• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Possible citizen's arrest backfired

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
imported post

A text book example of someone acting outside the realm of self defense and trying to act in a law enforcement area of responsibility, otherwise known as wannabe's

The man told responding officers that he was pointing the gun at another man, whom he claimed had stolen movies from Hollywood Video across the street. The gunman also told officers that he pulled out the gun in self-defense, claiming that he thought he was going to get run over by the car.
He appears to have acted under the guise of stolen movies and then escalated the incident by drawing his weapon, what an idiot.

A perfect example of the concept we bear the responsibility of knowing the laws and tactics when we choose to exercise our rights to bear arms.

Wondering if he visits any gun forums?
 

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
imported post

So very many parts of this story seemed like a BAD idea. I mean really, over a few rental dvd's? Write down the license plate # and call the cops. *sigh* why do people like this have to own firearms?
 

Mech

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
168
Location
Madison, WI
imported post

Doesn't seem like the gunman was in any immediate danger (ie. no one pointed a gun at him or made physical threats against him), it wasn't an armed robbery, and sure as heck didn't seem right for him to pull his gun for something stolen from across the street....
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

Mech wrote:
Doesn't seem like the gunman was in any immediate danger (ie. no one pointed a gun at him or made physical threats against him), it wasn't an armed robbery, and sure as heck didn't seem right for him to pull his gun for something stolen from across the street....
But it's what the police do... Don't you watch Cops?

He probably pulled his gun in the name of Citizen Safety!
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

If I recall correctly you cant make a citizens arrest for a violation of WA. state law unless you witness a felony.

if that is the case then this guy could be charged with false imprisonment also.

I think the theft would have to be valued at $250 or more to be a felony.


Edit: The felony amount for theft is $750. Thank you for the correction Onlurker
 

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
imported post

Rhetorical question lurker. Like: Why do drunks have to drive? It gives the rest of us drunks a bad name.Just because this guy has a right to be stupid, doesn't mean he has to exercise it. I hope he spends some time in jail and has to pay for some therapy for the woman he drew down on.
 

onlurker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
251
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

^^Understood, I was just answering a rhetorical with another :p


You have to exceed $750 in value of the goods stolen.

3rd degree -> http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.050

2nd degree -> http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.040 (class C felony territory)

1st degree -> http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.030

Edit:

Theft of firearms and motor vehicles is also a felony (class B) in this state:

Motor vehicles: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065

Firearms: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.300
 

onlurker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
251
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

You're welcome for the info. This is something that sits in the back of my mind all the time whenever I break out the camera gear. It's almost a necessity to know what I can and cannot exercise depending on how much of my gear I have with me.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

onlurker wrote:
Norman wrote:
*sigh* why do people like this have to own firearms?

Because the 2nd amendment affords them the choice to be able to freely decide to own and carry.

But it doesn't protect them from the consequences of their stupid actions.

Unfortunately, Stupid is not a Felony in itself. If it were there would be no room in the jails.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

END_THE_FED wrote:
If I recall correctly you cant make a citizens arrest for a violation of WA. state law unless you witness a felony.

if that is the case then this guy could be charged with false imprisonment also.

I think the theft would have to be valued at $250 or more to be a felony.


Edit: The felony amount for theft is $750. Thank you for the correction Onlurker

Ome of thr things I like about this board is how much I learn, mainly about laws. Then I get very confused and wonder what exactly did I just read. These types of things cause to wear out my google button in trying to figure it out. Here we have that one cannot make a citizen's arrest unless it is a felony.

If we jump to this thread http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/42494.htmlI learned that a LEO cannot make an arrest for a misdomeaner unless he observes the person committing it. Now if I combine the two it sounds as if I commit a misdomeaner and a LEO does not witness it then I am off scott free. Now I don't think that is quite correct so would someone care to elaborate on it?
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

PT111 wrote:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/42494.htmlI learned that a LEO cannot make an arrest for a misdomeaner unless he observes the person committing it. Now if I combine the two it sounds as if I commit a misdomeaner and a LEO does not witness it then I am off scott free. Now I don't think that is quite correct so would someone care to elaborate on it?
If you commit any crime, and a LEO doesn't wittness you doing so it certainly does not mean you are free and clear. I merely means that he can not arrest you now. He CAN investigate, gather evidence and witness statements, present them to the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor can then file charges. He can, at that point, seek a warrant for your arrest. The actual process may vary somebut rest assured, if they can prove you did it they will eventually arrest you and charge you for it.
 

cynicist

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
506
Location
Yakima County, ,
imported post

I learned that a LEO cannot make an arrest for a misdomeaner unless he observes the person committing it. Now if I combine the two it sounds as if I commit a misdomeaner and a LEO does not witness it then I am off scott free. Now I don't think that is quite correct so would someone care to elaborate on it?

There is a very broad range of exceptions for this. They the threat of harm, harm, various traffic offenses, indecent exposure, alcohol, vandalism, trespassing, and various others, including the most dangerous of all: cannabis.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.31.100[/url]

And the alternative to arrest is a summons, which means they'll mail the charges and book you then. It doesn't mean you get off, it means that you don't get taken in immediately.
I think it used to be, a long time ago, they can't arrest you without a warrant on any misdemeanor, but that was when there wasn't many misdemeanors either. As we've moved more and more toward legislative totalitarianism ("law and order") and increased government interference in everyday lives, the idea of arresting people for lesser things became more acceptable. In US v. John Bad Elk in 1900, a guy killed a cop (Bad Elk was also a cop) while resisting arrest for a misdemeanor without warrant, and his death sentence was overturned and he was released on the basis of self-defense.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

I think that my problem comes from what I consider arrest and how many other people use the term.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.


Just for example my wife come in one day and tells me that she just saw that weird fellow that keeps walking through our neighborhood riding my daughter's bicycle that we noticed missing a few days ago down the street. It certainly appears that he is the one that has stolen the bicycle. The value of the bicyle would make it a misdomeanor rather than a felony.

I walk outside and see the fellow now walking past my neighbor's house and at the same time see a LEO driving by. I flag the LEO down, tell him what I believe happened and point out the weird guy.

Can the LEO arrest, take into custody even stop and question the weird guy? Since I did not see with the bicycle but my wife did see him with it can she arrest him? Do we just have to go down to the police station, fill out a report, wait for a judge to issue a warrant, and hope the weird guy hasn't left town or sold the bicycle before then.

How about instead of stealing a bicycle the weird guy was walking around with his privates hanging out and my wife saw it.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

In the scenario you described I would think that the LEO you flag down would not be able to make an arrest for the theft but could maybe arrest him with "possession of stolen property" he did not witness the theft but he witnessed this guy walking around with a stolen bike.

as far as the man walking around nude it kinda depends on what else he is doing.
Nudity in and of itself does not qualify as indecent exposure. So if he is just walking around its not a crime but if he does a "lewd act" then it becomes a crime. As an example if he grabs himself or says something like "hey baby i got something for you"
and points down there then its a crime.

please note I have not reviewed the relevant RCWs recently so im not positive.
 

Bersa.380

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
270
Location
South of Disorder in Rouge Canyon, , USA
imported post

IMO ....

The guy from Redmond has a John Wayne / Clint Eastwood complex !

There was no threat to his life or personal property. I would of wrote down a description of the car and people and walked that info into the video store, then let them handle it and then I would of drove home to Redmond.

To me some of this crap is like fighting a forest fire ... ... if the fire is too close and it's going to burn you then "Protect yourself" otherwise, at times, it's best to let the fire burn its self out.

Know what I mean ?
 
Top