4 ms·

It's not legal for a citizen to arrest people? In what state? If that's true, that's as full-blown an abandonment of Peelian principles as I've ever heard.

by jMyles 8y ago

s73v3r_ 8y ago
That's probably a good thing, considering the wave of white people calling the police on black people for literally doing nothing but being black. The incidents currently occurring are terrible enough, but I can't imagine how awful it would be if those people felt they didn't need the cops, and carried out the arrests themselves.
- jMyles 8y ago
  What is probably a good thing? And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario? Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "What is probably a good thing?" That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do. "And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario?" The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them. "Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?" No, and I have no idea where you got that from. I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      > That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do. They aren't, though. That's the whole point. It's just that they're rarely necessary. > The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them. This seems like unfounded fear to me. If it were a real concern, why isn't it happening now? Conversely, since we do currently have a regime of professional police, why hasn't it proved insulatory against this phenomenon? The criminal justice system is at the core of racism in the USA; it certainly hasn't had the effect of inhibiting "racist white people". Instead, it has been the very mechanism by which racist outcomes are assured. > I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are. Just to be clear: you are saying that a criminal justice system with a smaller footprint will result in a situation in which "racists would be even more empowered"? That's what you're saying? Because that sounds completely backwards.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "This seems like unfounded fear to me. " Have you seen the rash of white people calling the cops on black people just for being around? I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that this is "unfounded". "Just to be clear: you are saying that a criminal justice system with a smaller footprint " That is so unbelievably not close to what I said that I cannot believe you are discussing in good faith.
        jMyles 8y ago
        Jeez man, why are you always so full of vitriol? If I'm incorrect, just nudge me in the right direction. No need to get all bent out of shape! I thought that you were saying that a change in the balance of arrests, with a decrease in those made by peace officers amidst an increase in those made by other citizens, was likely to be empowering to people seeking to victimize people of color. Did I have that wrong? If that's what you were saying, then yeah I think that's nuts. If people have a goal of subjugating people of color, then the existence of professional police (to the exclusion of normalcy of arrests by other citizens) is working wonderfully to achieve that end. The idea that a larger share of arrests being effected by people who aren't professionally employed to do so being a conduit for increased racism is, as far as I can tell, quite unfounded. In fact, the origins of professional policing in the US are in part from slave patrols, which were formed precisely because overwhelming majorities of people refused to arrest slaves who had run away.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "Jeez man, why are you always so full of vitriol?" I am calling you out for not discussing things in good faith. If you don't like being called out for that, then don't wildly misrepresent what people say.
        jMyles 8y ago
        See the thing is, I was discussing in good faith. I always am. But you always seem to divert the discussion to this ad-hominem thing. I explained how I understood your logic (in the comment above this one), but you didn't even address it. If I've got it wrong, which is totally possible, don't call me names, just correct me.
chipperyman573 8y ago
In the US, you can make a citizen's arrest if you are in the presence of a crime being committed (or if a felony was committed not in the citizen's presence), but you can't use too much force (varies by state). Also, if you're wrong, you can face charges. For example, if you lock someone in a room to arrest them while the police are coming, and the person wasn't doing anything wrong, you could face wrongful imprisonment charges.
- jMyles 8y ago
  Show me a state law that says that police are authorized to use greater force than other citizens. edit: Why the downvotes? Come on now, HN. Just post a link. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But at least give a source.
  - Retric 8y ago
    The US operates on common law, so much of it is a matter of precedence now simply what's written down. And their are many cases of police but not private citizens being given deference on the use of force.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Sure, that's true. But this person claimed that the amount of permissible force varied by state, as if different state statutes allowed for different amounts of force from police vs other citizens, and I don't think that's so. Or at least, I've never seen it. Some states give police specific latitude in using deadly force to protect others, but not merely to effect an arrest (again, at least that I know of). Also, it's important to note that to the degree these are common-law distinctions, common-law is much, much older than professional policing, which is fairly new in the western political experience. As it was emerging, of course, the western tradition came to base the professional police role largely on the Peelian principles, one of which is > To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. ...so if indeed the common-law tradition is that police are "members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen" then it's hard to understand how that's compatible with wildly different arrest powers.
dragonwriter 8y ago
In most states, citizens arrest is allowed, but in much more limited circumstances, much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest, and with much more civil and criminal liability risk then arrest by police. A fairly typical rule is that citizens arrest is only for felonies that occur either in your presence or with a certain degree of justified belief but also that the arrested person must be factually guilty of the felony. (Some states also allow it for some misdemeanors, but are even more restrictive there.)
- jMyles 8y ago
  > much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest I have never heard of this. Can you show me such a law? Excessive force is illegal no matter whom is effecting the arrest.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    The definition of "excessive" changes based on whether you're a cop or not.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Can you show me such a definition?
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        California Penal Code Section 835a provides specific authorization for force and protections from liability for circumstances which exceed the normal bounds of self-defense in peace officer arrests, and Section 834a creates a legal duty of the person being arrested by a peace officer not to resist. There is a similar but not identical protection to 835a for non-peace officer public employee arrests in Section 836.5(a) Neither protection applied to peace officer arrests has a parallel protection for citizens arrests. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-arrest.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-ar...
JackCh 8y ago
IANAL but as I understand it, the circumstances under which a 'private citizen' is permitted to arrest people are more restrictive than the circumstances under which a police officer is allowed to arrest people. Namely that a 'private citizen' is only allowed to arrest people for crimes that are committed in the presence of the person performing the arrest, whereas police are allowed to arrest people for crimes that were not committed in their presence. (Police officers are (almost?) always citizens, despite that term sometimes being used in a way that excludes police)

