home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!
- From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
- Newsgroups: rec.guns
- Subject: Re: Bad tactical position ( was Psychology in Defense)
- Message-ID: <9211192157.AA29953@gtephx.com>
- Date: 20 Nov 92 13:46:16 GMT
- Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
- Organization: gte
- Lines: 274
- Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu
-
- In article <1992Nov17.155557.10388@news.yale.edu>, watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
- #
- # In article <Bxu306.AGz@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, callison@essex.ecn.uoknor.edu (James P. Callison) writes:
- # |> In article <1992Nov16.161515.5452@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
- # |> #
- # |> #In article <Bxrvs1.3AH@scylax.uucp>, scylax!tiglath@uunet.UU.NET writes:
- # |> #
- [...]
- # |> Here's an interesting question...according to some news report or another,
- # |> there's been a rise in burglaries (or, I guess, technically, robberies)
- # |> committed while the residents were at home--and they were purposefully
- # |> committed while there was someone there. These perps were doing it for
- # |> feeling of power, and they were bent on harm, and posed a clear and
- # |> present danger. Question: If you catch one of these, and he tries
- # |> to leave, do you shoot him? He poses a clear and present danger, and
-
- No, he poses a clear and *future* danger, unless you see him approach
- another house and try to enter it.
-
- Have you noticed that these types of crimes seem to occur most frequently
- in places where the victims don't have guns (laws, poverty, or creed)?
-
- # |> will likely try it again (according to the report), if not with you
- # |> as the target, then with someone else...
- # |> I know the FBI's position is that a Special Agent who witnesses a
- # |> a robbery is bound to try and apprehend the subject, even though it
- # |> is technically not under FBI jurisdiction; do we, as "a well
- # |> regulated militia," do the same? (I think the answer is to shoot, under
- # |> Arizona's laws, but I'm not certain what any other laws are. I think
-
- BZZZZZT! Under Arizona laws :
-
- A person can make an arrest.
-
- [ARS 13-408]
- A person can use physical force in making and arrest or stopping
- a fleeing felon if:
- The suspect/convict uses physical force,
- and
- The reasonable person would believe use of such force ,
- immediately necessary to detain the suspect/felon,
- and
- The arresting person makes known the the suspect/felon,
- is being arrested unless this is not possible,
- and
- A resonable person would believe the arrest to be lawful.
-
- [ARS 13-409]
- A person can use deadly physical force in detaining a suspect or
- escaped felon if:
- All of the conditions for use of physical force are met,
- and a resonable person would believe:
- The suspect/felon is resisting the "discharge of a legal duty"[1]
- with deadly physical force or apparent capacity to use deadly
- physical force
- or
- The suspect is a prison escapee
- or
- A felon is fleeing from justice or resisting arrest with
- physical force.
-
- Also, a peace officer (as opposed to a person) is justified in
- threatening deadly physical force when a resonable officer would
- believe it necessary to protect himself.
-
- [1] I would guess this to exclude arresting a burglar unless
- you reasonably believe he has physically resisted arrest.
-
- That's the law. Now for the facts. Police don't get real
- happy about uninvited assistance unless it's obviously
- impossible to ask. On the other hand, I've heard of clearly
- illegal shootings where the shooter had his gun returned and
- the police said "Now, now.. you shouldn't do that ..." (A case
- of a business owner shooting at fleeing armed robbers -- of
- course, the "wrong" type of person trying this would be
- arrested.)
-
- #From what I know, you'll be given more leeway in your home or
- place of business and you'll be hard pressed to justify shooting
- in the back. The reasonable person standard is also varied based
- on who you are: a 6'4" 265lb body builder has a higher standard for
- being immediately threatened than does a 5'2" 105lb anorexic woman.
-
- # |> that, under Colorado and Oklahoma law, the moment he enters my
- # |> house, he's at my mercy, no matter what he does, so I'd shoot, no
- # |> question. What would _you_ do?)
- #
- # This comes under the "fleeing felon" doctrine. Many states grant
- # statutory authority to use deadly force to halt a "fleeing felon".
-
- Only when a resonable person would find it *immediately* necessary
- to use deadly physical force (at least in AZ).
-
- # Current standard doctrine for all police agencies I'm aware of severely
- # restricts use of deadly force in this circumstance, statutory authority
- # notwithstanding. If the police are prohibited or discouraged from shooting
- # in this circumstance, the civilian would be well-advised to hold fire also.
-
- I agree, the only exception would be a multi-murderer on the loose.
-
- # The only circumstance in which you could justify shooting would be if
- # the felon were *known to you* to present an unacceptable risk to innocent
-
- "Present", as in immediate, is a very important part of this! A serial
- murderer who has killed 1 person a night *might* fit that definition
- (more because of political pressure than the law) whereas a serial killer
- who killed once a month probably wouldn't.
-
- # life if allowed to remain at large. I can concoct some hypothetical
- # cases which would fall under this category, but the typical homeowner
- # is unlikely to encounter one. Basically, you as a civilian have no
- # duty to protect your neighbors or your community. This means you have
- # no duty (and therefore no authority) to perform an arrest. You can
-
- You just pushed my button -- this is the whole reason I am responding.
- You most certainly do have a civic duty to effect the arrest of a
- known felon.
-
- As to legal authority to make an arrest, speak for only what you know,
- in Arizona, you do have the rights as (lengthily) illustrated below
- (I skipped the ones where every citizen has a duty to follow the
- "command" of the sheriff or a peace officer to assist in arrest):
-
- Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 :
-
- 13-3884 Arrest by private person
- A private person may make an arrest:
- 1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a
- misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
- 2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable
- ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
-
- 13-3889 Method of arrest by private person
- A private person, when making an arrest shall inform the person to
- be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest,
- unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued
- immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly
- resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform
- him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest
-
- 13-3892 Right of private person to break into a building
- A private person, in order to make an arrest whree a felony was
- committed in his presence, as authorized in section 13-3884, may break
- open a door or window of any buiding in which the person to be arrested
- is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance after he
- has announced his purpose.
-
-
- 13-3893 Right to break door or window to effect release
- When an officer or private person has entered a building in
- accordance with the provisions of section 13-3891 or 13-3892, he may
- break open a door or window of the building, if detained therein, when
- necessary for the purpose of liberating himself.
-
- 13-3894 Right to break into building in order to effect release
- of person making arrest detained therein
- A peace officer or a private person may break open a door or window
- of any building when necessary for the purpose of liberating a person who
- entered the building in accordance with the provisions of section
- 13-3891 or 13-3892 and is detained therein.
-
- 13-3900 Duty of private person after making arrest
- A private person who has made an arrest shall without unnecessary
- delay take the person arrested before the nearest or most accessible
- magistrate in the county in which the arrest was made, or deliver him to
- a peace officer, who shall without unnecessary delay take him before such
- magistrate. The private person or officer so taking the person arrested
- before the magistrate shall make before the magistrate a complaint,
- which shall set forth the facts showing the offense for which the person
- was arrested. If however, the officer cannot make the complaint, the
- private person who delivered the person arrested to the officer shall
- accompany the officer before the magistrate and shall make to the
- magistrate the complaint against the preson arrested.
-
- # certainly order an intruder to halt, lie on the floor, and be a good
- # boy until the police arrive and be perfectly justified. But if the felon
- # attempts to flee, shooting would rarely be justified for police, even
- # more rarely for civilians. I don't think there is any jursidiction
- # in the country where either the police or civilians can shoot someone
- # because it will "probably" prevent another break-in.
-
- Right, however, ARS 13-411 provides justification for use of deadly
- physical force to prevent burglary 1st or 2nd (1st == aremd, 2nd ==
- unarmed, residential, 3rd = unarmed, commercial structure), arson of
- an occupied structure, kidnapping, manslaughter, 1st or 2nd murder,
- sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, child molestation,
- armed robbery or aggravated assault IF A REAONABLE PERSON WOULD
- BELIEVE IT IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY TO PREVENT OR STOP THE CRIME.
