• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Burglar sues men who captured him, claims rough citizens arrest

independent_thinker2002 said:
If they were kicking him while they had him subdued that would be a different story. It sounds like they used appropriate force and the burglar is being a bitch.
Click to expand...

Hell! If they kicked him to death; who cares?

It goes back to my earlier comment: if this happened more often, there would be fewer burglers.

Liberals worry too much about criminal's rights and too little about law abiding citizen's rights.
 
apdst said:
If it's their football, then they aren't infringing on your property rights. Correct?

You do understand what property rights are, yes?
Click to expand...

They came onto my property without my permission. Meaning they are violating my property rights. If they want their football back they should ask before coming onto my property
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They came onto my property without my permission. Meaning they are violating my property rights. If they want their football back they should ask before coming onto my property
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. If they weren't taking your property, then they weren't violating your property rights.

This is a piss poor example.
 
MaggieD said:
That'd never fly. And it shouldn't.

First and foremost, there are very specific laws relating to citizen's arrest....when they can be made, how they can be made, etc. In many states, had the car window not been broken (in other words, the car was unlocked), it would have been a misdemeanor. Many states only allow citizen's arrests in the case of a felony. (Which this was, so it's immaterial.)

I don't know about this lawsuit; frankly, the details are sketchy. In fact, I don't even see that the state of Florida has a statute permitting citizen's arrest. They may permit them in all felony cases. They may permit them if one is apprehended inside of a store, for example. Orrrr, they may not permit them at all.

In any case, in a citizen's arrest, the "citizen" does NOT enjoy the same protections a law enforcement officer does in effecting it. Frankly, if I were on the jury in this case, I would really raise my eyebrows that three citizens were involved in detaining this (apparently unarmed) guy -- and that one of them pointed a gun at him. Threat of deadly force over a bicycle is waaay over the top. These citizens are no doubt going to be punished whether they are found to be liable or not. Defending oneself against such a lawsuit, even if it's dismissed quickly, costs a small fortune. You can be sure that the judge will give this claimant lots of latitude because he's pro se.

I think they're in trouble myself.
Click to expand...

I guess I wasn't clear--if I WROTE THE RULES, someone who initiates a felonious act against a would be victim would be disbarred from suing his would be victim for whatever that WBV does to him in the COURSE of the felonious conduct. Now if Leroy steals a tv set from Jerome and a year later Jerome sees Leroy walking down the street and walks up and shanks Leroy-now that would be grounds for Leroy to sue Jerome. On the other hand, if Leroy is sneaking out of Jerome's home with a tv set and Jerome gives Leroy a colonoscopy with a BushMaster M4 in 5.56MM NATO, that's Leroy's tough luck
 
apdst said:
No, they didn't. If they weren't taking your property, then they weren't violating your property rights.

This is a piss poor example.
Click to expand...

They were tresspassing on my property, god knows with what intent. Perhaps to steal my crab apples, perhaps to get their football. Point is they were tresspassing and should be shot.

My yard is my property just like my house, enter either without approval I should be able to shoot you
 
1069 said:
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.

But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.

I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
There's a lot we don't know, such as how badly the plaintiff was injured.
Click to expand...

Wow vigilantism, really? What a horrible state our country is in when citizens protecting their own property are suddenly "vigilantes". Vigilantism is the punishment of somebody for a perceived crime, not stopping somebody in the middle of committing a crime. The more we depend on "authorities" to defend ourselves, the less they will be able to. Why do you feel we need to be discouraged from defneding ourselves?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
They were tresspassing on my property, god knows with what intent. Perhaps to steal my crab apples, perhaps to get their football. Point is they were tresspassing and should be shot.

My yard is my property just like my house, enter either without approval I should be able to shoot you
Click to expand...

This a common sense moment. Not that I expect you to get it.
 
apdst said:
That's easy to say when it's not your crap being ripped off.
Click to expand...

Actually no, if I saw someone stealing stuff out of my car, or trying to steal my car I would call the police, and not confront him. I'm not going to risk being injured, killed, or raped to save something that could be replaced.


