Citizen non-arrest OR a cautionary tale

the rental cop was holding a gun on a guy laying on the ground who is screaming do not shoot, and the police know all the rental cops holding guns on private citizens are not a threat !!! so glad those LEs have Betazoid capabilities

if the guy laying on the ground got up... would he have been shot by the rental cop?? then is the rental cop a threat?

ipse

The Truth said:

Sometimes, we also need to realize that cops need to be held accountable, ....

recognize that authority in this country only has the power that we the people give them.

Click to expand...

None of which has a thing to do with whether a cop is prudent to treat someone he knows well as a heretofore law abiding and peaceful citizen differently than someone he doesn't know at all.

Do feel free to answer my question to solus about how you would treat your spouse vs how you'd treat an unknown person your spouse is holding at gunpoint if you arrive home not knowing for yourself what had happened.

The cops properly have authority to investigate crime, make arrests when legal, etc. Nothing says they have to treat every person they meet exactly the same as every other person. Some persons they know as violent criminals. Others they know as peaceful and law-abiding. Many they don't know but they make risk assessments based on demeanor, etc.

Would you be happier if they had put the security guard face down at gun point just because that might be how they feel they need to handle some case involving two completely unknown persons?

Charles

solus said:

the rental cop was holding a gun on a guy laying on the ground who is screaming do not shoot, and the police know all the rental cops holding guns on private citizens are not a threat !!! so glad those LEs have Betazoid capabilities

Click to expand...

If you'd like to directly answer my question regarding how you'll respond to finding your spouse holding a stranger at gunpoint, I'll be happy to continue the conversation. But I'm not interesting in having a cop-bashing session. It seems there is no shortage of incidents where OCers have legit cause to be unhappy with how cops treat them. I don't see how this incident has anything to do with a legit grievance.

But some are intent to bash on cops whether warranted or not. They quickly become like the boy who cried wolf.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

None of which has a thing to do with whether a cop is prudent to treat someone he knows well as a heretofore law abiding and peaceful citizen differently than someone he doesn't know at all.

Do feel free to answer my question to solus about how you would treat your spouse vs how you'd treat an unknown person your spouse is holding at gunpoint if you arrive home not knowing for yourself what had happened.

The cops properly have authority to investigate crime, make arrests when legal, etc. Nothing says they have to treat every person they meet exactly the same as every other person. Some persons they know as violent criminals. Others they know as peaceful and law-abiding. Many they don't know but they make risk assessments based on demeanor, etc.

Would you be happier if they had put the security guard face down at gun point just because that might be how they feel they need to handle some case involving two completely unknown persons?

Charles

Click to expand...

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.

utbagpiper said:

If you'd like to directly answer my question regarding how you'll respond to finding your spouse holding a stranger at gunpoint, I'll be happy to continue the conversation. But I'm not interesting in having a cop-bashing session. It seems there is no shortage of incidents where OCers have legit cause to be unhappy with how cops treat them. I don't see how this incident has anything to do with a legit grievance.

But some are intent to bash on cops whether warranted or not. They quickly become like the boy who cried wolf.

Charles

Click to expand...

glad to, since you asked several questions, none of which as stated as the one above...

quote: If you ever come home and find your spouse and a complete stranger in a Mexican standoff pointing guns at each other...unquote
A. i'd call 911 ask for sheriff deputies to come to the residence after stating i fear for my life, then set the phone down, pull my firearm, and seek cover with firearm at ready.

it is against NC statutes to:
1. point a firearm at anyone 14-34.
2. citizen arrest is not an option 15A-404(c)
3. you may not use deadly force against trespassers.
4. i'd be pi$$'d the stranger was still viable since my partner is a better shot, and now they have to defend themselves judicially and possibly civilly cuz they broke the law...see 1 & 2 above.

quote let's say your spouse calls you to request your help because she is holding a home invader at gun point in the front yard. unquote.
A. i'd call 911 ask for sheriff deputies to come to the residence stating my partner managed to get one call out stating they feared for their life. then i'd go to my residence and see who won.

