Citizens Arrest

**ChamberedRound** · February 2nd, 2007, 12:10 PM

My apologies for going off-topic here, but I have to say that it's great to have guys like Steve, Rule10b5, and GunLawyer around this forum. Keeps us all honest and also keeps the speculation down to a minimum by providing answers backed up by facts and legal precedent.

Thanks guys! (Love fest over)

**Rule10b5** · February 2nd, 2007, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

My apologies for going off-topic here, but I have to say that it's great to have guys like Steve, Rule10b5, and GunLawyer around this forum. Keeps us all honest and also keeps the speculation down to a minimum by providing answers backed up by facts and legal precedent.

Thanks guys! (Love fest over)

Well, that and I hear I'm pretty f'ing charming, to boot.

**jsmithxd** · February 2nd, 2007, 01:51 PM

"We note that the power of Sheriffs to arrest for crimes committed in their presence is no different from that of a private citizen. In Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 242 A.2d 237, 239 (Pa. 1968), we reiterated that "a private person [***24] in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have [**775] always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified." However, we narrowed the types of felonies for which the rule was applicable and held 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.

Id.at 240. See Commonwealth v. Corley, 316 Pa. Super. 327, 462 A.2d 1374, 1379 (Pa. Super. 1993) ("we hold that a citizen's arrest can be made for a breach of the peace that is personally observed by the arrestor."), aff'd on other grounds, 507 Pa. 540, 491 A.2d 829, 834 (Pa. 1985) (declining to rule on the issue).

In referring to the above listed informatin let me throw up a scenario.

It's 2am and you're asleep when you hear a noise in your house. You grab your handy dandy firearm and proceed to investigate. Walking down the hall you come face to face with a burglar. He turns and runs at which point you shoot him in the back. There is no imminent threat of bodily to you at this point however, if one were to claim they were attempting to make a citizen's arrest and "in hot pursuit of a felon" since the actor committed a felony burglary in your presence, would the shooting be justified?

**Rule10b5** · February 2nd, 2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by jsmithxd

In referring to the above listed informatin let me throw up a scenario.

It's 2am and you're asleep when you hear a noise in your house. You grab your handy dandy firearm and proceed to investigate. Walking down the hall you come face to face with a burglar. He turns and runs at which point you shoot him in the back. There is no imminent threat of bodily to you at this point however, if one were to claim they were attempting to make a citizen's arrest and "in hot pursuit of a felon" since the actor committed a felony burglary in your presence, would the shooting be justified?

No. It would be murder.

Sorry

**KeithPA** · February 2nd, 2007, 03:54 PM

Rule...

What you posted about a "citizens arrest" wouldn't that conflict with Title 18, §505-507. "Use of force."

**Steve in PA** · February 2nd, 2007, 03:56 PM

And remember, if you try to affect a "citizens arrest" your liable to loose everything you own in a civil liability case.

**Rule10b5** · February 2nd, 2007, 04:03 PM

Guys, I hope you'll forgive me:

I can't, in good conscience, offer any further commentary. I don't want to cross the line and offer an opinion on the meaning of some very real, very important, and very disputable legal principles. It's simply too dangerous for me, and for you, if you were to rely on my advice.

Let me put it this way: There is the law in theory, and there is the law in practice.

In theory, Kopko v. Miller is a very interesting case.

In practice, stay the hell away from using it to justify deadly force.

I'm not kidding, folks, this isn't an area where you want to screw around.

Again, I'm sorry I can't say any more.

**Steve in PA** · February 2nd, 2007, 06:57 PM

I agree with Rule. Grab and hold onto a shoplifter, purse snatcher, graphiti artist, etc....thats about as far as making a "citizen's arrest" I would recommend. There may be one or two other examples, but your heading out into deep, deep water and that may not where you want to be.

**danp** · February 2nd, 2007, 11:02 PM

I'm going to just have to poke my head in here and say listen to both Rule10b5 and Steve here. We have both a lawyer and a law enforcement officer telling us to simply stay away from this entirely and I agree with them.

The potential liability both criminally and civily is simply not worth it.

**GunLawyer001** · February 3rd, 2007, 12:35 AM

I agree that it's highly risky to use lethal force under any circumstances. It should be reserved for situations in which you would prefer prison to whatever is going to happen if you don't use lethal force, because it's possible that you will end up there no matter what the truth of the situation.

I remember reading about a case where an older man and his wife were taken prisoner, tied up, robbed, and tortured in their home. The thugs got what they wanted and left. The man freed himself and ran after them with a gun, shooting one or more of them (it's been a while, details are fuzzy.) He was convicted of some level of homicide.

So, if you are about to be killed, shoot first, but ONLY if you have no avenue of escape. The law may allow you to stand your ground under some circumstances, but if you can duck behind a steel door and avoid death, DO IT, and save yourself the trauma and expense of an inquest and waiting for the DA to decide if he feels like prosecuting you in an election year. Read up on the Duke "rape" case and decide how much you can trust a DA if you've shot the wrong flavor of fleeing felon.

I'd personally rather spend 10 years in jail than watch my girlfriend get killed, but that's the informed choice I'll make. The government won't treat you as a hero if you kill a bad guy, you will be presumed to be a murderer unless the facts they settle upon support your version of events.

Remember, at the end of every John Wayne movie, Chuck Norris movie, or Steven Seagal movie, they leave out the part where the hero is prosecuted for multiple homicides and NFA violations.