If I had a gun, and he tried to come in the house though I would have no problems with shooting him.
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess I wasn't clear--if I WROTE THE RULES, someone who initiates a felonious act against a would be victim would be disbarred from suing his would be victim for whatever that WBV does to him in the COURSE of the felonious conduct. Now if Leroy steals a tv set from Jerome and a year later Jerome sees Leroy walking down the street and walks up and shanks Leroy-now that would be grounds for Leroy to sue Jerome. On the other hand, if Leroy is sneaking out of Jerome's home with a tv set and Jerome gives Leroy a colonoscopy with a BushMaster M4 in 5.56MM NATO, that's Leroy's tough luck
Click to expand...

Ah, MUCH different. I can see your point. And that I can agree with. You're advocating that citizens be given the same protections as a police officer in making arrests. This would mean that he COULD be liable if he used undue force -- just as a police officer would. I'm sure you'd agree that a citizen shouldn't be given a blank check, so to speak.

As to your examples. Yeppers!! With ya' on both counts. Though on the last one, you might want to put aside $10,000 to defend yourself in the courtroom just in case. ;-)
 
apdst said:
Hell! If they kicked him to death; who cares?

It goes back to my earlier comment: if this happened more often, there would be fewer burglers.

Liberals worry too much about criminal's rights and too little about law abiding citizen's rights.
Click to expand...

I remember a story about an elderly lady in a state with a castle law (Florida, I think.). She came out of the supermarket and thought four teenage boys were stealing her car. She opened fire and afterward realized that her car was still there. When she got to the police department to report her mistake the four boys were already there.

Now what if she killed one of those innocent boys? You gonna volunteer to tell their parents that a car was more important than their son's life? There's a reason we have due process here in America. This would be an excellent example.
 
rudygetsplenty said:
Wow vigilantism, really? What a horrible state our country is in when citizens protecting their own property are suddenly "vigilantes". Vigilantism is the punishment of somebody for a perceived crime, not stopping somebody in the middle of committing a crime. The more we depend on "authorities" to defend ourselves, the less they will be able to. Why do you feel we need to be discouraged from defneding ourselves?
Click to expand...

You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend property. You're not allowed to tackle him, break his hip, kick him in the head and sit on his chest until a copper comes. (Not saying those injuries done in this case, just an illustration.) You'd better familiarize yourself with your state's citizen's arrest statutes. Your state may not even allow them....much less injuring someone in the process.
 
apdst said:
This a common sense moment. Not that I expect you to get it.
Click to expand...

No, I do get it


Which is why I was using the extreme version of defending ones property rights.

A bunch of kids violating my property rights and shooting them for it is an extremist version of what Agent Feris posted. It falls within the paramaters of what his post mentioned.

Shooting someone for bike theft is rather extreme in my opinion and is beyond what common sense dictates. Shooting someone who is a probable threat to your life is perfectly fine, from a common sense aspect
 
This is the reason why if someone breaks into my home, he will not live to sue me over it.
 
MaggieD said:
You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend property. You're not allowed to tackle him, break his hip, kick him in the head and sit on his chest until a copper comes. (Not saying those injuries done in this case, just an illustration.) You'd better familiarize yourself with your state's citizen's arrest statutes. Your state may not even allow them....much less injuring someone in the process.
Click to expand...

I would say sitting on their chest is fine as means to restrain the person. Unless you weight 400 lb and would likely kill the person by doing so
 
lizzie said:
This is the reason why if someone breaks into my home, he will not live to sue me over it.
Click to expand...

I see your point. But you'd better shoot his wife, kids and parents as well. People think it's just a simple cake walk if they shoot someone. It's not. Be prepared for legal expenses to defend yourself against possible criminal and civil charges. Happens allll the time. (Yeah, I know -- I'd rather be judged by 12..... Me, too.)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I would say sitting on their chest is fine as means to restrain the person. Unless you weight 400 lb and would likely kill the person by doing so
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the crime and depends on the state's citizen's arrest statutes. If you broke ribs, you could be in a lot of trouble. You don't have to weigh 400 pounds to kill someone by sitting on their chest.
 
