Armed citizen takes down auto thief

You made the lawfully armed citizen claim, not I. You made the holding at gun point claim with NO clarification, not I. You then later admitted that this incident had nothing to do with the citizen being lawfully armed, OC, or RKBA.

And we are still waiting on a citation for this incident.

Hey Wacking Wolf, you need to simmer down. You're at a 9. Bring it down to a 3.5.

skidmark said:

Must be nice to live in a state where the use of lethak force is allowed for the protection of property. Most of us live where the mere mention of a handgun, let alone the display, will get you into more trouble than the BG who was stealing your stuff.

Effecting a citizen's arrrest (apprehend and detain) camn also get yu in a lot of hot water if you do not dot all the "t's" and cross all the "i's".

It sux that the system is set up that way, but that is the way the world is shaped for an awful lot of us.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

The way the law is written here is: You can use whatever force is necessary to stop any felony and apprehend the perp, as long as the felony happens in you presence. If the felony is against your person, you can use your firearm to do more than threaten.

WalkingWolf said:

You made the lawfully armed citizen claim, not I. You made the holding at gun point claim with NO clarification, not I. You then later admitted that this incident had nothing to do with the citizen being lawfully armed, OC, or RKBA.

And we are still waiting on a citation for this incident.

Click to expand...

There is no media article to cite, PALO is a LEO with first hand knowledge of the incident. I don't know what was so confusing, I understand what he said. I think it does fit here (a lot more than most threads lately) the person (not "citizen", word not allowed in Seattle anymore) since he did have a gun, and stopped a felony, and wasn't harassed by the police for doing so.

It may have been concealed, but almost all of us conceal at some point due to weather, clothing, or situation. The import point was that a felony in our local area was stopped by a LAP with no injuries, and the good guy not getting busted for doing the right thing. The GG was armed, and had the ability the stop the action. The fact he didn't have to draw is a bonus. My .02.

PALO said:

isaid he was armed and prepared obviously. He never took his gun from his holster. If he shot her while she was absconding, that would not be justified.

Holding her at gunpoint would be. But he merely held her down.

Click to expand...

My bad.

I feel like I just failed a test. heh

On a side note, you could definitely work for the media. lol

I'm with PALO on this one it was cool.

In regards to drawing your gun on auto thief/burglar.

We all know that a guy breaking into your RESIDENCE is going to get shot if he doesn't turn around and leave. You don't need to confirm he's armed. Residential burglary while occupied, boatloads of case law (and tons of cases locally) where guy forcefully enters your house to commit crime, he advances on you, he gets shot.

As far as DRAWING your gun. As a LEO, it is routine to draw our weapons when taking down auto thief, or after a vehicle pursuit, or taking down a burglar into custody.

None of these are violent crimes, but ample precedent to assume that the auto thief, burglar, or person eluding police is potentially armed and dangerourous and so called "felony stops" (seizures at gunpoint ) are justified. obviously, they are for RAS for armed robbery, etc. but they also are for burglary stops, stolen car stops, etc.

In none of those circ's is it justified in FIRING at that person if they run any direction ExCEPT directly towards you. 80% of the time somebody disarms a cop, they use the weapon against them. If I have my gun out, I am issuing orders to prone out, etc. and I make it clear/visible I have my gun out, if HE creates the exigency by running TOWARDS me while I have my gun out, shooting is justified. We had an officer from a neighboring agency shoot a guy during a felony stop for auto theft, and that was the reasoning. One has ample reason to fear death/serious injury when a felon runs towards you while you have your gun out . Shooting was ruled justified. Under tenn. v. garner etc. we (citizen or cop) would not be justified in shooting any of these criminals for running AWAY . To contrast a mercer Island cop shot a bank robber in the back after issuing an order to stop after the bank robber robbed the bank at gunpoint. The shooting was kosher because he was able to articulate continuing danger to public if the guy wasn't apprehended.

In the case in this thread, the guy did NOT draw his gun, but some people have opined he would not have just cause to do so. hogwash. And fwiw, when I draw my gun during a felony stop I do not point it directly at the person. I hold it at low ready. From tests at the range, it is just as fast to raise the gun from low ready and fire, as it is to fire from holding the gun on target. Fractions of a second.

A citizen was recently killed in the seattle area btw while confronting an auto thief, who turned on him and stabbed him.

