Citizen non-arrest OR a cautionary tale

utbagpiper · Apr 17, 2015

OC for ME said:
It appears that you are comfortable with the cops' inconsistent adherence to the usual policy/procedures, no big deal. I support cop discretion, yet when the cops admit that they did X "contrary" to what appears to be their usual (normal) procedures, I am concerned as to when the next deviation from policy/procedure will be and the extent of that deviation. It may be a deviation that benefits a citizen, or it may be to the detriment of the citizen.

Personally, I prefer a predictable LEA.

Like jury nullification, there is nothing wrong with police or prosecutorial discretion as long as it only goes one way.

Nothing necessarily wrong with a jury refusing to convict despite the law or evidence. A whole lot wrong if they convict despite the law or evidence.

Same thing with cops and prosecutors. Nothing necessarily wrong if they go lax in a few cases where that seems prudent (going lax on one's buddies or coworkers does pose some problems). But using more force or piling on more charges than is standard is often a problem.

Charles

solus · Apr 17, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Yes. Under Utah law deadly force can be used against as assailant in defense of an innocent third party. 76-2-401 permits use of deadly force to stop "aggravated assault" against an innocent third party, among other serious crimes. In Utah, aggravated assault is assault with a deadly weapon, such as a knife.
Yes. Within the limits of the "Reasonable man" test that is exactly what could happen.
I don't believe it would be reasonable to shoot the security guard when he is holding the guy at gun point and calling the cops. Similarly, it would probably not be reasonable to draw down on him and force him to disarm given the specifics here.
I think reasonable men recognize the difference between someone angrily kicking and pulling a knife on another person, and someone fairly calmly holding a man prone on the ground at gun point while summoning the police.
But your examples highlight the danger of using deadly force in behalf of an unknown person. What seems obvious, may not be.
Charles

sorry, mate, the video I watched was of other citizens holler'g & screaming at the armed person holding a gun on someone laying on the ground to put the gun down, the guy laying on the ground is screaming not to shoot him, and no where, I as an armed citizen, would I know who is right, therefore being the good citizen I am, can and would legitimately conceive the other armed man is the bad guy and will draw down on him and advise him to put his firearm down!!!

you keep pointing out there was an aggravated assault...tis not the armed nobody's duty to make that assumption as that determination is left to the police investigators. tis not my duty as an individual coming up to the scene to make any decisions about delineations of aggravated assault assumptions but what I can see...man with a gun, without a badge, holding a screaming man on the ground as well as other witnesses screaming to put the gun away.

remember, the armed rent a cop apparently drove to the scene (remember the armed rent a cop walked to his vehicle after the nice LE arrived) and apparently chased down and 'captured' the man on the ground possibly by armed force.

therefore if the rent a cop's failed heed my request to lower their firearm and if his firearm were to swing in my direction, the high possibility exists the pharmacy might be in need of rent a cop.

remember, I will have a witness video of the scene of this citizen telling someone holding a screaming citizen on the ground begging for his life. pray tell what type of video besides he said against he said does rent a cop have the situation occurred like he regales ?

you have finally grasped the concept...quote what seems obvious, may not be. unquote

only a viable investigation by 'impartial' participants can determine what occurred that precipitated an idiot to pull his firearm and put another citizen on the ground in fear of his life!! it seems that 'impartiality' won't be achieved cuz the police have already said, in the article we are working off, they, in fact. violated their own policies cuz 'they know the rent a cop'!

ipse

sudden valley gunner · Apr 18, 2015

The Truth said:
I'm not even romping in the same pasture as you and solus right now, there are cow patties everywhere. I posted a reply to your specific post. I'm not arguing a claim I didn't make.

How can some feel they "win" if you don't go astray from your original intent.....

OC for ME · Apr 20, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Like jury nullification, there is nothing wrong with police or prosecutorial discretion as long as it only goes one way.

Nothing necessarily wrong with a jury refusing to convict despite the law or evidence. A whole lot wrong if they convict despite the law or evidence.

Non sequitur. If the op were about juries...

Same thing with cops and prosecutors. Nothing necessarily wrong if they go lax in a few cases where that seems prudent (going lax on one's buddies or coworkers does pose some problems). But using more force or piling on more charges than is standard is often a problem.

Charles

Click to expand...

I am not discussing what a cop does, would do, re a citation vs. warning for doing 66 in a 60, "exercising discretion." You are.

I am discussing what the cops in the op usually do when they roll up on a citizen holding another (apparently unarmed) citizen at gun point.

There seemed to be several reasonable people who knew exactly what was going on before them. The video in the news story clearly indicates that Paul Blart Rite Aide cop was acting unreasonably to at least one witness (the source of the video). It seems that their perspective, based on the facts evident to them at that time, are to be ignored, or viewed as unreasonable because they did not know the truth of the matter.

Click to expand...

solus · Apr 20, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Yes. Under Utah law deadly force can be used against as assailant in defense of an innocent third party. 76-2-401 permits use of deadly force to stop "aggravated assault" against an innocent third party, among other serious crimes. In Utah, aggravated assault is assault with a deadly weapon, such as a knife.

Yes. Within the limits of the "Reasonable man" test that is exactly what could happen.

I don't believe it would be reasonable to shoot the security guard when he is holding the guy at gun point and calling the cops. Similarly, it would probably not be reasonable to draw down on him and force him to disarm given the specifics here.

I think reasonable men recognize the difference between someone angrily kicking and pulling a knife on another person, and someone fairly calmly holding a man prone on the ground at gun point while summoning the police.

But your examples highlight the danger of using deadly force in behalf of an unknown person. What seems obvious, may not be.

Charles

bolded areas...subjected hearsay and not verified in the video, therefore sorry it is hyperbole on your part!!

bolded, italic, underlined area: you have already advised your portrayal of my reaction(s) to hostile environment is perceived as, how did you word it: quote ...but let me just say as politely as possible, I think you are in a very different space than about 99.99% of the rest of humanity. unquote. and based on the folk shown screaming to lay down their firearms including the bloke on the ground, the poor rental whatever would be disarmed and laying on the ground, one way or the other...and i bet you the LE would disarm me and then discern this gentleman acted appropriately under existing UTAH statutes.

ispe

utbagpiper · Apr 20, 2015

solus said:
sorry, mate, the video I watched was of other citizens holler'g & screaming at the armed person holding a gun on someone laying on the ground to put the gun down, the guy laying on the ground is screaming not to shoot him, and no where, I as an armed citizen, would I know who is right, therefore being the good citizen I am, can and would legitimately conceive the other armed man is the bad guy and will draw down on him and advise him to put his firearm down!!!

Your choice and near as I can tell, would be technically legal under Utah law.

You would then find yourself in very much the same situation as the off duty security guard: using deadly force based on what you saw, but having that be a very incomplete picture.

solus said:
you keep pointing out there was an aggravated assault...tis not the armed nobody's duty to make that assumption as that determination is left to the police investigators.

Please re-read the original article. The security guard witnessed what any reasonable man would believe was an aggravated assault. Indeed, it was an aggravated assault. It is just that at the end of the day, victim of the aggravated assault declined to press charges, while the victim of the bike theft (and perpetrator of the aggravated assault) also declined to press charges for the theft.

Notice that nowhere was there any mention of any charges against the LAC/off-duty-security-guard. That is because he didn't commit any crime under Utah law.

However, your point of another person, coming upon the scene after the first person is on the ground, and believing an aggravated assault was in progress, is exactly the discussion we ought to have. It highlights the danger of using deadly force in defense of a third party even when legal.

Indeed, it could just as easily highlight the danger of using deadly force in defense of yourself. Difference for me is that for myself, after the immediate risk to my life and limb from the criminal has been eliminated, I'm more willing to accept some risks (including criminal charges), than I am for unknown third parties.

solus said:
remember, the armed rent a cop apparently drove to the scene

Yes, he was following a suspected shoplifter when he witnessed a felony and chose to get involved. Does that materially affect the circumstances? Would anything change had be been at the location waiting for a train? Please avoid getting derailed over irrelevant details. You might also check out the extent to which your own biases are coloring your view. Terms like "rent a cop" are generally considered pejorative and hint that you may be allowing your feelings toward security guards color your reaction, rather than taking a broader view of how this situation might be instructive to all of us.

Charles

solus · Apr 21, 2015

ARE YOU KIDDING ME...

Do you truly believe the BS slung from the news provided by the very nice LE, oh, and the rent an idiot as they tell their side of the this fairy tale?

of course, the rent an idiot didn't have charges against him 1) rent an idiot is supposedly known by police (friend of blue) so of course no charges would be pursued. 2) i am sure the nice LE's investigating stated to the bloke on the ground, look don't make it hard for rent an idiot and we won't charge you or pursue this any further!! (figure i would wrap my own style on this fairy tale just like the nice LE's surely did!!)