It's not legal for a citizen to arrest people? In what state? If that's true, that's as full-blown an abandonment of Peelian principles as I've ever heard.

by jMyles 8y ago

It's not legal for a citizen to arrest people? In what state? If that's true, that's as full-blown an abandonment of Peelian principles as I've ever heard.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

That's probably a good thing, considering the wave of white people calling the police on black people for literally doing nothing but being black. The incidents currently occurring are terrible enough, but I can't imagine how awful it would be if those people felt they didn't need the cops, and carried out the arrests themselves.

jMyles 8y ago
What is probably a good thing? And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario? Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "What is probably a good thing?" That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do. "And what exactly are you projecting will happen in this scenario?" The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them. "Are you asserting that the addition of professional policing has meant less projecting of racial violence by the state?" No, and I have no idea where you got that from. I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    > That citizen's arrests are difficult to justify or do. They aren't, though. That's the whole point. It's just that they're rarely necessary. > The racist white people who are calling the cops on black people for simply being around will then switch to trying to do "citizen's arrest" on them. This seems like unfounded fear to me. If it were a real concern, why isn't it happening now? Conversely, since we do currently have a regime of professional police, why hasn't it proved insulatory against this phenomenon? The criminal justice system is at the core of racism in the USA; it certainly hasn't had the effect of inhibiting "racist white people". Instead, it has been the very mechanism by which racist outcomes are assured. > I'm saying that racists would be even more empowered to be shitty and make things worse than they already are. Just to be clear: you are saying that a criminal justice system with a smaller footprint will result in a situation in which "racists would be even more empowered"? That's what you're saying? Because that sounds completely backwards.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "This seems like unfounded fear to me. " Have you seen the rash of white people calling the cops on black people just for being around? I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that this is "unfounded". "Just to be clear: you are saying that a criminal justice system with a smaller footprint " That is so unbelievably not close to what I said that I cannot believe you are discussing in good faith.
      - jMyles 8y ago
        Jeez man, why are you always so full of vitriol? If I'm incorrect, just nudge me in the right direction. No need to get all bent out of shape! I thought that you were saying that a change in the balance of arrests, with a decrease in those made by peace officers amidst an increase in those made by other citizens, was likely to be empowering to people seeking to victimize people of color. Did I have that wrong? If that's what you were saying, then yeah I think that's nuts. If people have a goal of subjugating people of color, then the existence of professional police (to the exclusion of normalcy of arrests by other citizens) is working wonderfully to achieve that end. The idea that a larger share of arrests being effected by people who aren't professionally employed to do so being a conduit for increased racism is, as far as I can tell, quite unfounded. In fact, the origins of professional policing in the US are in part from slave patrols, which were formed precisely because overwhelming majorities of people refused to arrest slaves who had run away.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "Jeez man, why are you always so full of vitriol?" I am calling you out for not discussing things in good faith. If you don't like being called out for that, then don't wildly misrepresent what people say.
        jMyles 8y ago
        See the thing is, I was discussing in good faith. I always am. But you always seem to divert the discussion to this ad-hominem thing. I explained how I understood your logic (in the comment above this one), but you didn't even address it. If I've got it wrong, which is totally possible, don't call me names, just correct me.