- [Note that each of these crimes carry specific definitions which may
- differ from what you think or your state laws define.]
-
- # |> #Someone who has unlawfully entered you home armed with a firearm
- # |> #has etablished both hostile intent and lethal capabilities. You can shoot
- # |> #him even if his back is turned to you. For ethical reasons, and to
-
- Around here, and IMHO in most jurisdiction, is is only IF A REAONABLE
- PERSON WOULD BELIEVE IT IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY TO PREVENT OR STOP THE
- CRIME. That is a very big IF that most people simply drop.
-
- # |> #avoid any possible legal difficulties, you may want to give this intruder
- # |> #the chance to retreat from confrontation, but you need not if doing so
- # |> #would place you or other innocent lives at greater risk.
-
- In other words, do so only if it is immediately necessary.
-
- # |> I realize that this could get a little bit off the charter, but I'm
- # |> actually more interested in what you can _legally_ do around the
- # |> country, given the above circumstances, and come out of it with your
- # |> freedom intact.
- # |> (Moderator, feel free to send this one to the funny farm (t.p.g) if
- # |> you feel that's it's too far off the charter. I really do want more
- # |> of the informational side of this, but it could get rather political...)
- #
- # In all of my posts, I have assumed that you were a head-of-household
- # or other responsible adult
- # facing an invasion of your occupied dwelling. This circumstance is
- # most favorable towards civilian use of deadly force. Even so, there
- # is a wide disparity in the statues of the different states. I have
- # also assumed that you are in legal possession of your firearm or other
- # deadly weapon. Some states have (or used to have) an unconditional
- # *duty to retreat* from deadly confrontation for the civilian, even
- # in the home.
- # Massachussetts had such a provision, but it was removed after a
- # particularly absurd conviction. Most states which have a general
- # duty to retreat make an exception for an occupied dwelling.
-
- Arizona has no "duty to retreat" clause and even has a specific
- "no duty to retreat" clause in the stopping of the crimes listed
- above. However, I have heard of a case where a man was convicted
- because he was on a bicycle in public and the shooting was found
- not justified because his ability to retreat combined with the
- distance between the two showed (to the jury) that deadly physical
- force was not *immediately* necessary. (IE: retreat could have
- been easily accomplished with placing any lives at risk.)
-
- So I guess that "immediately necessary" implies the need to consider
- retreat if it reasonable to do so without placing lives at risk.
-
- # Some states go even further and relax the "equality of force" requirement
- # which otherwise applies to meeting assaults [this is the doctrine that
- # you may respond to an assault only with equal or slightly greater
- # force than is directed against you]. The press, ever scrupulous
- # in its reporting standards, have dubbed these "make my day" laws.
- # The basic idea behind these laws is if you are in your dwelling,
- # and someone forcibly enters and uses or threatens to use *any*
- # force, you are justified in responding with *any* level of force,
- # including deadly force. Further, some states exempt from any
- # civil liability someone who justifiably uses force to terminate
- # an unlawful home entry. I believe Colorado passed the first of these.
-
- Better yet, AZ exempts from civil liability anyone who justifiably
- uses physical force or deadly physical force.
-
- # Regardless of the statutory provisions and the prevailing case law
- # in your jurisdiction, you don't *WANT* to shoot anyone if you can
- # possibly avoid it. Even assuming no criminal or civil legal complications
- # (your attorney probably defines a "complication" as costing more
- # that $10,000 to defend), most of your friends and acquaintances
- # will suddenly become a little uneasy around you. If you are a decent
- # person, you will likely become more than a little uneasy around yourself.
- #
- # I firmly believe that if I act within the legal and tactical boundaries
- # I've been taught, I will eventually come to terms with myself and
- # be able to deal with the reaction of the community around me. This
- # doesn't mean I expect to find that process either cheap or easy.
-
- Agreed.
- --
- "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
- no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are
- committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" - Andrew Ford
- gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu OR !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
-
-
-