quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:

quote:

And just like the officer does not need to witness the actual crime, neither does this guy.

Actually, in many cases, they do. Citing NJ law, there are very few exceptions when charges can be filed for disorderly persons offenses not witnessed by the complainant.

quote:

Originally posted by cmr076:

quote:

Originally posted by ASKSmith:
Midwest rules.

Didn't watch the vid.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, I guess...

It's less than two minutes long...

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:
...... The guy is a fucking idiot.

I'll simplify it for the readership.

-------------------------

quote:

I'm thinking he will at least get charged with discharging a firearm.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

[QUOTE]...and this was not a deadly force encounter.

"It was once the vehicle was put in reverse and headed towards him. At least that's the way I see it as a jury member."


You are not a jury member. He had no right to take the law into his own hands. He made it a deadly force encounter. Two wrongs do not make it right for him to shoot at them. The male fled on foot from the van. The female put the van into reverse. Watch the video.

I did watch the video and I saw the female back the van into him. If I were a jury member, I would think that she turned it into a deadly force encounter and he had every right to defend himself, which is why I think he'll walk with a good attorney (although his claim of shooting at the tires might trip him up).

Now, would I have done the same or advise anyone else to do the same? Hell no. Do I think he was a dumb ass for putting himself in that position? Yep.

But, from what the video shows, she tried to run him down and he defended himself.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

And What PC did he have? He didn't see them steal from the store. Only putting it in the van. No right to make a Citizens Arrest. None.

Probable cause is the same level required of a police officer to make an arrest. And just like the officer does not need to witness the actual crime, neither does this guy.

Now that he's attempted his arrest, the bad guys commit even more crime, I would argue violently trying to escape.

Again, I don't think the guy should be shooting at tires, but legally, I think he was OK to make the arrest.

quote:

Reasonable force. Read that part again and think about it.

I have thought about it, and commented on it several times on this very forum. I believe police officers shooting at cars is dumb, just like I believe regular Joes shooting at cars is dumb.

I believe those fractions of a second are better spent removing yourself from danger than trying to use a bullet to stop a 3,000 pound machine.

That said, it happens all the time. Police shoot at cars. Police even sometimes kill people trying to escape in cars. Ultimately, if you don't want to get shot, you shouldn't be trying to run somebody over.

quote:

Again. He put him self in that spot to be run over. He is not a Cop.

quote:

Didn't know you are a lawyer or Cop. There is a reason I have you on my ignore list.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

As a "non cop" it is perfectly legal for him to act as a "cop" in making an arrest within the guidelines of the law. Some people here are assuming that only sworn officers can make an arrest, or react accordingly when those they have arrested resist. It's simply not true.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

As a "non cop" it is perfectly legal for him to act as a "cop" in making an arrest within the guidelines of the law. Some people here are assuming that only sworn officers can make an arrest, or react accordingly when those they have arrested resist. It's simply not true.

Just because it's 'the law' doesn't mean it's a good idea. I don't think I've actually ever heard of a case of a citizen making a 'citizen's arrest' where it came out well for anybody.

a) This was clearly not any of his business
b) He intervened and ESCALATED the situation to deadly force (as I stated before, the woman may have tried to run him over because SHE was in fear for HER life). I don't care if he felt his life was in danger - it was only so because he put HIMSELF in danger by his stupid actions.
c) Shots fired over an alleged SHOPLIFTING incident; thank God no innocent people were injured.
d) Now he will go through the legal wringer, and I am not even rooting for this retard. He makes the rest of us look bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
I don't think I've actually ever heard of a case of a citizen making a 'citizen's arrest' where it came out well for anybody.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

I know of one instance- December 16th, 1963 in Mayberry, NC.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Again. He put him self in that spot to be run over. He is not a Cop.

Where in the law does it differentiate between a "cop" and a "non cop"?

As a "non cop" it is perfectly legal for him to act as a "cop" in making an arrest within the guidelines of the law. Some people here are assuming that only sworn officers can make an arrest, or react accordingly when those they have arrested resist. It's simply not true.

But yes, this guy is a dumb ass.

quote:

Didn't know you are a lawyer or Cop. There is a reason I have you on my ignore list.

I'm neither, but there are likely many things you don't know about me.

I'm assuming that reason is that I am right, you are wrong, and you simply can't stand that fact. Am I close?

quote:

No. You are just a know it all

quote:

You know little to nothing

quote:

and like to pick fights with people here

quote:

over your view which is not fact at all.

quote:

You do this all the time here on just about any topic.

quote:

Typical keyboard warrior asshole.