THAT's why you have the gun out. To protect yourself if he turns and advances on you. You absoltely have the right to get the draw on him. And have the tactical advantage if HE escalates the situation by charging at you.

I have responded to dozens of cases where citizens held burglars, auto thieves etc. at gunpoint. It's even ok to LIE to the suspect and tell him you are going to shoot him if he tries to get up. You CAN'T shoot him, but it's perfectly ok to put him in fear of same.

We had a man hold a woman burglar at gunpoint in his garage and she was so afraid SHE called 911 to ask us to hurry up, she was so afraid of getting shot.

So yes, in brief, you can (as a citizen not just as a cop) draw your weapon when taking down a perp during a felony in progress such as above. At least where I work, no cop in his right mind would fault you, nor would a prosecutor. you have the same right to try to go home alive as we do (cops) when we draw our guns during felony stops.

Again, in this case, the guy did not draw his gun, but he would have been warranted to do so while (for example) holding the woman at gunpoint awaiting our arrival. He just couldn't shoot her if she got up and ran off. In fact, we had a guy hold a prowler at gunpoint about a year ago (guy had been trying to break into the house). The guy called the homeowners bluff (this was outside the home) decided he wasn't going to shoot and got up and ran away. Fair enuf.

Hopefully, the perp has just enough fear that you might be the reckless vigilante who WOULD shoot him for running away, that he fears it enough that he stays and doesn't try to run away. Ime, based on a few dozen cases, that's what happens. The perp doesn't want to take the risk and remains until police arrival.

If you (as an armed citizen) see somebody stealing or trying to steal your car at o dark thirty. My recommendation ALWAYS is to first call 911. Whether you should approach him or not is entirely discretionary, but imo IF you do approach him, have your gun with you, and if you have it out of the holster that's fine, especially if you don't point it at him. You announce you are armed and that he needs to get on the ground. If he runs, oh well. Of course you can't shoot him. But if he runs at you, consider he is evidencing that he is desperate, most likely trying to disarm you, and that he has no concern for HIS safety, why would you not be worried he'd be equally cavalier with yours? He runs at you wheh he can clearly see you have your gun out and you are issuing orders to him, you do NOT have to "deescalate", holster your weapon (and in most cases you won't have TIME to so) and get into a stance ready to go hands on judo style with him.

I can also say with absolute certainty that in such a case, no prosecutor in my jurisdiction would fault you for defending yourself.

I am not speaking from opinion. I am speaking from what prosecutors have told me, and what I have personally witnessed in several dozen cases. Keep yourself safe, and don't let a burglar or auto thief get the drop on you.

If you do live in a jurisdiction where the cops/prosecutor's office would fault you for merely drawing your gun when contacting an auto thief IN THE PROCESS of stealing your car, well I just gotta say... I'm glad I don't live in your jurisdiction.

Even doing a simple google search with words like "citizen held man at gunpoint" gives tons of examples where everyday citizens did so without peril from the police.

If YOU want to apprehend a burglar, auto thief etc. while unarmed - imo, you are pretty cavalier with your safety.

And if you want to give him EQUAL footing then by all means close the distance with a holstered gun. I prefer to give myself the tactical advantage, thanks

Btw, enter these words into google and see countless examples: citizen held man at gunpoint auto thief

hermannr said:

The way the law is written here is: You can use whatever force is necessary to stop any felony and apprehend the perp, as long as the felony happens in you presence. If the felony is against your person, you can use your firearm to do more than threaten.

Click to expand...

We have essentially the same case law here in Virginia. But that was not what was presented in the OP.

Very cool. Just had an armed citizen chase a person down who stole his car, chase her on foot, apprehend her and hold her pending our arrival. No shots fired, and no muss, no fuss. Like most citizen (and cop) uses of force, the bad guy is in custody with minimal force (actually bad girl) and she's off to jail!

Click to expand...