Good heavens mate, the initial police reports filed from the SC incident stated the LE shooter and first LE on the scene administered aid to the victim thank goodness the video showed both were lying!!

BTW, when was the last time your critical thinking skills heard of any corporation authorizing their loss prevention employee(s), let alone some third party rent an idiot, to leave property to pursue shoplifters, a misdemeanor at best, as in most cases store LP can't even leave the store proper except to try to obtain a license number if possible, due to the high probability of danger to the employees coupled with liability issues.

you might put your shovel down and stop digging the hole bigger as you are in a lose~lose counter clockwise death spiral here!! (shaking my head in silent disbelief you might even believe for a moment that crap rent an idiot in shorts and ugly shirt left the property chasing a shoplifter by private vehicle and left the store unprotected to the rest of the hoard of thieves waiting to enter)

ipse

OC for ME · Apr 22, 2015

As with the SC incident, the initial unlawful act, typically a minor crime with little in the way of consequences, is routinely ignored. Paul Blart Rite Aide cop was acting just as any certified cop would act...yet he ain't no certified cop. He took it upon himself to not call cops and let them do their job.

The security guard, Heiden said, was initially following a suspected shoplifter when he observed what he believed was an aggravated assault [not related to he being away from the store] in progress.

Paul Blart Rite Aide cop needs to be prosecuted for his vigilante behavior.

solus · Apr 22, 2015

OC for ME said:
As with the SC incident, the initial unlawful act, typically a minor crime with little in the way of consequences, is routinely ignored. Paul Blart Rite Aide cop was acting just as any certified cop would act...yet he ain't no certified cop. He took it upon himself to not call cops and let them do their job.

Paul Blart Rite Aide cop needs to be prosecuted for his vigilante behavior.[/QUOTE]

OC4ME, well said and i would fly (eh, sry drive ~ mac you have dun turned me) to UTAH just so i could sit in the back of the court room and watch the proceedings...

ipse

utbagpiper · Apr 22, 2015

solus said:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME...

Do you truly believe the BS slung from the news

I believe it over the whole cloth fantasy you seem to be pushing.

solus said:
of course, the rent an idiot didn't have charges against him 1) rent an idiot is supposedly known by police (friend of blue) so of course no charges would be pursued.

I sense a strong bigotry against security personnel that may be coloring your entire perception of this.

solus said:
Good heavens mate, the initial police reports filed from the SC incident

If I want to discuss the SC incident I'll do it there. This is a Utah incident in the Utah thread and I've seen no evidence that anyone involved is lying. Do providing citations for your evidence to the contrary.

solus said:
BTW, when was the last time your critical thinking skills heard of any corporation authorizing their loss prevention employee(s), let alone some third party rent an idiot,

Again, all irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And again, you are showing some very strong bigotries against security guards. I don't believe the fact that the security guard was following a shoplifter had anything to do with this incident except it put in a spot to witness an aggravated assault. I don't believe either the assailant or the victim (later determined to be a bike thief) was the person he was following.

So for all intents and purposes, this is a private citizen using deadly force in defense of a third party.

But you seem intent not to discuss that, instead wanting to turn this into some excuse to bash on cops and security guards, while being rather insulting to anyone who doesn't subscribe to your paranoid theories that every word that comes out of a cop's mouth is a lie.

Adjust your tin foil hat. It is getting a little tight "mate".

I won't be responding to further rants that focus on the employment of the LAC who intervened, that use needless pejoratives to refer to that profession in violation of our rules against bashing groups, or that start with the presumption that the media report is materially in error.

Charles

utbagpiper · Apr 22, 2015

OC for ME said:
Paul Blart Rite Aide cop needs to be prosecuted for his vigilante behavior.

Under what law would you cite him?

Near as I can tell, the suspected shoplifter is neither the assailant nor the victim in the aggravated assault. The LAC's employment and his reason for being at that location seem to have nothing to do with the material facts of this incident. He might just as well have been a construction worker walking past the area to grab lunch.

And it is lawful in Utah to use deadly force in defense of an innocent third party who is the victim of an aggravated assault. Kicking and threatening a person with a knife is aggravated assault under Utah law.

So, again, under what Utah law would you cite the LAC who intervened in defense of an innocent third party?

Charles

OC for ME · Apr 22, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Under what law would you cite him?

