Gov. Kemp says repeal citizens arrest law

[Ken Ford]

There most certainly ARE statutory police arrest powers in Georgia. They are listed in Code sections right before the sections about arrest by private persons. Start reading at OCGA 17-4-20 and stop when you figure it out.

I’m sorry I misspoke, the arrest itself is the same as LEO as to the arrest, if it was in that person presence or immediate knowledge. Like I said they would have PC and the crime would have to be in their presence or have immediate knowledge that the crime was committed by that person you are arresting.
I was trying to say there was no statutory difference, for an arrest if the offense occurred in the persons presence. That that has to meet the same merits. At one time it wasn’t even separated, just spelled out what an arrest was. Looks like the assembly spelled it out in 1999.
I think the rest of that post stands on its own.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

So what?

You seem to ignore the fact that your cars are defined as "habitation" under Georgia law, and you were perfectly withing your right to take action to protect them and will continue to have that right.

When was the last time you arrested someone and took them in front of a judicial officer?

Again, what did you do to arrest them? What were you prepared to do if they beat feet, and shouted "FU"? Shoot them? Beat them into submission?

Under the existing law, unless the person is committing a forcible felony, or represents a threat to the public, your rights to detain him are limited should he contest that right. All he has to do is decide to walk away, and then what are you going to do? Shoot him or assault him over breaking into your cars and stealing $400? Let us know how that works out for you.

"Citizens arrests" depend on the willingness of the detainee to submit to the situation. If they are unwilling, there isn't much you can do.

Please read the statutes. I can use reasonable force to arrest an offender if the offense is committed in my presence or within my immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

All of the above is deleted if HB 479 passes.

I released the perp to the police upon their arrival.

 

[gh1950]

If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

You still haven't answered the question, what if he doesn't submit to your "arrest" and continues to escape or try to escape? Are you going to shoot him? Beat him senseless? Run over him?

Unless he presents a clear danger to the public, or you, you can't do anything physically to restrain him.

In your case, you were only able to "arrest" the criminal because he submitted to the arrest.

Apparently you don't comprehend the limitations on your "arrest powers", especially in your case where the only felony committed was a property crime. You just keep repeating the law without evidencing an understanding of the scope (or lack of scope) of a citizen's arrest powers.

And when making a citizen's arrest, you aren't operating under color of state law, or have qualified immunity, both of which protections the police have.

 

[spencer60]

^^^ That's exactly my point. People make it sound like they are taking something deep and sacred away, when in reality the current code doesn't really do anything as it is.

Please, for the love of God, please, make the stupid stop. It hurts.

This is not at all what a citizen's arrest is.

Go read OCGA 17-4-60, 61, and 62. They are in the law just after law enforcement arrest. They cover use of force, too. You won't find anything at all about "consent on both sides" or any of this other ignorance that you spread around like a contagious disease.

Inform yourself. Then write. We will all be better off.

I know 'consent on both sides' isn't in the law, but the simple fact is that in 99 out of 100 circumstances if you say 'you're under citizen's arrest', and the guy walks away, there's not a thing you can do under the current law.

The only people who would actually stick around are doing so of their own free will, and unless it's a felony as mentioned just above, you have no right to use any kind of force to stop them.

To me that's 'consent on both sides', no matter how much you may argue.

What if he simply ran from the police? What kind of question is that? I guess it depends on whether he is faster than you. How is your cardio capacity and 40 yard dash?

But you AREN'T police and you don't have the same statutory powers as police do. In fact the very next section of the law you point to says that you have to turn the 'arrestee' over to real police as soon as possible.

Police can chase down a suspect, even use force if needed if a non-felon runs away. Unless it's a felony, that's not true for citizens trying to arrest someone.

Then there's the practical aspect of all this.

Say you chase the guy for a misdemeanor on your property and he trips and cracks his head open? Who do you think will be getting a hospital bill and possibly a lawsuit against their homeowners insurance?

Again, the 'arrest' is completely different than an arrest by a LEO. They have limited liability, you don't. They have police union lawyers to defend them, you don't.

A citizens arrest is probably the wrong move almost every time. To me it's no great issue to amend the law and simply remove it except in certain very, circumscribed cases.

 

[gh1950]

^^^ That's exactly my point. People make it sound like they are taking something deep and sacred away, when in reality the current code doesn't really do anything as it is.



I know 'consent on both sides' isn't in the law, but the simple fact is that in 99 out of 100 circumstances if you say 'you're under citizen's arrest', and the guy walks away, there's not a thing you can do under the current law.

The only people who would actually stick around are doing so of their own free will, and unless it's a felony as mentioned just above, you have no right to use any kind of force to stop them.

To me that's 'consent on both sides', no matter how much you may argue.

^^^ That's exactly my point. People make it sound like they are taking something deep and sacred away, when in reality the current code doesn't really do anything as it is.



I know 'consent on both sides' isn't in the law, but the simple fact is that in 99 out of 100 circumstances if you say 'you're under citizen's arrest', and the guy walks away, there's not a thing you can do under the current law.

The only people who would actually stick around are doing so of their own free will, and unless it's a felony as mentioned just above, you have no right to use any kind of force to stop them.

To me that's 'consent on both sides', no matter how much you may argue.



But you AREN'T police and you don't have the same statutory powers as police do. In fact the very next section of the law you point to says that you have to turn the 'arrestee' over to real police as soon as possible.

Police can chase down a suspect, even use force if needed if a non-felon runs away. Unless it's a felony, that's not true for citizens trying to arrest someone.