Those actions have nothing to do with stopping a felony in progress. They are reports of actions involved in making a citizen's arrest - apprehension and detention by force by a person who is not a sworn police officer or otherwise imbued with the lawful power of arrest. "A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing him or herself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges – such as charges of impersonating a police officer, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest – if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest It is in the act of detention that the exposure to liability goes up dramatically. A sworn police officer can arrest and detain a suspect for stealing a car-ish and eluding arrest-ish, and clear up any ambiguities later on at the station house when they have law guides and supervisory staff to consult regarding precisely what charge to bring. A peson making a citizen's arrest does not have those luxuries. They need to state the criminal offense at the time of arrest and do not get to change their mind. Was hat stealing a car or unauthorized use? Was it stealing or staling by force and threat? Was it eluding or obstruction of justice? (I'm too tired to run through a bunch of other possibilities.) Get it wrong and the perp becomes the victim of civil rights violations as well as criminal acts.

I'll stop the felony in progress, but I'll be darned if I'm going to apprehend/detain/arrest the person that was committing the felony that I stopped them them form continuing to commit. You know and I know that it is a matter of semantics, but words are what are used to write up the report, and it's what is in the report that happened.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

We have essentially the same case law here in Virginia. But that was not what was presented in the OP.



Those actions have nothing to do with stopping a felony in progress. They are reports of actions involved in making a citizen's arrest - apprehension and detention by force by a person who is not a sworn police officer or otherwise imbued with the lawful power of arrest. "A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing him or herself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges – such as charges of impersonating a police officer, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest – if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest It is in the act of detention that the exposure to liability goes up dramatically. A sworn police officer can arrest and detain a suspect for stealing a car-ish and eluding arrest-ish, and clear up any ambiguities later on at the station house when they have law guides and supervisory staff to consult regarding precisely what charge to bring. A peson making a citizen's arrest does not have those luxuries. They need to state the criminal offense at the time of arrest and do not get to change their mind. Was hat stealing a car or unauthorized use? Was it stealing or staling by force and threat? Was it eluding or obstruction of justice? (I'm too tired to run through a bunch of other possibilities.) Get it wrong and the perp becomes the victim of civil rights violations as well as criminal acts.

I'll stop the felony in progress, but I'll be darned if I'm going to apprehend/detain/arrest the person that was committing the felony that I stopped them them form continuing to commit. You know and I know that it is a matter of semantics, but words are what are used to write up the report, and it's what is in the report that happened.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

The downsides to a citizens arrest is dependent upon the state that one performs the arrest in. At least civil liability issues come into play. Sometimes its just civil issues & sometimes criminal and civil. 50 states, lots of room for variation.

skidmark said:

We have essentially the same case law here in Virginia. But that was not what was presented in the OP.



Those actions have nothing to do with stopping a felony in progress. They are reports of actions involved in making a citizen's arrest - apprehension and detention by force by a person who is not a sworn police officer or otherwise imbued with the lawful power of arrest. "A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing him or herself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges – such as charges of impersonating a police officer, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest – if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest It is in the act of detention that the exposure to liability goes up dramatically. A sworn police officer can arrest and detain a suspect for stealing a car-ish and eluding arrest-ish, and clear up any ambiguities later on at the station house when they have law guides and supervisory staff to consult regarding precisely what charge to bring. A peson making a citizen's arrest does not have those luxuries. They need to state the criminal offense at the time of arrest and do not get to change their mind. Was hat stealing a car or unauthorized use? Was it stealing or staling by force and threat? Was it eluding or obstruction of justice? (I'm too tired to run through a bunch of other possibilities.) Get it wrong and the perp becomes the victim of civil rights violations as well as criminal acts.

I'll stop the felony in progress, but I'll be darned if I'm going to apprehend/detain/arrest the person that was committing the felony that I stopped them them form continuing to commit. You know and I know that it is a matter of semantics, but words are what are used to write up the report, and it's what is in the report that happened.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

First of all, the citizen first saw the woman as she was driving away. She is absconding with the vehicle. I'm more concerned with what I have seen in court, and in the street and in case law than what wikipedia says. There was no "ish". He had never seen this woman before and clearly she had no permission to take HIS car. That's about as crystal clear an in progress crime as you can get
.
As I said, apprehending the criminal fleeing from the scene is entirely DISCRETIONARY. But I also know that in MY jurisdiction, no prosecutor or cop is going to have any problem with what this guy did. He doesn't have to know the RCW and the penal code niceties. He knows auto theft is illegal and he knows this woman is committing auto theft, because it's HIS car so he can state with absolute certainty she has no permission to be driving away in his car. It's about as bright line law as you can get.

