2014, 04:06 PM #3Grand Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
-
PENNSYLVANIA,
Pennsylvania
- Age
- 73
- Posts
- 3,789
- Rep Power
- 21474854
-
July 17th, 2014, 08:17 PM #4
Re: Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
I'm unaware of any change to the Chermansky holding of 1968. In fact SCOPA cited that specific language from Chermansky in a 2006 ruling (Kopko v. Miller) thereby tacitly reaffirming the holding.
That being said, I would be hesitant to try a citizens arrest in any but the most extreme circumstances. Especially knowing that my actions and supposed justifications occurring in an emotionally charged moment will be dissected and evaluated at leisure by the courts and juries both at the criminal and civil level.
There are a few old threads hashing out the question somewhere here.Last edited by tl_3237; July 17th, 2014 at 08:19 PM.
IANAL
-
July 17th, 2014, 08:30 PM #5Grand Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
-
PA,
Pennsylvania
(Delaware County) - Posts
- 3,604
- Rep Power
- 1246703
Re: Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
I've performed a "citizens arrest" only twice and both for the same reason
DUI
I felt with a high sense of probability that if I didn't do something, people were certain to die
I can't think of a case Id ever use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon unless imminent danger was presentLast edited by BimmerJon; July 17th, 2014 at 08:33 PM.
-
July 18th, 2014, 08:59 AM #6Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
-
Warminster,
Pennsylvania
(Bucks County) - Posts
- 55
- Rep Power
- 135799
Re: Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
Tennessee v. Garner 1974. To summarize...Shooting a fleeing felon is generally not ok. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
-
July 18th, 2014, 09:51 AM #7
Re: Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) involved the shooting of a knowingly unarmed burglary suspect fleeing from police after being told to 'halt'. The SCOTUS decision has as its basis a 4th Amendment question and hinged on TN law and police policy:
In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy
The final holding in Garner:
Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Other considerations/game changers:
1. if the force application is being made at the behest of an LEO under §508;
2. unless self-protection, protection of others, or law enforcement is in play then the civil liability protection of the newer "stand your ground/castle" doctrine (42 Pa CS §8340.2) would not be invocable.IANAL
-
July 18th, 2014, 10:15 AM #8Banned
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
-
Pennsylvania
(York County) - Posts
- 1,295
- Rep Power
- 0
Re: Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but the PA courts have indicated that there are circumstances in which a fleeing felon may be shot, given the presence of a reasonable assumption that they may not be identifiable and thereby aprehendable at a later time, or that they are intending to commit another "heinous crime against the body" in the immediate future:
"A private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified. We hasten to note that before the use of deadly force is justified the private person must be in fresh pursuit of the felon and also must give notice of his purpose to arrest for the felony if the attending circumstances are themselves insufficient to warn the felon of the intention of the pursuing party to arrest him.
The common law principle that a killing necessary to prevent the escape of a felon is justifiable developed at a time when the distinction between felony and misdemeanor was very different than it is today. Statutory expansion of the class of felonies has made the common law rule manifestly inadequate for modern law.2 Hence, the need for a change or limitation in the rule is indicated. We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm. We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct."
Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 173-174 (Pa. 1968) (citations and footnotes omitted).http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...13411915377100
-
July 18th, 2014, 10:33 AM #9
Re: Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
As pointed out above, I would not trust being able to convey my position and legitimate reasons to judge and jury.
Example...I try to say he already robbed at gunpoint and it looked like he was really thinking about shooting the victim. His getting away would be a danger to another person who may be killed next time.
Objection. Conjecture on his being close to shooting the victim. Conjecture that he would ever rob again. Sustained. The jury will disregard those remarks by the witness.
Sorry... I'd like to help, but the realities are against it being worthwhile.
-
July 18th, 2014, 10:57 AM #10
Re: Citizens arrest / fleeing felon
TN v Gardner was about law enforcement officers use of force. It did not apply to the average person.
The reason why the courts came to that conclusion is because LEO's are an arm of the government and people are afforded a right to Due Process before being killed, except in certain situations.RIP: SFN, 1861, twoeggsup, Lambo, jamesjo, JayBell, 32 Magnum, Pro2A, mrwildroot, dregan, Frenchy, Fragger, ungawa, Mtn Jack, Grapeshot, R.W.J., PennsyPlinker, Statkowski, Deanimator, roland, aubie515
Don't end up in my signature!
Similar Threads
-
Citizens Arrest
By Petraqskie in forum GeneralReplies: 115Last Post: March 27th, 2017, 06:23 PM -
Fleeing Felon Rule?
By F16vipers in forum GeneralReplies: 26Last Post: August 22nd, 2011, 07:14 PM -
Seattle Citizens Arrest
By paul in forum NationalReplies: 13Last Post: August 20th, 2011, 02:34 PM -
Citizens Arrest
By Dametheman in forum GeneralReplies: 4Last Post: January 30th, 2008, 04:21 PM -
Citizens arrest
By P-11 shooter in forum GeneralReplies: 5Last Post: January 18th, 2008, 04:04 PM
Bookmarks