Citizens Arrest in SC allows "shoot to kill" ?!

[Guest ErikH]

Can I write 'Douche' on the Internet?

While some people post comments here to add their opinion of what the thread covers, others seem to try and make themselves sound superior to the OP's comments or to try and shoot down one's opinions.

You obviously had no good intentions of commenting other than to try and make yourself appear superior in your knowledge of all things lawful. It's been proven that these people have very low self esteem. But your comment that "As far as "Police Powers" citizens of the state of TN have "almost" the same powers of arrest that a LEO does, whether the person has a HCP or not." couldn't be farther from the truth.

Im sure you will have more negative comments to share, some will no doubt attack me, as your first one tried to do. Or you'll no doubt speak to your superior knowledge of anything and everything.

It's a shame that we can't come here to discuss things politely.

.

Edited March 7, 2011 by ErikH

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

While some people post comments here to add their opinion of what the thread covers, others seem to try and make themselves sound superior to the OP's comments or to try and shoot down one's opinions.

You obviously had no good intentions of commenting other than to try and make yourself appear superior in your knowledge of all things lawful. It's been proven that these people have very low self esteem. But your comment that "As far as "Police Powers" citizens of the state of TN have "almost" the same powers of arrest that a LEO does, whether the person has a HCP or not." couldn't be farther from the truth.

Im sure you will have more negative comments to share, some will no doubt attack me, as your first one tried to do. Or you'll no doubt speak to your superior knowledge of anything and everything.

It's a shame that we can't come here to discuss things politely.

.

WOW, all I can say is WOW!!

[Spiffy]

In TX you can use deadly force to protect property...you can even use deadly force to protect a 3rd persons property in TX.

So simply put...Yes, the law is different from state to state.

So No...it doesn't greatly surprise me that that is the law in SC.

As far as "Police Powers" citizens of the state of TN have "almost" the same powers of arrest that a LEO does, whether the person has a HCP or not.

They call this "Mischief At Night" in Texas. Talk about a common sense gun law!

[Guest carter]

Tennessee has recognized since the early 1900's a private citizen’s right to make a warrantless arrestunder certain circumstances.

See T.C.A. §§ 40-7-109 to -115; McCaslin v. McCord, 116 Tenn. 690,94 S.W. 79 (1906).

A private person is statutorily authorized to arrest another without a warrant if one of the

following circumstances is present:

(1) for a public offense committed in the arresting person’s presence;

(2) when the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the

arresting person’s presence; or

(3) when a felony has been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable

cause to believe that the person arrested committed it.

T.C.A. § 40-7-109(a). The private person making such an arrest must inform the arrested person of

the cause thereof unless “the person is in the actual commission of the offense, or when arrested on

pursuit.” Id. § 40–7-111

The private citizen’s authority to make a warrantless arrest may, under limited circumstances, make certain conduct lawful that would otherwise be unlawful, of fresh pursuit of a fleeing felon endeavoring to avoid immediate capture, in an original arrest, or on immediate pursuit after arrest and escape.” McCaslin, 94 S.W. at 83-84

Tenn. Code Ann. � 39-11-621 permits a private person, making an arrest authorized by law,

to use “force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest.” Therefore, the use of handcuffs or restraining devices is permissible by private persons and security guards provided it is reasonably necessary to accomplish an arrest. This is not a blanket approval of the use of restraining devices. The statute contemplates the use of force only upon an individual who has fled or resisted arrest. The statute restricts the use of deadly force to that used in self-defense or in the defense of a third party. Tenn. Code Ann. � 39-11-621 (2002).

Edited April 5, 2011 by carter

[leroy]

.....Lighten up, Francis.

I think you are too thin skinned to be on a forum.

Or perhaps just too paranoid, since FG's comments not only did not attack you in any way, but were both on-topic and accurate. ....- OS

I love this!!! (....Lighten up, Francis....). What a truth. I dont know much about this and am very willing to listen to Fallguy's observations, as well as the observations of others. Like OS and others have said, "....i wouldnt get too overheated if i wuz you. There are lots of things to learn here. ..."

leroy

[gnmwilliams]

While some people post comments here to add their opinion of what the thread covers, others seem to try and make themselves sound superior to the OP's comments or to try and shoot down one's opinions.