it is against NC statutes to:
1. point a firearm at anyone 14-34.
2. citizen arrest is not an option 15A-404(c)
3. you may not use deadly force against trespassers.
4. i'd be pi$$'d the stranger was still viable since my partner is a better shot, and now they have to defend themselves judicially and possibly civilly cuz they broke the law...see 1 & 2 above.

quote: How about compared to getting home and seeing two complete strangers in your yard pointing guns at each other? unquote
A. I'd call 911 ask for sheriff deputies stating there are armed trespassers on my property, set fone down, take cover with firearm at ready.

it is against NC statutes to:
1. point a firearm at anyone 14-34.
2. citizen arrest is not an option 15A-404(c)
3. you may not use deadly force against trespassers.
4. wait for the sheriff to mitigate the situation.
5. press charges.

please understand, my partner would truly not be treated any differently than a stranger if their firearm is drawn. my tired arse would take cover with firearm drawn cuz something has them truly agitated enough to pull their firearm in the first place and i am not about going to walk up and say...'having a bad day?' nope, as mentioned they are better shots, or so i have told them! :uhoh:

btw, to clear the air, in the event my partner tried to sweep me or take aim at me with their firearm, i will defend myself w/o hesitation, not bravado mate, but fact!!

cop bashing...naw'llll sorry piper, your dance around the idiot rent a cop holding a gun on someone prone is done...flat out bad policing from the arriving since they didn't know the situation whatsoever.

ipse

I think we have drifted from the facts of the OP and typical, normal human behavior into a theoretical just because there are cops and non-cop citizens involved.

Cops are people. They tend to act like, you know, people. With the foibles and biases and not always perfect judgment. Sure, higher standard and all but they are still human. I pull up to my buddy's car lot and he has a gun on someone I'm not assuming first that my buddy lost his mind and is going postal. Now I could be wrong and I could get dead or wounded because of it, but hey, humans make these judgment calls all the time.

deepdiver said:

I think we have drifted from the facts of the OP and typical, normal human behavior into a theoretical just because there are cops and non-cop citizens involved.

Cops are people. They tend to act like, you know, people. With the foibles and biases and not always perfect judgment. Sure, higher standard and all but they are still human. I pull up to my buddy's car lot and he has a gun on someone I'm not assuming first that my buddy lost his mind and is going postal. Now I could be wrong and I could get dead or wounded because of it, but hey, humans make these judgment calls all the time.

Click to expand...

I agree, however, cops are not simply "people" as I think you are applying the term. They have policies/procedures, training, and knowledge of the law(s) that we all would hope they follow, they are professionals and should be treating every situation such as this in the same manner. The cops admit that they did not do what they would usually do.

Some of the cops in my little town know me and they would not do what the cops in the OP did, I've asked them. They would do what Salt Lake City Police Sgt. Robin Heiden stated that they would usually do.

Usually somebody with a gun would be disarmed by arriving officers, Heiden said, but officers in this case knew the security guard.

Click to expand...

The cops I know would determine the facts and would then return my gat pretty darn quick because they know me.

deepdiver said:

I think we have drifted from the facts of the OP and typical, normal human behavior into a theoretical just because there are cops and non-cop citizens involved.

Cops are people. They tend to act like, you know, people. With the foibles and biases and not always perfect judgment. Sure, higher standard and all but they are still human. I pull up to my buddy's car lot and he has a gun on someone I'm not assuming first that my buddy lost his mind and is going postal. Now I could be wrong and I could get dead or wounded because of it, but hey, humans make these judgment calls all the time.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Thank you for seeing the simple point some either miss, or want to deliberately obfuscate.

Charles

OC for ME said:

The cops I know would determine the facts and would then return my gat pretty darn quick because they know me.

Click to expand...

Which means you would be treated differently than someone they didn't know who might expect it to take a little longer to sort out the facts and to get his gun returned.

They know you. And that knowledge goes into how you are treated. Just as it should.