Near as I can tell, the suspected shoplifter is neither the assailant nor the victim in the aggravated assault. The LAC's employment and his reason for being at that location seem to have nothing to do with the material facts of this incident. He might just as well have been a construction worker walking past the area to grab lunch.

And it is lawful in Utah to use deadly force in defense of an innocent third party who is the victim of an aggravated assault. Kicking and threatening a person with a knife is aggravated assault under Utah law.

So, again, under what Utah law would you cite the LAC who intervened in defense of an innocent third party?

Charles

The story does not indicate how far from the store he was when he witnessed the alleged aggravated assault. What are the boundaries of his authority to investigate a alleged shoplifter? Can he engage the alleged shoplifter anywhere in UT? The fact that he happened to be in the right place at the right time does not mitigate his acts that brought him to that location. He is not a cop and as such his authority as a LP officer must have some limitations. Though, in UT, he may not have any limitations as to where he may pursue a alleged shoplifter.

It seems that there will be no further follow-up by the good citizens of UT to determine if Paul Blart Rite Aide cop violated a law.

solus · Apr 22, 2015

since you are speaking cloth,,,

the shroud of turin has about the same credibility...

ipse

utbagpiper · Apr 22, 2015

OC for ME said:
The story does not indicate how far from the store he was when he witnessed the alleged aggravated assault.

One more time, the reason that brought him to the scene where he witnessed an aggravated assault is irrelevant.

He did not act as a security guard as far as I know. I believe he acted as a private citizen in lawful possession of a firearm, in defense of an innocent third party whom he witnessed being the victim of an aggravated assault.

Why is it so hard for you and solus to get past the irrelevant detail of the LAC's employment? It was incidental to that employment that he was at the scene and that the responding officers happened to know him personally. Beyond that, irrelevant as far as I can tell. If you have details to the contrary, please provide them

Charles

OC for ME · Apr 24, 2015

utbagpiper said:
One more time, the reason that brought him to the scene where he witnessed an aggravated assault is irrelevant.

He did not act as a security guard as far as I know. I believe he acted as a private citizen in lawful possession of a firearm, in defense of an innocent third party whom he witnessed being the victim of an aggravated assault.

Why is it so hard for you and solus to get past the irrelevant detail of the LAC's employment? It was incidental to that employment that he was at the scene and that the responding officers happened to know him personally. Beyond that, irrelevant as far as I can tell. If you have details to the contrary, please provide them

Charles

Your dismissal of Paul Blart Rite Aide cop's justification (reason) to be at that place, at that time, is as relevant to me as it is irrelevant to you.

I can only surmise that UT places no boundaries on the geographic area of authority for a private security guard. The cops don't care how he got there, only that he did not violate the law after he got there...OK.

OC for ME · Apr 24, 2015

utbagpiper said:
...

He did not act as a security guard as far as I know. I believe he acted as a private citizen in lawful possession of a firearm, in defense of an innocent third party whom he witnessed being the victim of an aggravated assault.

...

Charles

From the linked story in the op.

The security guard, Heiden said, was initially following a suspected shoplifter when he observed what he believed was an aggravated assault in progress.

"Near by" is not defined in the story.

OC for ME · Apr 24, 2015

OC for ME said:
From the linked story in the op."Near by" is not defined in the story.

Incident occurred at the corner of N. Temple and N. 8th W in Salt lake City. In front of Rancherito's Mexican Foods, open 24 hours. A rite Aide is across the intersection to the NW, in a shopping center. Paul Blart Rite Aide cop drove to the parking lot of the Mexican Foods joint.

The question? Is Paul actually a off duty cop who works a side job as a Rite Aide cop? He claims in the first few seconds of the video that he is a cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWIjd5-RhUg

OC for ME · Apr 29, 2015

http://fox13now.com/2015/03/23/citizen-holds-man-at-gunpoint-after-seeing-him-swing-knife-in-fight/

OC for ME · Apr 29, 2015

OC for ME said:
http://fox13now.com/2015/03/23/citizen-holds-man-at-gunpoint-after-seeing-him-swing-knife-in-fight/

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/279...tired-cop-pulls-gun-witnesses-react-striking/

Citizen non-arrest OR a cautionary tale

utbagpiper

Banned

solus

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

solus

Regular Member

utbagpiper

Banned

solus

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

solus

Regular Member

utbagpiper

Banned

utbagpiper

Banned

OC for ME

Regular Member

solus

Regular Member

utbagpiper

Banned

OC for ME

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member