Selective Interpretation won;t save him - Part 2

Now one to Citizen's Arrest laws.

Historically, in Anglo Saxon law in medieval England citizen's arrests were an important part of community law enforcement. Sheriffs encouraged and relied upon active participation by able bodied persons in the towns and villages of their jurisdiction. From this legacy originated the concept of the posse comitatus which is a part of the United States legal tradition as well as the English. In medieval England, the right of private persons to make arrests was virtually identical to the right of a sheriff and constable to do so. (See Inbau and Thompson, Criminal Procedure, The Foundation Press, Mineola, NY 1974.

A strong argument can be made that the right to make a citizen's arrest is a constitutionally protected right under the Ninth Amendment as its impact includes the individual's natural right to self preservation and the defense of the others. Indeed, the laws of citizens arrest appear to be predicated upon the effectiveness of the Second Amendment. Simply put, without firepower, people are less likely going to be able to make a citizen's arrest. A random sampling of the various states as well as the District of Columbia indicates that a citizen's arrest is valid when a public offense was committed in the presence of the arresting private citizen or when the arresting private citizen has a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony, whether or not in the presence of the arresting citizen.

In the most crime ridden spot in the country, our nation's capitol, District of Columbia Law 23- 582(b) reads as follows:

(b) A private person may arrest another -

(1) who he has probable cause to believe is committing in his presence -

(A) a felony, or

(B) an offense enumerated in section 23-581 (a)(2); or

(c) Any person making an arrest pursuant to this section shall deliver the person arrested to a law enforcement officer without unreasonable delay. (July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 630, Pub. L. 91-358, Title II, § 210(a); 1973 Ed., § 23-582; Apr. 30, 1988, D.C. Law 7-104, § 7(e), 35 DCR 147.)

But it does vary from state to state, for example:

In Tennessee, it has been held that a private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not. (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).

Contrast this to Massachusetts law, which while permitting a private person to arrest for a felony, permits those acquitted of the felony charge to sue the arresting person for false arrest or false imprisonment. (See Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 Mass. App. 165 (1981))

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

Utah law permits citizen's arrest, but explicitly prohibits deadly force. (See Chapter 76-2-403.)

And important note regarding citizens arrests is the level of force used to make one. Making citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It would obviously be a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score. Civil lawsuits against department stores, police departments, and even cult deprogrammers for false imprisonment are legend. Anybody who makes a citizens arrest should not use more force than is necessary, should not delay in turning the suspect over to the proper authorities, and should never mete out any punishment ... unless willing to face the consequences. In terms of RLSH, the vast majority of them who make Citizens Arrests follow abide by these regulations steadfastly. They use only the degree of force necessary relative to the situation at hand, choosing to incapacitate until law enforcement arrives.

Here's California law in contrast to New York law in terms of Citizens Arrests:

California Penal Code mandates:
A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. (C.P.C. 837).

In contrast, New York State Consolidated Laws hold that:
Any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence. (N.Y.C.L. 140.30).

In both cases, if the crime is being committed IN THE PRESENCE OF A CITIZEN then they have the legal right to perform a Citizens Arrest. So when a RLSH sees someone breaking into a car or a victim getting mugged, they would have the legal right to interject themselves, protect the victim with reasonable force, or take steps to halt the crime and make an arrest.

This does bear repeating however. Laws vary from state to state when it comes to Citizens Arrest and anyone, RLSH or not, should study them to know how far the law protects before they cross the line. RLSH is not the same as vigilantism and whoever says otherwise is either biased against or uneducated about the movement. So the bottom line is that regardless of what a "random cop questioned by a blatantly biased RLSV with a chip on his shoulder" says, if a RLSH obeys the local laws in terms of citizens arrests then the law will protect them.

As for ongoing gripe about RLSH and costume, the RLSV blogging about them needs to go back and reread his quote about the Silver Sentinel and stop being a blatant hypocrite. The RLSH Manual, which is accessible online, does a great job of explaining why some RLSH wear a costume. But if costumes are such a hangup for the RLSV then they need to demand that all their members remove their costumes, their masks, and drop the fictitious names. Until they do so their rhetoric is non sensible babble. I can see it now, because there is a chance that some overweight child molester MIGHT someday don a Santa costume and use it to lure unsuspecting children into precarious situations we should just ban people from wearing Santa costumes even if it is for a charitable cause. Oh yes, clearly costumes are the source of true malevolence - ban them all dammit!! Ban them all. Oh wait, that would mean the Bronze Bedpan would have to show us his true face. On second thought, please keep the mask and cheap sunglasses on. I beg you.

And I'm sure this biased "King0Nazi in his email address" hardcore anti-RLSH will find more law enforcement buddies to interview in the future who conveniently will express the same repressed dislike of RLSH as this most recent one because sadly, hatred and intolerance often breeds such rhetoric. And yet the RLSH will move on as they have always don, doing what they do because it really boils down to their fundamental desire to help people, a sharp contrast from the generally lazy ass, chronic whiners that compose a significant ranks of the RLSV community.

Perhaps the most profound comment of all was the following; "As the ability of the powers that be to hold society together and preserve law and order diminishes, citizen's arrests will undoubtedly be more common as a way to help communities cope with the wrongdoers in our midst." And for the record this information comes from a high ranking attorney from Boston, Massachusetts.

Oh and as for picture in your MySpace page Mr. "Free Information" (or Tim if you prefer to be called by your real name) of a cat holding a computer mouse in his mouth...real cute but hardly impressive. Now that picture of the little kid with his arm raised up and your comment about "White Power"... well that one is certainly interesting.