Charles

solus said:

quote: If you ever come home and find your spouse and a complete stranger in a Mexican standoff pointing guns at each other...unquote
A. i'd call 911 ask for sheriff deputies to come to the residence after stating i fear for my life, then set the phone down, pull my firearm, and seek cover with firearm at ready.

it is against NC statutes to:

Click to expand...

Notice this is a Utah specific thread. NC statutes are irrelevant; leave them at home and deal with Utah law.

Under Utah statute, I can't find any crime committed by the off-duty private guard. He witnessed an aggravated assault (assault involving a deadly weapon) and responded with deadly force (or threatened deadly force) to protect what he had a reasonable man belief was an innocent third party. He briefly detained the person he witnessed committing the aggravated assault until the cops showed up. Whether this rose to the level of citizen's arrest or not is irrelevant as aggravated assault is a felony and having been committed in his presence he can legally effect a citizen's arrest; heck he can legally use deadly force to end the assault if needed to protect innocent life and limb.

solus said:

please understand, my partner would truly not be treated any differently than a stranger if their firearm is drawn.

...

btw, to clear the air, in the event my partner tried to sweep me or take aim at me with their firearm, i will defend myself w/o hesitation, not bravado mate, but fact!!

Click to expand...

The particulars of your relationship with your "partner" are your private business, 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.

Applied generally, your claimed response creates an endless and unworkable regression for cops. Cop 1 is holding a suspect at gun point when back up, Cop 2, arrives. Cop 2 would treat Cop 1 and the suspect exactly the same. He would disarm Cop 1 and the suspect and hold them both at gun point (if one guy can't safely cuff and sort out facts with one suspect, there is no way that one guy can do so safely for two "suspects"). Now Cop 3 shows up, disarms Cop 2, and holds the suspect, Cop 1, and Cop 2 at gun point. And so on. Pretty soon the last cop to show up holds the rest of the force (and the original suspect) at gun point trying to sort out the facts.

I recall the story from an old Utah cop who one night arrested a fellow for DUI. He knows him; kind of the "town drunk" as it were, and mostly harmless except for the propensity to drink and drive. Suspect was held in the drunk tank overnight to sober up. The next day, the cop gives him a ride home (the story is from a little more civilized time) since the car has been impounded for the DUI. On the way, the cop sees a suspected wanted for several violent crimes and manages to make a stop. He is 30 miles and 45 minutes from back up and its him, his now-sober DUI suspect he is giving a ride home to, and a couple of very dangerous, known felons. What does he do?

Well this cop, at this time, handed his shotgun to the DUI suspect to provide some cover/backup while he got the two dangerous felons out of their car, cuffed, and disarmed. The guy he had in cuffs the night before was now providing assistance to him. The cop figured the mostly peaceful drunk (now sober) was a lot lower risk than the well known, violent felons.

solus said:

cop bashing...naw'llll sorry piper, your dance around the idiot rent a cop holding a gun on someone prone is done...flat out bad policing from the arriving since they didn't know the situation whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Your insistence on focusing on what you perceive as police errors rather than examining the conduct of the LAC is what moves you into the cop bashing region here.

Unless you are a cop, there is nothing you might learn from what you claim are the "errors" in how the cops handled this.

However, LACs might have some good food for thought in a situation in which technically lawful use of force in defense of a third party turns out to be something very different than the LAC honestly believed it to be. We've all heard the stories of the LAC seeing a guy roughing up a woman only to discover she is a violent criminal resisting arrest by an undercover cop. Well, this is a documented case of an apparent crime (the aggravated assault against the bicyclist) being something slightly different than it appeared at first.

In my view, the biggest mistake made in this story is on the part of the LAC/off-duty-private-security-guard who choose to use deadly force in defense of a third party he did not know. It turned out ok in this case. But it highlights how things can be different than they seem.

Now, I'm not at all interested in trying to discuss further whatever "errors" you think the cops may have made. That does me no good. I'm not a cop, I don't play a cop, I'm never going to be a cop. I'm a LAC who carries a gun for self defense.

THAT is the angle that is of some use to me.