Your Star said:
This is basically Batman..err vigilante justice.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Vigilante justice is when regular joes are patrolling the neighborhood, looking for scumbags. In this case, it's self-defense and defense of private property.
 
MaggieD said:
I see your point. But you'd better shoot his wife, kids and parents as well. People think it's just a simple cake walk if they shoot someone. It's not. Be prepared for legal expenses to defend yourself against possible criminal and civil charges. Happens allll the time. (Yeah, I know -- I'd rather be judged by 12..... Me, too.)
Click to expand...

If it's on your own property in my state, deadly force is legal.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that because an elderly woman used poor judgement in a non-existent crime, nobody else should try to stop crime just in case we are using the same poor judgement? One time a person tried to save a child from drowning and instead drowned himself, pulling the child down with him. So if we see a child drowning, should we just stand by and hope a lifeguard gets there in time?

Also, due process relates to actions taken when a person is suspected of having committed a crime, NOT actions taken to stop somebody in the middle of committing a crime. So this is not in any way an example of due process or the lack of it.
 
I really doubt the men actually pointed a gun at or handcuffed him. I'm thinking the Dupree is mentally unstable and is trying to make his story sound better in a half-baked attempt to make a few bucks.
 
It doesn't matter to me if the guy suing is a convict or not... we should always be vigilant that our authorities are not overstepping or abusing their powers. I am shocked to see people here saying that convicts should have no right to raise complaints or take officers to court. Just what kind of dictatorship do you want us to live in? I find such claims laughable.... just like how cops in various districts are now considering video cameras to be "weapons". If you have nothing to hide and you're just doing your job, then a camera won't make a difference.

If there are abuses and there is evidence, it should be brought up.
 
rudygetsplenty said:
Are you seriously suggesting that because an elderly woman used poor judgement in a non-existent crime, nobody else should try to stop crime just in case we are using the same poor judgement?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't use deadly force unless another life is in danger.

rudygetsplenty said:
One time a person tried to save a child from drowning and instead drowned himself, pulling the child down with him. So if we see a child drowning, should we just stand by and hope a lifeguard gets there in time?
Click to expand...

Not even close to the same thing.

rudygetsplenty said:
Also, due process relates to actions taken when a person is suspected of having committed a crime, NOT actions taken to stop somebody in the middle of committing a crime. So this is not in any way an example of due process or the lack of it.
Click to expand...

If you shoot someone unnecessarily when your life is not in danger, you are passing a vigilante sentence on the suspect.
 
Orion said:
It doesn't matter to me if the guy suing is a convict or not... we should always be vigilant that our authorities are not overstepping or abusing their powers. I am shocked to see people here saying that convicts should have no right to raise complaints or take officers to court. Just what kind of dictatorship do you want us to live in? I find such claims laughable.... just like how cops in various districts are now considering video cameras to be "weapons". If you have nothing to hide and you're just doing your job, then a camera won't make a difference.

If there are abuses and there is evidence, it should be brought up.
Click to expand...
You do realize the issue wasnt cops but civilians right?
 
MaggieD said:
You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend property. You're not allowed to tackle him, break his hip, kick him in the head and sit on his chest until a copper comes. (Not saying those injuries done in this case, just an illustration.) You'd better familiarize yourself with your state's citizen's arrest statutes. Your state may not even allow them....much less injuring someone in the process.
Click to expand...

If his hip was broken during the fall resulting from the tackle... so be it. It wasn't done with the intent to break said hip. If you kicked him in the head because after the fall he tried to bite you. So be it. If you sat on his chest to prevent him from getting up until the police arrives... So be it.
 
MaggieD said:
Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the crime and depends on the state's citizen's arrest statutes. If you broke ribs, you could be in a lot of trouble. You don't have to weigh 400 pounds to kill someone by sitting on their chest.
Click to expand...

You keep throwing up the statutes.
There is one problem with this.
Who decides when to prosecute a case? Why the district attorney's office of course.
Most district attorney's also won't prosecute because they don't want to discourage people from defending themselves.

It would have to be an extreme case, not a case of a guy sitting on an escaping felon and the felon having some broken ribs in the process.

As far as a civil trial.... most juries wouldn't reward a crook jack ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom