Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point is missed; when you engage in criminal activity there is a risk it may not end well. And that is as is should be.
Your point is not "missed"...just because I disagree with you.
Killing someone for no reason is NOT as it should be.
You're right about risk when engaged in criminal activity...but death for TRYING to steal some cd's is NOT acceptable.
Very true, theft and other criminal offenses invite physical intervention.
Except he didn't steal anything. Until a crime occurs there should not be any intervention. And even then store employees, who do not have adequate training, are not the ones who should be going after such people. Those store employees did not have the right to touch anyone, especially in such an aggressive way.
Except he didn't steal anything. Until a crime occurs there should not be any intervention. And even then store employees, who do not have adequate training, are not the ones who should be going after such people. Those store employees did not have the right to touch anyone, especially in such an aggressive way.
Nonsense.
The guy with a slim Jim in your car window or a crowbar against your front door hasn't done anything, then.
And yes, they have a legal "right" to apprehend him.
Nonsense.
The guy with a slim Jim in your car window or a crowbar against your front door hasn't done anything, then.
And yes, they have a legal "right" to apprehend him.
If someone commits a crime, absent a policy like there was in this case, the victim has a right to use reasonable force to stop the theft from occurring.
For about eighty-second time, what went wrong is two-fold:
1. The store had a policy specifically forbidding its employees from attempting to apprehend this man.
2. Reasonable force was not used unless you believe tackling a person, breaking their ribs, sitting on them, and finally killing them is reasonable force.
My final point would be that there must be an actual crime committed to give anyone at any time the right to effect a citizen's arrest. Whether or a crime had actually been committed here may depend on the way that the statutes of that state are written.
If it sounds technical than it is. The law doesn't favor citizens using force to stop crimes. It favors them calling the authorities instead.
If someone commits a crime, absent a policy like there was in this case, the victim has a right to use reasonable force to stop the theft from occurring.
For about eighty-second time, what went wrong is two-fold:
1. The store had a policy specifically forbidding its employees from attempting to apprehend this man.
2. Reasonable force was not used unless you believe tackling a person, breaking their ribs, sitting on them, and finally killing them is reasonable force.
My final point would be that there must be an actual crime committed to give anyone at any time the right to effect a citizen's arrest. Whether or a crime had actually been committed here may depend on the way that the statutes of that state are written.
If it sounds technical than it is. The law doesn't favor citizens using force to stop crimes. It favors them calling the authorities instead.
I'm in agreement with you. Well written.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