His civil liability is null. He saw the crime occur in progress (sees the woman driving away in his car), and there is no question of ID (does he have the wrong person), crime (it's obviously auto theft).

As I make clear, I am speaking purely about MY jurisdiction. But when n= several dozen and IN EVERY CASE the citizen faces no charges or any other negative repercussions, I have no doubt that what I am saying here is the law of the land here.

You are right that the LEO has authoritah to stop at a lower level (RS - whereas in most jurisdictions the citizen has to have solid PC and in some has to actually witness the crime in progress), and has qualified immunity whereas the citizen has none.

But this case is SO open and shut.

And in WA state (which is why relying on wiki is problematic since it doesn't address differences in different jurisdictions), he does not need to (as your article claims) does not need to state the criminal offense at the time of the arrest, with any specifity. Iow he can simply say "i am detaining you for stealing my car". He doesn't need to know the legal jargon or penal code.

WA allows citizens to arrest for misdemeanors or felonies , btw.

Again, I am just relying on experience where in every case a citizen acted "reasonably" (and i've seen some pretty serious uses of force by citizens. We had one case where a few neighborhood men held a man for trying to lure a child into his car (the RCW is "luring"). He got pretty beat up by the times the cops got there and he was threatening left right and every which way he was going to sue them. His civil suit went nowhere and the prosecutor didn't even think about charging them with assault)

Again, I would tell people to check the laws in their jurisdiction. Mine are crystal clear. I would also say if your jurisdiction doesn't allow you to draw your gun when approaching somebody who is stealing your car, then your state sux

Recall also, that if the state charges the arrester with a crime, and the arrester is found not guilty AND the jury is polled and agrees that the arrester used force in self defense, that in WA, the state must pay for lost wages during the trial AND the defendant's cost of defense (lawyer fees, etc.). This especially disincentivizes the state in charging people acting in self defense.

Ultimately, in WA state, citizens are held to using "reasonable" force, just like cops. While it's unreasonable to shoot a fleeing nonviolent felon, it is reasonable to have your gun at low or indoor ready while detaining a person who has committed a felony. If you disagree, try to find any case in WA where a person was charged for holding a felon at gunpoint pending police arrival. Based on my searches, I can't find any. But I can find the dozens of cases where they faced no liability whatsoever FOR doing so, since they are cases I investigated personally

cheers

IMO people who strap on a gun to go out and play super hero are super idiots. That is not why we armed as citizens and can backfire and bring bad karma on the LAC community. Wanna be a cop, join the force, pull a gun on me by mistake playing super hero you will find out how mortal you are.

Completely reckless behavior for a citizen to play cop because they have a gun, and even more reckless for law enforcement to encourage such behavior.

But if you(general) wanna be the next George Zimmerman be my guest, I carry for self defense only.

I would just yell out when the next oil change is due to the thief ... I don't want the warranty voided.

Its just a car ... who hasn't stolen a car in their day?

davidmcbeth said:

I would just yell out when the next oil change is due to the thief ... I don't want the warranty voided.

Its just a car ... who hasn't stolen a car in their day?

Click to expand...

Not I, but a car is not worth going to prison over, or the hassle of shooting someone. That is what insurance is for. The car was probably not worth it anyway. After all the thief was caught by someone outrunning the car on foot... :uhoh:

So, the lesson here is to carry two guns.

One to shoot the perp with and one to plant.

I applaud you PALO, I would gladly purchase for you your beverage of choice.

WalkingWolf said:

Not I, but a car is not worth going to prison over, or the hassle of shooting someone. That is what insurance is for. The car was probably not worth it anyway. After all the thief was caught by someone outrunning the car on foot... :uhoh:

Click to expand...

Funny .

I think this is a pervasive thinking that we rely on others for legal matters so pervasive that we forget we didn't always have cops to call and that the law is ours as individuals. I have no problem with someone exercising what I feel is his fundamental personal right to protect his property and to apprehend those who would infringe upon his rights (all rights are property rights), especially when they don't use force to the fullest extent and go just for enough to bring it a jury of peers of the person he apprehended.