Charles

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.

Click to expand...

Then for what do you figure the cops need to be "held accountable" in this case? Treating a man they knew who was effecting a citizen's arrest (or something similar) differently than a man they didn't know? Something else?

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Then for what do you figure the cops need to be "held accountable" in this case? Treating a man they knew who was effecting a citizen's arrest (or something similar) differently than a man they didn't know? Something else?

Charles

Click to expand...

Cite the anti-cop post made in this thread by me please. You're still asking me irrelevant questions. My post was in response to specifically what you said in the post I quoted.

piper, piper, piper, first you chastise me for not responding to your query, when i respond directly to each of your question(s) to me, which specifically stated what would I do with scenarios centered around MY residence, I explained what I would do...

now you do not like the responses since my residence is in NC and therefore I must follow NC statutes to deal with your query. therefore, my quoting NC statutes is relevant to adequately and properly responding or you might next accuse me of judicial impropriety.

sorry piper, but if you do not like, oh what word did you use or how did you phrase it, let me look back and see...oh, yes...'opinion' ~ don't read my posts nor respond to them (looks and sounds familiar huh)! (forbearance exhibited!!)

as you recently stated, quote: That does me no good. I'm not a cop, I don't play a cop, I'm never going to be a cop. I'm a LAC who carries a gun for self defense. unquote.

neither am I, which is why in my responses i immediately called Johnny Law which should be acceptable in utah as well? btw, no matter how much you try to elevate the status of the savant rental boy man holding the citizen on the ground in the video to LE status, he isn't either, he is a bloody OFF DUTY rent a cop with no official standing or status!!!

you also do not like my response to your query about my partner holding a firearm but i do thank you for your compliment ~ i am different and would be alive cuz of that difference...but i perceive your SA needs tuning up a bit!!!

your steadfast acceptance of the presumption they knew super rental cop is admirable, misguided but ..oh, wait the news article stated it...ah...oh right, they got their information from the SLC police...nice.

ipse

solus said:

piper, piper, piper, first you chastise me for not responding to your query, when i respond directly to each of your question(s) to me, which specifically stated what would I do with scenarios centered around MY residence, I explained what I would do...

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point which is not what was or wasn't legal for the LAC to do. It was to get you thinking about how you would respond to a known vs unknown person. Turns out you are truly "unique" in that regard.

solus said:

btw, no matter how much you try to elevate the status of the savant rental boy man holding the citizen on the ground in the video to LE status, he isn't either, he is a bloody OFF DUTY rent a cop with no official standing or status!!!

Click to expand...

I defy you to provide a single instance of me trying to elevate the security guard to anything other than an LAC. I wish you'd talk more about him and his actions. THAT was the point of the thread...not to criticize cops for how they responded.

solus said:

you also do not like my response to your query about my partner holding a firearm but i do thank you for your compliment ~ i am different and would be alive cuz of that difference...but i perceive your SA needs tuning up a bit!!!

Click to expand...

At some point, my quality of life has value over just being alive. And the day I feel the need to treat my wife no different than I treat the stranger she has at gun point is the day I need to lot more than my SA tuned up. But hey, live peacefully as you see fit.

solus said:

your steadfast acceptance of the presumption they knew super rental cop is admirable, misguided but ..

Click to expand...

What exactly is misguided about taking the portion of the media report that the cops knew him at the same face value as the entire rest of the report? You did read the full linked media report before presuming to form such strong opinions didn't you?

In case you missed it let me refresh your memory:

KSL report said:

[Salt Lake City Police Sgt. Robin] Heiden said officers knew the man with the gun from past dealings as a security guard at a nearby Rite Aid.

Click to expand...

A direct quote from a Police Sgt that the responding officers knew the security guard. Coupled with how he behaved as they rolled up, and how they treated him what "presumption" do you think I'm making that might in error here regarding the cops' knowledge of the security guard?

Charles

The Truth said:

Cite the anti-cop post made in this thread by me please. You're still asking me irrelevant questions. My post was in response to specifically what you said in the post I quoted.