chipperyman573 8y ago

In the US, you can make a citizen's arrest if you are in the presence of a crime being committed (or if a felony was committed not in the citizen's presence), but you can't use too much force (varies by state). Also, if you're wrong, you can face charges. For example, if you lock someone in a room to arrest them while the police are coming, and the person wasn't doing anything wrong, you could face wrongful imprisonment charges.

jMyles 8y ago
Show me a state law that says that police are authorized to use greater force than other citizens. edit: Why the downvotes? Come on now, HN. Just post a link. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But at least give a source.
- Retric 8y ago
  The US operates on common law, so much of it is a matter of precedence now simply what's written down. And their are many cases of police but not private citizens being given deference on the use of force.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    Sure, that's true. But this person claimed that the amount of permissible force varied by state, as if different state statutes allowed for different amounts of force from police vs other citizens, and I don't think that's so. Or at least, I've never seen it. Some states give police specific latitude in using deadly force to protect others, but not merely to effect an arrest (again, at least that I know of). Also, it's important to note that to the degree these are common-law distinctions, common-law is much, much older than professional policing, which is fairly new in the western political experience. As it was emerging, of course, the western tradition came to base the professional police role largely on the Peelian principles, one of which is > To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. ...so if indeed the common-law tradition is that police are "members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen" then it's hard to understand how that's compatible with wildly different arrest powers.

dragonwriter 8y ago

In most states, citizens arrest is allowed, but in much more limited circumstances, much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest, and with much more civil and criminal liability risk then arrest by police. A fairly typical rule is that citizens arrest is only for felonies that occur either in your presence or with a certain degree of justified belief but also that the arrested person must be factually guilty of the felony. (Some states also allow it for some misdemeanors, but are even more restrictive there.)

jMyles 8y ago
> much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest I have never heard of this. Can you show me such a law? Excessive force is illegal no matter whom is effecting the arrest.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  The definition of "excessive" changes based on whether you're a cop or not.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    Can you show me such a definition?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      California Penal Code Section 835a provides specific authorization for force and protections from liability for circumstances which exceed the normal bounds of self-defense in peace officer arrests, and Section 834a creates a legal duty of the person being arrested by a peace officer not to resist. There is a similar but not identical protection to 835a for non-peace officer public employee arrests in Section 836.5(a) Neither protection applied to peace officer arrests has a parallel protection for citizens arrests. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-arrest.html https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-ar...

JackCh 8y ago

IANAL but as I understand it, the circumstances under which a 'private citizen' is permitted to arrest people are more restrictive than the circumstances under which a police officer is allowed to arrest people. Namely that a 'private citizen' is only allowed to arrest people for crimes that are committed in the presence of the person performing the arrest, whereas police are allowed to arrest people for crimes that were not committed in their presence. (Police officers are (almost?) always citizens, despite that term sometimes being used in a way that excludes police)