Detroit investigators raid home of fire chaser who held up arsonist: Stop playing cop

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"If you want to be a true person who is interested in helping the police, then help us. But don't do our job for us."

Sounds to me like they were a little more upset about him doing their job than catching a serial arsonist.
Anyway, this guy won't get anything but a slap on the wrist and maybe obstruction of justice.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: strongfp

Because citizens have rights and an untrained civilian could easily violate those rights without knowing it which could cause the case to be thrown out of court.

That presents an interesting conundrum. If he doesn't act, the arsonist might get away. Which would allow her to possibly start another fire that might take someone's life next time.

If he does act, then not only might he get in trouble or injured, but he could also violate the alleged perpetrators civil rights; as well as contaminate the evidence, leading to case dismissal or acquittal.

What would you do?

-dex

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"If you want to be a true person who is interested in helping the police, then help us. But don't do our job for us."

Sounds to me like they were a little more upset about him doing their job than catching a serial arsonist.
Anyway, this guy won't get anything but a slap on the wrist and maybe obstruction of justice.

And maybe a bill from the city for the investigators having to raid and seize his stuff

originally posted by: Autorico

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"If you want to be a true person who is interested in helping the police, then help us. But don't do our job for us."

Sounds to me like they were a little more upset about him doing their job than catching a serial arsonist.
Anyway, this guy won't get anything but a slap on the wrist and maybe obstruction of justice.

And maybe a bill from the city for the investigators having to raid and seize his stuff

Sounds like North Korea. Doesn't the regime send an invoice for the bullet used to execute a "criminal" to the next of kin?


-dex

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"If you want to be a true person who is interested in helping the police, then help us. But don't do our job for us."

Sounds to me like they were a little more upset about him doing their job than catching a serial arsonist.
Anyway, this guy won't get anything but a slap on the wrist and maybe obstruction of justice.

Sounds to me like you are making judgements without evidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: strongfp

I'm not convicting him of anything. Did you not see the word "allegedly" in my text or are you just content on purposely not understanding my words? Or do you not know what the word allegedly means?

PS: y'all are one to talk about jumping to conclusions though by insisting this is related to corruption.

Also..

Basically if this guy hadn't held this woman up with a firearm

Your words not mine. Said before you used the word allegedly. I don't want to get technical here, but you went back on your own words. So don't blame me for your miss-communication in a linear thread.

a reply to: DexterRiley

I wouldn't put it past them considering they jail 3 generations for crimes. I wonder how they would pay for the bullet while in jail?

a reply to: DexterRiley

True, but that's how the law works. There has to be a line drawn somewhere so that our rights are guaranteed to be maintained.

a reply to: strongfp

Lol. You are just intent on reading into my words. In any case, since you seem intent on having a petty conversation I'm done talking to you. I don't need to do these schoolyard shenanigans.

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: DexterRiley

I wouldn't put it past them considering they jail 3 generations for crimes. I wonder how they would pay for the bullet while in jail?

I'd say that if anyone within those 3 generations is a woman, they'll figure out a way for her to do some extra services to pay for it.


-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

And here is where the law proves that it is merely justices idiot cousin, not an equal concept.

Yes, as far as I know the law supports arrest by citizens in extremis. However, in order to do this it is vital that one knows for certain that the crime for which one is arresting the perpetrator for is a felony (because citizens may not arrest someone for a misdemeanour, meaning any attempt to do such would be false imprisonment, and lead to some legal penalty against the arresting citizen or citizens). One must also make an attempt to inform the perpetrator that they are being arrested, and what they are being arrested for, unless the perpetrator :

1) Is actively still engaged in commission of the offence (which suggests that one might be permitted to step in, put the perpetrator in a submissive position, and then explain their situation)

2) Attempting to flee

or

3) Forcibly resisting arrest...

before having their situation explained to them.

Now, arson is most definitely a felony, in Detroit at any rate (which I know having looked it up. I cannot confirm that this is true of other regions in the US, but as far as Detroit goes, performing a citizens arrest on an arsonist is legitimate).

However, it is possible that the magic words were not said during the "arrest" attempt. From what I read in the article, it seems like the citizen and his friend merely blocked the route of escape, using a vehicle, possibly having to do so twice during the events leading up to the arrest of the firebug. At no point does the article mention the citizen in question actually using the words "I am placing you under Citizens Arrest", leave alone quoting the code of law which gives a person that right (which is a bit of a mouthful and hard to remember, I will grant you). The devil, with matters such as these, is in the details. Unfortunately, there are many things working against this fellow and his buddy. If the article gives a proper accounting of the matter, covering all the salient points, then you would have thought that would include any and all words exchanged between the citizen and the "arrested" party. If it DOES include all such detail, then the citizen made an error in failing to attempt to inform the perpetrator that they were under legally valid arrest.