Click to expand...

Well, then one or the other of us is confused and I don't think there any value in getting into a "I said, you said."

Have a good day.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Which means you would be treated differently than someone they didn't know who might expect it to take a little longer to sort out the facts and to get his gun returned.

They know you. And that knowledge goes into how you are treated. Just as it should.

Charles

Click to expand...

My little town's cops would not treat me different, when arriving on the scene. Nor would the cops in the op...usually. Their "current policy?"

Usually somebody with a gun would be disarmed by arriving officers, Heiden (cop spokesperson) said, but officers in this case knew the security guard.

Click to expand...

My little town's policy/procedure:

Arrive, observe, disarm (me), investigate (to determine if I am acting within the confines of state and local laws), if I am then interview me (take my statement), issue summons as a witness to a possible crime (state law requirement), clean up/secure the scene, then return my gat vs. me having to go down to the station to retrieve my gat...this is because some of the cops know me.

The PD in the story clearly state that they deviated from what they "usually" do.

OC for ME said:

The PD in the story clearly state that they deviated from what they "usually" do.

Click to expand...

Yes they did. And they said exactly why they deviated...because they knew the person with the gun and (presumably) believed he didn't pose a threat.

So what is your beef?

That they did something to possibly endanger themselves? Or that someone they knew and who acted in a way to make clear he didn't pose a threat got treated a little differently than might a complete stranger?

I thought we should be pleased if private citizens legally carrying guns were not disarmed every time they interacted with cops.

Now, would you like to stop picking nits over the cops and discuss what we might learn from the actions of the LAC/private security guard?

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Yes they did. ...

Charles

Click to expand...

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.

utbagpiper said:

Yes they did. And they said exactly why they deviated...because they knew the person with the gun and (presumably) believed he didn't pose a threat.

snip...Now, would you like to stop picking nits over the cops and discuss what we might learn from the actions of the LAC/private security guard?

Charles

Click to expand...

in the great state of UTAH, can a citizen defend another citizen in a life and death situation by shooting them? NOTE: this question is like going to McD, piper, yes or no will suffice! (trick question actually!!)

if yes, provisions of (76-2-402(1)(a) & (b) apply
1. then another aggressive, armed citizen coming upon the scene could have blown the armed rent a cop away because the guy on the ground was moaning 'do not shoot me! or...
2. then another aggressive, armed citizen coming upon the scene could IAW 77-7-3, order the gun put down and then put the armed rent a cop spread eagle at gun point because the guy on the ground was moaning 'do not shoot me!! or...

if no, then the aggressive, armed citizen coming upon the scene can not do a bloody thing.

now if you chose 1, there is a dead armed rent a cop, an alive victim, and only one side of the story!
now if you chose 2, and armed rent a cop refuses to drop his firearm, will he shoot the armed good Samaritan who has done absolutely nothing wrong except to attempt to protect another UTAH citizen's life who is lying on the ground under grave threat of loss of life!

since you insist on discussing what is wrong with the situation is the armed rental cop can not affect provisions of 76-2-404(1)(b) since the rental cop is a nobody, who has, as has been pointed out numerous times to you, lacks training, judicial standing as a peace officer IAW Title 53 Chapter 13 Section 101 and was not performing his rent a cop duties at the rite aide pharmacy ` he drove apparently drove to the scene or saw it go down as he drove by!!!
while rental cop can invoke statutory provisions of 77-7-3 this provision does not provide for use of deadly force, no matter what he says to the police as to what he saw!!

ipse

solus said:

in the great state of UTAH, can a citizen defend another citizen in a life and death situation by shooting them?

Click to expand...

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.

solus said:

1. then another aggressive, armed citizen coming upon the scene could have blown the armed rent a cop away because the guy on the ground was moaning 'do not shoot me! or...
2. then another aggressive, armed citizen coming upon the scene could IAW 77-7-3, order the gun put down and then put the armed rent a cop spread eagle at gun point because the guy on the ground was moaning 'do not shoot me!! or...

Click to expand...

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