You obviously had no good intentions of commenting other than to try and make yourself appear superior in your knowledge of all things lawful. It's been proven that these people have very low self esteem. But your comment that "As far as "Police Powers" citizens of the state of TN have "almost" the same powers of arrest that a LEO does, whether the person has a HCP or not." couldn't be farther from the truth.

Im sure you will have more negative comments to share, some will no doubt attack me, as your first one tried to do. Or you'll no doubt speak to your superior knowledge of anything and everything.

It's a shame that we can't come here to discuss things politely.

- I thought you had to reach at least 100 posts before you could start bashing senior thread members? Jerk.

[Worriedman]

I have always found Fallguy to be evenhanded in his involvement in discussions on the board, and to post well researched information.

[Guest 270win]

Tennessee's deadly force law needs to be redone and model after Texas. There are a lot of good things I like about TX deadly force laws. Here are some:

In addition to the many situations in which it allows deadly force in self-defense, Texas law allows deadly force in defense of property if:

• The person reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent another from taking the property or to recover it once taken (if in fresh pursuit); and
  
• when the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, or to prevent a person from fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime; and
  
• the person reasonably believes that the property can't be recovered by any other means, and that using less than deadly force might expose the person to substantial risk of bodily harm or death.
  

This is likely why, in 2008, a Harris County grand jury refused to indict Joe Horn, who shot and killed two men who had robbed his neighbor's house.

The good guys should be protected and the bad guys who bust into houses, cars, and businesses and run should suffer the consequences should the owners decide to stop them in their tracks. I get sick and tired of an otherwise good guy getting punished for ridding society of scum breaking into a car or shed. Make the deadly force laws like Texas and the problem might be solved should an individual decide to stop a criminal permanently from breaking into a car and stealing a stereo or running off with wheels.

Edited April 6, 2011 by 270win

[DaveTN]

I get sick and tired of an otherwise good guy getting punished for ridding society of scum breaking into a car or shed. Make the deadly force laws like Texas and the problem might be solved should an individual decide to stop a criminal permanently from breaking into a car and stealing a stereo or running off with wheels.

I don’t have a problem with killing criminals. But young kids do stupid things. I’m not sure they should have to pay for that stupidity with their lives. And that’s what happens when you allow the use of deadly force to protect property. I also think that is the reason it is not allowed in most states.

[Fourtyfive]

Dang I lose my internet for 3 days and it took that long to read this thread .......starting out I'll have to say the popcorn and slapping icons were the highlight of my day.

[Guest 270win]

Yes, I would rather my insurance take care of a stolen stereo than deadly force if I see some one running with it from my car. That would be a hard thing to live with, even in states where it is legal. Now if someone else wants to take care of it, I look at it as their business if the state law allows it. I would rather avoid it at all possible after hearing real stories of night mares for a life time when people are involved in such incidents!

Burglars breaking in homes and businesses are a whole different game because that is an extremely dangerous threat to life and limb, in my opinion.

Edited April 6, 2011 by 270win

[Guest friesepferd]

In regards to those offended by informed members who choose to comment on the subject at hand in a non-offensive manor:

REALLY?? /facedesk

Why is it that so many people get all worked up just because someone shared a bit of knowledge with them about what was asked in the first place?

Please, instead of just calling him a meanie and quoting what he said (which apparently nobody else on here so far found offensive), please, explain to us!

In what way was what he said offensive? Did he call you stupid? Did he use a word you didn't understand? Did he use a tone of voice you didn't like?

I'm not just trying to be a jerk, I would really like to know exactly what about his post you found offensive, because nobody else does.

2nd- instead of saying that he is wrong, please, give us proof as of such. Multiple other people have already linked to and quoted the law which says that a normal person DOES have the right to arrest someone just like a police does, with the exception of use of deadly force, etc... as already said.

Again, I'm not trying to bash you, I'm simply asking for you to please explain your point of view., reference laws, etc.

In regard to this actual thread and other topics brought up thus far-

It doesn’t surprise me at all that SC allows that. I don't really think its a bad thing.

