Gov. Kemp says repeal citizens arrest law

[spencer60]

The law you quoted contains two statements.
Each statement is true and stands on its own.

The first statement says, basically, that IF you're sure the person has committed the crime because they committed it in front of you or otherwise within your immediate knowledge, THEN you can arrest the person! This part of the law does not say only if it's a felony, nor does it say "only if they stay there and let you arrest them."
This law does not say "only if they run." This law simply says you can arrest them ; therefore you can chase them if necessary. Therefore you can use physical force to overcome their resistance, if necessary.

The second statement of this Code section says that if the crime in question is a felony, and IF the bad guy is attempting to escape / flee, THEN you can arrest based on less certainty, and the crime need not be all that recent, and it did not have to unfold in front of you. All you need is probable cause, not to know for sure because you saw it happen.

[You might get your probable cause from talking to the victim or an eyewitness to the crime, which happened a few minutes ago, and the eyewitness / victim asks for your help in finding the suspect, believed to be nearby.]

So what I'm hearing is that if you see them commit a misdemeanor, and they try and run away you're OK to chase and use 'reasonable' force. If you just hear about the crime from a 3rd party, but it's a felony, the same is true.

Got that.

I'll still say that this is a liability trap for anyone who goes down this road though. Asking someone who isn't a lawyer to determine whether a crime is or isn't a felony may be a stretch to begin with. Asking them to determine whether they have enough probable cause to go after 'that guy in the red shirt' sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[spencer60]

And yet it is still beyond your grasp. If GAgunLAWbooklet's explanation does not help you to understand it, then ask any relevant questions, and I will try to assist you.



Wait. Obscure? I thought you just said, "The law itself is quite plain."

Note that the post you are quoting does not call any names. It simply points out the immorality of gh1950's position (and I suppose yours, as well, since you share it). That is not "name calling" or mud slinging, nor is it "mocking." Nor does it contain a straw man fallacy. Re-read it. It is post #141.

"You support criminalizing good behavior, growing government, and removing not just another piece of liberty, but a duty incumbent upon all members of the public who are good citizens."

This is not mocking or name calling. It is simply pointing out that supporters of this law are supportive of growing government power, removing a piece of liberty, and criminalizing good citizenship.


So, there it is.

You are simply wrong on the facts (what the law actually says). I am not sure why. As you said, the law is quite plain. You are then using your misinterpretation of what the law says to push an agenda by mocking a law that you claim is useless because you do not really understand the law. Now you have been called on it.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is not "name calling." It is injecting facts and reason into the discussion.

I know facts and reason are not popular commodities on the internet, but they should be a part of the lawmaking process, and that is what this thread is about.

Why do you want to criminalize good conduct by honorable men? Please answer.

I'd suggest you go back and read some of your posts... If your not engaging in name calling at a pretty juvenile level then we disagree about a lot more than the law in question. Doesn't bother me at all. Like I said before, when people get to name calling it's generally because they have nothing else useful to say.

And yes, the explanation above did clear up my understanding about some of the points on which I will admit I was confused on.

As for criminalizing behavior by honest men, I'm not sure where you get that. Sure, the new law is more restrictive, and if you are the kind of person who does make citizen's arrests a lot I guess that would be a problem. Although if that's true I'm guessing you are probably one of the named classes of people.

However as a couple of people here have also mentioned, the current law probably encourages people to take risks without understanding their liability in the situation.

I'm sure there are times when a citizens arrest is useful. I'm sure there's other times when you might be forced to detain someone even if it's not within the law and simply take your chances.

But my guess (and it's only an opinion) is that 99.999% of the time you will be better off just calling the cops and being a good witness rather than risk your house, your job and possibly your freedom in a situation where you have limited authority and massive liability.

 

[John Monroe]

Most people never make a citizen's arrest.

Most people never use a gun in self defense.

Most people never use a fire extinguisher.

Most people never do CPR on someone.

Most people never do the Heimlich maneuver on someone.

The list goes on. But all of them are useful to society and should not be eschewed.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

 

[Chipshot]

Kemp is a one term governor unless he remembers WHO put him there. Abrams best park in another state. She won't get away with the dominion crap this time.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

As for criminalizing behavior by honest men, I'm not sure where you get that. Sure, the new law is more restrictive, and if you are the kind of person who does make citizen's arrests a lot I guess that would be a problem.

The kind of person who does make citizen's arrests a lot . . .

No.

Any arrest or detention of any kind, ever - it would be a problem. Here we define "problem" as you go to jail and are charged with a felony and face a potential decade in prison (the penalty for false imprisonment in Georgia is ten years).

If HB 479 passes, any detention by you, unless you are a police officer, a security guard, or the owner of a restaurant or retail store, would be a crime.

That is what is meant by criminalizing the good conduct of honorable men. HB 479 would literally do that.

If somebody slashes a child's face with a knife, and a bystander (or one of his parents) sees it and runs down the slasher and holds him for the police, then that man has done a good thing, at risk to himself.

The law should not criminalize such conduct.

The incentives are all backwards with HB 479.

You might be surprised to discover that I agree with your liability concerns. They exist. Such concerns should not motivate Georgia voters like you to criminalize good conduct by honorable men. In addition, the liability concerns are usually quite overblown. In the example above (slasher, an example from real life, unfortunately), what is the liability concern if you saw that and decided not to let the slasher get away simply because there are no police nearby?

I remember the news reports of the Night Stalker being caught out in Los Angeles - basically a crowd of neighbors. The police had to rescue the Night Stalker from these people. This was not even criminal in Los Angeles (although I suspect it might have turned criminal had the police not responded quickly, I just meant the citizen's arrest itself was not criminal). Arresting the Night Stalker and holding him for the police should never be a criminal act. What sort of screwed up criminal justice system would charge a man with a felony for arresting the Night Stalker?

Anyway, HB 479 has not moved, and Crossover Day is approaching. Apparently, law enforcement lobbying killed it for this year.

What do law enforcement organizations know that you do not?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I'd suggest you go back and read some of your posts...

I did.

Some of them are harsh, and I apologize.

 

[spencer60]

No apologies necessary, I've been Internet-ing since CompuServe and DARPAnet so I don't get butt hurt over e-words. Just wanted to point it out.

 

[thevalueman]

I didn't realize that the ODT was packed full of packed full lawdogs!!!
I'm feeling much better about the state of the ODT!!!
keep reciting the law, while they take it away from you!!!

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

I didn't realize that the ODT was packed full of packed full lawdogs!!!
I'm feeling much better about the state of the ODT!!!
keep reciting the law, while they take it away from you!!!
View attachment 3145920

How does one get one of those?