One of the other things which is working against the citizen here, is the fact that the police number was not answering at the time of their actions, which makes the police look damned stupid. Police in other localities have often praised people for stepping in to assist them in arrests, for preventing serious criminal activity, foiling robberies and muggings. However, in an event like this, where the police should have been on the scene much sooner than they were, should have answered the call much sooner than they did, should have done the same amount of legwork that the citizen did and been the ones on the scene, they have been shown up by a photographer and his friend, and that will not make them particularly keen to waive the details of the arrest, as others have had done because of the extremity of the circumstances in which they have defeated the criminals intent.

So between justices idiot cousin, the law, not supporting the precise scripting of the arrest, and the fact that the local police are not fond of being made to look flat footed by a part time photographer and drone operator, and his buddy, the citizens who made the "arrest" attempt, are pretty screwed, to be honest. But heres the thing...

They should not be. It is NOT the sole responsibility of police officers and official law enforcement agents, to capture criminals and physically prevent criminal activity, or the escape of criminals from the scene of their crimes. No where in the law of any region, state or city, does it explicitly state that the citizen may never involve themselves in the prevention of crime, the foiling of a criminal enterprise in the moment, or the escape of a felon from the scene of whatever thing they have done. It is not a criminal offence to prevent someone getting away with criminal behaviour.

The spirit of the law, therefore, suggests that indeed, everyone who considers themselves able bodied or canny enough to do so, ought to be free, within a certain degree of reasonableness, to make arrests, prevent criminal activity, foil criminal activity by main strength, and capture perpetrators. If this is the spirit of the law, if this is the spirit of justice, it is imperative that future legislation and guidelines on how law enforcement agents are to deal with citizens making arrests, be amended to prevent citizens who make arrests, being as easily prosecuted for doing so.

It's the best in government for you.

1.) We won't educate your kids.

2.) We won't bother to take care of your criminals.

Hey! Give us control of your health care.

3.) We won't bother to remove that appendix.

a reply to: Autorico

If he witnessed a felony... and was absolutely sure he had the right person... Detaining them? Could cause HIM to be arrested.. As in kidnapping and unlawful detention.. You better be damn sure... And don't hold em down either..

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DexterRiley

True, but that's how the law works. There has to be a line drawn somewhere so that our rights are guaranteed to be maintained.

So, the right to due process is enshrined in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. But the right of one citizen to perform a citizen's arrest on another person, who has allegedly committed a crime, has its basis in common law.

You have made some interesting points. However, you didn't answer the other question I asked, which is: What would you do?

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

I don't know what I'd do unless I was in the moment. This isn't something I've exactly prepared myself for or thought about. I'm not a fan of confrontation like that, so I'd probably snap the perp's picture and forward that to the police. If I felt like more investigation was necessary I'd tail the person to their home (but that is probably wishful thinking)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DexterRiley

I don't know what I'd do unless I was in the moment. This isn't something I've exactly prepared myself for or thought about. I'm not a fan of confrontation like that, so I'd probably snap the perp's picture and forward that to the police. If I felt like more investigation was necessary I'd tail the person to their home (but that is probably wishful thinking)

In asking the question, that was the response I anticipated. And, in fact, I believe that is what I would probably have done as well. Given this day and age, in this country, it would not be unheard of for the alleged perpetrator to be armed to the teeth. Especially one who has committed a rather serious crime of that nature.

Thanks!
-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Yeah it's a risky situation and something I'd rather leave to trained professionals.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DexterRiley

And here is where the law proves that it is merely justices idiot cousin, not an equal concept.

Yes, as far as I know the law supports arrest by citizens in extremis. However, in order to do this it is vital that one knows for certain that the crime for which one is arresting the perpetrator for is a felony (because citizens may not arrest someone for a misdemeanour, meaning any attempt to do such would be false imprisonment, and lead to some legal penalty against the arresting citizen or citizens). One must also make an attempt to inform the perpetrator that they are being arrested, and what they are being arrested for, unless the perpetrator :

1) Is actively still engaged in commission of the offence (which suggests that one might be permitted to step in, put the perpetrator in a submissive position, and then explain their situation)

2) Attempting to flee

or

3) Forcibly resisting arrest...

before having their situation explained to them.

Now, arson is most definitely a felony, in Detroit at any rate (which I know having looked it up. I cannot confirm that this is true of other regions in the US, but as far as Detroit goes, performing a citizens arrest on an arsonist is legitimate).