Sorry, but except for possibly making it relevant to an OC forum (actually it's irrelevant here), mention of lawfully armed IS begging the question of a 'super citizen' acting as if they are some kind of neighborhood cop. Walking Wolf is the voice of reason here among you blood-thirsty cowboy types here. i have to wonder if being on a forum gets you all PMSing, how in the world are you handling the real world. Carry a gun but act as if you are NOT carrying a gun. Works in 99.99% of cases and keeps you safe. You have a gun and stride out to the parking lot all macho, eschewing management's offer of a clerk to help you and a 14 yo with a saturdaynightspecial sees you as a lone target and gets the drop on you and he shoots you trying to resist, or you shoot him. EPIC FAIL.

And why didn't mr macho super gun lawfully armed person accept the help that dark and stormy night? Because he was full of himself - i.e. self-delusional.

DON'T DO IT.

Let insurance companies handle bank robberies, car thefts, 7-11 robberies. Be a good witness, get a license number.

In fact had he not been carrying a 2lb firearm he might have caught her sooner.

I see something different here. A Citizen was wronged (the stolen vehicle) and he acted. The weapon did not enter into the equation until the LEOs arrived as it was not used in the "capture". When the LEOs arrived they did not overreact and harass the Armed Citizen. I find this refreshing.

In the past, a few of us in Whatcom County were harassed by LEOs because we were Armed Citizens. We resisted and the local government listened.
Now, with input from Armed Citizens, the BPD "Training Bulletin" on Open Carry has been greatly improved. It now addresses both forms of interaction with Legally Armed Citizens, Open and concealed. Actual training on this will happen this very week and will include 911 dispatch operators.

I, like PALO and a good deal more of you, will run to gunfire, not away from it. My choice may not be yours. I have had contact with several LEOs of late, and their reaction (or lack of it) to my weapon has been very good. I am legally armed all the time and it is becoming more normal in my own AO.
I think a point overlooked is the lack of punitive actions by the LEOs involved. We, as Legally Armed Citizens are becoming the new normal.

Maverick9 said:

Sorry, but except for possibly making it relevant to an OC forum (actually it's irrelevant here), mention of lawfully armed IS begging the question of a 'super citizen' acting as if they are some kind of neighborhood cop. Walking Wolf is the voice of reason here among you blood-thirsty cowboy types here. i have to wonder if being on a forum gets you all PMSing, how in the world are you handling the real world. Carry a gun but act as if you are NOT carrying a gun. Works in 99.99% of cases and keeps you safe. You have a gun and stride out to the parking lot all macho, eschewing management's offer of a clerk to help you and a 14 yo with a saturdaynightspecial sees you as a lone target and gets the drop on you and he shoots you trying to resist, or you shoot him. EPIC FAIL.

And why didn't mr macho super gun lawfully armed person accept the help that dark and stormy night? Because he was full of himself - i.e. self-delusional.

DON'T DO IT.

Let insurance companies handle bank robberies, car thefts, 7-11 robberies. Be a good witness, get a license number.

In fact had he not been carrying a 2lb firearm he might have caught her sooner.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm should I ignore you resorting to fallacious ad hominem? Nah I won't.

You assume people are blood thirsty but you have no rational to back this up. Even the guy in the OP didn't make the gun an issue. PALO was simply pointing out how an armed civilian rightfully so took initiative to apprehend a law breaker and in my humble opion rightfully so.

If more people acted like this and took matters personally instead of relying on 3rd parties from insurance to the cops to work it all out for them maybe we wouldn't have as much of our tax dollars stolen for these 3rd parties.

Your silly words that we are "PMS'ing" while at the same time appears that you seem to be the one getting worked up is fairly humorous.

You have a gun and stride out to the parking lot all macho, eschewing management's offer of a clerk to help you and a 14 yo with a saturdaynightspecial sees you as a lone target and gets the drop on you and he shoots you trying to resist, or you shoot him. EPIC FAIL.

Click to expand...

Has this happened or is this again more asinine speculation and accusation besmirching the characters of the posters here without any valid evidence other than emotive projection?

MSG Laigaie said:

I see something different here. A Citizen was wronged (the stolen vehicle) and he acted. The weapon did not enter into the equation until the LEOs arrived as it was not used in the "capture". When the LEOs arrived they did not overreact and harass the Armed Citizen. I find this refreshing.

Click to expand...

Exactly! The idea that we are sheep who must wait for our dogs to act is silly.

I find it a refreshing story and refreshing that it comes from the viewpoint of an LEO.