From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 13:49:38 MDT
Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> >
> >Zero Powers wrote:
> > > Short of this, you are just opening yourself up to being sued (and
> >possibly
> > > criminally charged) for assault, battery and false imprisonment. All in
> >all
> > > I say you're better off just calling 911.
> >
> >These are standards no different than what cops face every day. If you
> >witness the crime, you are considered responsible to affect an arrest.
>
> Well I can't speak for your part of the world, but in California the
> standards for cops are less stringent. So long as they can show probably
> cause, they are immune from suit regardless of whether or not the person
> they arrested actually committed the crime, and regardless of whether or not
> a crime has in fact been committed.
This is pretty common, and what I actually meant. Its not supposed to be this
way, according to the US code and most state law. The police departments have
gotten themselves near liability free status and as a result are typically less
qualified to use lethal force than an armed civilian, only because the state
sets the bar high for civlians in terms of required training, etc. Armed
citizens like to practice their skills. Most cops see practicing their shooting
skills as a chore they would prefer to avoid.
Its not an accident that most all casualties on the side of the government at
Waco were due to freindly fire... most of those people didn't know how to handle
firearms, and/or had little to no tactical training.
> Also, in California there is no responsibility to effect a citizens arrest
> whenever you witness a crime. In fact you have no obligation whatsoever to
> even call the police. So long as your conduct does not rise to the level of
> "aiding and abetting" the crime, you can sit back and enjoy the
> entertainment.
>
> I do recall a Seinfeld episode where Jerry & the gang were arrested for
> failing to come to the aid of a crime victim when they traveled to (I think)
> Massachusetts. So there may be places in the world where the average
> citizen does have the obligation to stop crimes in progress. California,
> thankfully, is not one of them.
Its part of the Good Samaritan laws, as well as part of the Posse Comitatus Act
at the federal level. Refusing to give aid is what is called 'depraved
indifference', which can be used against a parent who refuses to report the
child abuse of the other spouse, refuses to give thier children health care, or
watching idly by while another person suffers injury, harm or foul play.
The fact that states like New York and California do not have this standard of
conduct in their legal system is another indication of why such states are
hellholes that should not be emulated elsewhere, and should be avoided by
tourists visiting our country.
The fact that you find the suffering of other innocent human beings to be
'entertainment' is rather indicative that you'd prefer to live in an empirical
socity of bread and circuses than a free society of respect and civic
responsibility.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:07 MST