However, it is possible that the magic words were not said during the "arrest" attempt. From what I read in the article, it seems like the citizen and his friend merely blocked the route of escape, using a vehicle, possibly having to do so twice during the events leading up to the arrest of the firebug. At no point does the article mention the citizen in question actually using the words "I am placing you under Citizens Arrest", leave alone quoting the code of law which gives a person that right (which is a bit of a mouthful and hard to remember, I will grant you). The devil, with matters such as these, is in the details. Unfortunately, there are many things working against this fellow and his buddy. If the article gives a proper accounting of the matter, covering all the salient points, then you would have thought that would include any and all words exchanged between the citizen and the "arrested" party. If it DOES include all such detail, then the citizen made an error in failing to attempt to inform the perpetrator that they were under legally valid arrest.

One of the other things which is working against the citizen here, is the fact that the police number was not answering at the time of their actions, which makes the police look damned stupid. Police in other localities have often praised people for stepping in to assist them in arrests, for preventing serious criminal activity, foiling robberies and muggings. However, in an event like this, where the police should have been on the scene much sooner than they were, should have answered the call much sooner than they did, should have done the same amount of legwork that the citizen did and been the ones on the scene, they have been shown up by a photographer and his friend, and that will not make them particularly keen to waive the details of the arrest, as others have had done because of the extremity of the circumstances in which they have defeated the criminals intent.

So between justices idiot cousin, the law, not supporting the precise scripting of the arrest, and the fact that the local police are not fond of being made to look flat footed by a part time photographer and drone operator, and his buddy, the citizens who made the "arrest" attempt, are pretty screwed, to be honest. But heres the thing...

They should not be. It is NOT the sole responsibility of police officers and official law enforcement agents, to capture criminals and physically prevent criminal activity, or the escape of criminals from the scene of their crimes. No where in the law of any region, state or city, does it explicitly state that the citizen may never involve themselves in the prevention of crime, the foiling of a criminal enterprise in the moment, or the escape of a felon from the scene of whatever thing they have done. It is not a criminal offence to prevent someone getting away with criminal behaviour.

The spirit of the law, therefore, suggests that indeed, everyone who considers themselves able bodied or canny enough to do so, ought to be free, within a certain degree of reasonableness, to make arrests, prevent criminal activity, foil criminal activity by main strength, and capture perpetrators. If this is the spirit of the law, if this is the spirit of justice, it is imperative that future legislation and guidelines on how law enforcement agents are to deal with citizens making arrests, be amended to prevent citizens who make arrests, being as easily prosecuted for doing so.

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful reply!

One must also make an attempt to inform the perpetrator that they are being arrested, and what they are being arrested for

That is an interesting point. It would not occur to me to tell the perpetrator that I was making a citizen's arrest. If I were actually foolhardy enough to try to perform a citizen's arrest, I would likely just hurl a few curses and insults at the person to try to make them stop from fleeing until the actual police arrived. Therefore, without the magic words indicating I was making a citizen's arrest, I could be charged with unlawfully detaining the person.

One of the other things which is working against the citizen here, is the fact that the police number was not answering at the time of their actions, which makes the police look damned stupid.

So, the authorities might just want to retaliate because they were made to look stupid because of their incompetence. That did occur to me. That's the human-nature part of the equation. In order for them to save face they need to demonstrate how wrong this citizen was for his hasty actions.

Yep, he's doubly screwed.

-dex

originally posted by: Autorico
If there was no firearm found, why are the arson investigators saying there was one?

Because they are corrupt. It's Detroit PD. He made the PD look dumb by them not answering the phone and by making the arest that they couldn't make in several months

a reply to: DexterRiley

Yes, one must make the arrested party aware of their status as such, and the reason for the arrest, with the caveats that this is not necessary if the individual is in flight (therefore explaining your intention to arrest them would be somewhat impossible, owing to the necessity of saving ones breath for running them down), or if the individual is trying to fight you (because they do not wish to be captured, because ones breath will be needed for restraining them somehow, and the other rigors of unarmed combat of course).

Seems from the articles description of events (which left something to be desired, in terms of its lacking detail and granularity), that the culprit was standing still for a time, long enough to be informed of their status as an arrested person.

In the instance that you should have to perform a citizens arrest on someone, I would make it part of your vocabulary, to state the code under which you, as the arresting citizen, are making the arrest, as well as informing the arrested party that they are under arrest, just to cover your arse a bit. Its still risky as all heck for other reasons, but if you at least do that much, you know you did everything you could to cover yourself from a legal standpoint.