Then there's the practical aspect of all this.

Say you chase the guy for a misdemeanor on your property and he trips and cracks his head open? Who do you think will be getting a hospital bill and possibly a lawsuit against their homeowners insurance?

Again, the 'arrest' is completely different than an arrest by a LEO. They have limited liability, you don't. They have police union lawyers to defend them, you don't.

A citizens arrest is probably the wrong move almost every time. To me it's no great issue to amend the law and simply remove it except in certain very, circumscribed cases.

Not a citizens arrest case, but illustrative of the fine line one has to make in what is a "reasonably use of force" in making a legal arrest, and are you prepared to make these decisions in the middle of the night in your front yard. (Edited for the relevant parts)

Mease v. State, 165 Ga. App. 746 (1983)

Facts: Two bail bondsmen, who DID have a warrant, entered a house without permission at 5:00 in the morning. The bail jumper was not in the home.

At approximately 5:00 a. m. appellants, licensed bondsmen, went to Ann Barron's home with a pickup order and arrest warrant for Barron's daughter, Donna Gosdin. Although Barron told appellants that her daughter was not there appellants entered Barron's living room. Mease went upstairs carrying a pistol at her side and entered the master bedroom. Barron followed and as she opened the bedroom door, Mease pointed her pistol at Barron. Mease returned to the living room and Barron asked appellants to leave. However, Mease went downstairs to the family room, again carrying her pistol, and met another of Barron's daughters, Tarrant, coming upstairs. Mease pointed her pistol at Tarrant, but lowered it immediately on seeing it was not Gosdin. Gosdin was not in the house, and when appellants refused to leave, Tarrant called the police.

b. As to Mease's conviction of pointing a pistol at another, OCGA § 16-11-102 (formerly Code Ann. § 26-2908) provides: "A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether the gun or pistol is loaded or unloaded."

Mease contends she was legally justified in pointing her pistol at Barron (she denied pointing the pistol at Tarrant) because the phrase "armed and dangerous" was at the top of the arrest warrant for Gosdin, and she was surprised when Barron opened the bedroom door. However, Mease knew Gosdin by sight. Since Barron was clearly visible when entering the bedroom and Mease knew it was not Gosdin, Mease was not justified in pointing her pistol at Barron. As Mease's actions fall directly within the conduct prohibited by OCGA § 16-11-102 (Code Ann. § 26-2908), it was not error to deny her motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. At the very least, there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Mease's actions were justified, and a trial court's refusal to direct a verdict of acquittal is error only when there is no conflict in the evidence and a verdict of acquittal is demanded as a matter of law. Sims v. State, 242 Ga. 256, 257 (1-3) (248 SE2d 651) (1978).
Bail bondsman is convicted, even having a warrant and legal basis for entering the premises.

Footnote: The bondsmen conviction for criminal trespass was reversed because they were charged with the wrong section of the criminal trespass law. Had they been charged with the appropriate section, the conviction would have stood.

So are you John Q. Citiizen prepared to accept the liability of engaging in hot pursuit, waving your hogleg, chasing an alleged criminal who you think maybe, might have committed what could possible be a crime. You have the skill set and knowledge to make that decision in the moment? This is the rock on which the McMichael defense is going to founder.

 

[Gaffer1968]

KEMP and his Lt. Governor, and his Secretary of State belong in PRISON! He has no business BLM'ing about citizens' arrest laws, frankly....

 

[gh1950]

Police can chase down a suspect, even use force if needed if a non-felon runs away. Unless it's a felony, that's not true for citizens trying to arrest someone.

.

Used this very defense once. Defendant was charged with armed robbery about a mile from the point of arrest on a supposed witness ID about 15 minutes after the crime.

Defense was the the defendant was drunk, and couldn't have run the mile in the dark in 15 minutes (through a residential section). The proof was that the arresting officer, of substantial proportions, was able to run down and arrest the urban youth. Defense was the youth had to be drunk, or fat ass officer would have never caught him, and the jury agreed.

 

[Gaffer1968]

Used this very defense once. Defendant was charged with armed robbery about a mile from the point of arrest on a supposed witness ID about 15 minutes after the crime.

Defense was the the defendant was drunk, and couldn't have run the mile in the dark in 15 minutes (through a residential section). The proof was that the arresting officer, of substantial proportions, was able to run down and arrest the urban youth. Defense was the youth had to be drunk, or fat ass officer would have never caught him, and the jury agreed.

This entire citizens' arrest debacle was spurred by BLM and media crap about the actions of two idiots who felt they could use the law to exact punishment AND THEY WERE CHARGED UNDER EXISTING LAW in Georgia. Kemp is only glomming on all this to keep from getting arrested, charged and convicted for voter fraud, IMO. This is a non-issue.

 

[gh1950]

How the citizens arrest thing works out, when you exercise your "arrest powers"

https://decaturish.com/2020/06/warr...-robbery-suspect-in-lenox-place-neighborhood/

 

[spencer60]

This entire citizens' arrest debacle was spurred by BLM and media crap about the actions of two idiots who felt they could use the law to exact punishment AND THEY WERE CHARGED UNDER EXISTING LAW in Georgia. Kemp is only glomming on all this to keep from getting arrested, charged and convicted for voter fraud, IMO. This is a non-issue.

I agree 100%. This is a tempest in a teapot over a law that's pretty much useless for all practical purposes. It's a political hot potato though so of course it'll be politicized six ways to Sunday.