As far as shooting for property stuff goes- I also tend to agree that shooting someone stealing a $10 item should be a nono, while shooting someone over a $10,000 item is fine. Let criminals think twice about what they do when they know they might die for it. That doesn’t mean I am GOING to do so, but I think that legally it is a good idea. There are probably some other reasons I think it should be allowed as well.

I never want to kill someone, and I don't think I ever WOULD for any reason other than fear of my own life, or of another’s (or of bodily harm, rape, etc), but I am in favor of many of the laws that allow it when someone is committing other bad criminal offenses

[RobertNashville]

I hope to God that I am never put into a position where I have to take the life of another and I also hope to God that should I ever be in that position that I will have the will to do what needs to be done.

I carry weapons to save a life; maybe my own or maybe the life of another person - I buy insurance to save me from property loss.

[BlackHawk93]

Ok. First and foremost let me say that this is the first I have seen or heard of this thread. My 23 yr old son came to see me for a few days and used my computer. We went shooting because he recently got his carry permit. He posted this thread, not me. He got called out by an off duty officer at the mall for his gun being slightly uncovered and he got upset over it. He told me about it and I told him that he might want to check out TGO and look around, maybe he could see what some others had possibly been through, etc. My computer was on, and when I come here I don't have to login every time, so when he posted his thread he did so under my name. Lesson learned for me.

Secondly, I work long hours with an air rescue helicopter service and don't always, on my days off, sit in front of the computer, so by the time I next came here to look around the thread had died down enough to where it was not on the first page of threads. I rarely go back and look at threads past the most recent ones. Seeing this today shocked me, and honestly p*@^*# me off in a few ways, but that's neither here nor there. I apologize for my sons remarks and apologize mostly to Fallguy, as I have read and read this post, and his first comment to the post, and honestly don't see what my son got so offended about. He's young, has had some hard times lately, and having just gone through a divorce recently has made him a little sensitive to what other people say to him, but again, no reason I can see that he should have gotten upset over this.

From there, I'm going to simply say that I found it very mature of Fallguy to not lash out at him with name calling and insults. It takes someone with a cool head and years of wisdom to not feel the need to do so. I appreciate that and think it shows alot of character. I was surprised at many of the other comments and insults from others and felt that they were a little harsh, but again, that's they're right to do so. What my son said, and how he reacted was, in my opinion, uncalled for, but I don't think calling him a dick and a jerk was an appropriate way to react by anyone other than Fallguy, who chose to shrug it off.

Again, I apologize to Fallguy for what my son said. I learned early on in life (from the military) to hold my tongue, and hold it well. Doing so and just giving things time will often save you alot of heartache and alot of extra hurt.

I feel I have lost any respect or credibility now on here if I choose to comment or post something as others who might not have seen MY post say, "Yeah, he's an ass". But I will keep the username. It reflects to a life altering time in my past and I kinda like it.

Stay safe.

Edited April 7, 2011 by BlackHawk93

[Oh Shoot]

Ok. First and foremost let me say that this is the first I have seen or heard of this thread. My 23 yr old son....

I, for one, am gonna buy it.

Thanks for following up.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Thank your for your post BlackHawk93. Also thank you to any and all defended me.

I have tried to stay away so as to fan anything anymore myself.

[Guest friesepferd]

Thanks for the clarification. No harm done.

[Spiffy]

In TX you can use deadly force to protect property...you can even use deadly force to protect a 3rd persons property in TX.

So simply put...Yes, the law is different from state to state.

So No...it doesn't greatly surprise me that that is the law in SC.

As far as "Police Powers" citizens of the state of TN have "almost" the same powers of arrest that a LEO does, whether the person has a HCP or not.

May have been asked and I missed it. How would this extend to citizen carry of handcuffs? Usually you see the line about power of arrest and authority to arrest being the reason for police only use of handcuffs. Thought it was in interesting question to think about.

[DaveTN]

May have been asked and I missed it. How would this extend to citizen carry of handcuffs? Usually you see the line about power of arrest and authority to arrest being the reason for police only use of handcuffs. Thought it was in interesting question to think about.

I see nothing to prevent you from carrying handcuffs in this state. It is unusually how you use them, not just possession that will cause you problems.

Regardless of whether you have “Powers of Arrest†you don’t have the protection from civil liability cops have, like Qualified Immunity and plenty of lawyers you don’t have to pay for.