Lets say it doesn't. Does rummaging through someone else's shit give someone else who isn't a cop the right to accost you with open firearms and attempt to arrest you?

Depends on the various state's laws but imo, no. Problem with doing something illegal is you can't control the outcome, and there is no great physics rule in life that the outcome will be fair and proportional in the heat of the moment.

Depends on the various state's laws.

well, in Georgia:





So a store owner under recent precedent was found to have used unlawful force in stopping an intruder he physically caught in his store, on a location where he has property rights.

neither of these men witnessed a crime, neither had immediate knowledge just a hearsay report. and even the report is alleged and not confirmed. and they had no rights of defending their own property. nor do we even have confirmed that the construction site he was seen on has reported anything missing.

this could be either:

a.) a citizen trespassed on private property to scout a burglary or just out of curiosity
b.) an actual burglary where 2 morons then used unlawful force in a citizens arrest they may or may nor have had secondary reporting of on the burglary
c.) 2 good ol boys murdering someone and making up a burglary report to cover it up

in any of the cases the force used was unlawful and they should spend at least a decade in prison under manslaughter charges and have their right to own a firearm revoked under any probation deal once released.

They should be charged but i suspect murder/hate crime charges will be pushed when they shouldn't be.

How is the trespassing made up when we have video evidence of it? I think it takes more blind faith to believe they didn't have any info on that trespass and just randomly decided to chase this guy down.

i didnt say making up a trespassing claim, i said making up a burglary claim. i havent seen evidence he stole anything nor seen it reported that items were found at or near the death scene from the construction site. if that's the case that part can be removed.

in any case there was no immediate knowledge, even a report from someone to the "neighborhood watch" doesn't count. that's a secondhand account and not viable for a citizens arrest. you have to see the person do it or have immediate knowledge, which is a very sticky case. such as you're walking by a bank at night and see someone with a duffle bag with cash sticking out while alarms go off but u didnt physically see them steal money. it's not a loose definition, and for a reason. citizens arent supposed to arrest someone, if anything they can follow them to assist cops. and cops get the first call, not neighborhood watch bozos.

we'll see if hate crimes are added, im not even sure if that's an upfront charge or judges discretion at sentencing. its different in different states and im too lazy to research for a topic we seem generally in agreement on.

You fumbled the ball on this point.

There is a categorical difference between unnecessarily shooting someone to subdue them for a citizens arrest, which would be unlawful use of force in line with the other examples given, and shooting someone who charged you and grabbed your gun while punching you.

Attempting a citizens arrest doesn't preclude using force if they attack you.

"When making a citizen's arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies."-Georgia Area legal Aid office


Its seems plausible they might not have fulfilled the requirements of a proper citizens arrest in other areas, specifically around knowledge of a crime.

So... what you're saying is the way you see it as long as you claim to have been doing a citizens arrest, even if you aren't following the laws required to make a citizens arrest, you should or can only be charged with making a bad citizens arrest?

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 11 2020 12:26pm

No. I'm saying the point he made is wrong for the reasons given.

There's really only two ways this can fall

1. They made an unlawful citizens arrest, and because their arrest was unlawful any negatives that stem from the arrest are on them, since resisting an unlawful arrest is legitimate.
2. Even though they made an unlawful citizens arrest, because they were technically making a citizens arrest and were defending themselves they can't be charged with using unlawful force.

Do you have a third option? And if not, which of these do you think is the case and why?