BigGuy wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 11:36 pm
[quote=03Lightningrocks post_id=<a href="tel:1307908">1307908</a> time=<a href="tel:1620699825">1620699825</a> user_id=3350]
[quote=Soccerdad1995 post_id=<a href="tel:1307892">1307892</a> time=<a href="tel:1620684026">1620684026</a> user_id=19815]
[quote=philip964 post_id=<a href="tel:1307889">1307889</a> time=<a href="tel:1620682859">1620682859</a> user_id=6460]
https://news.yahoo.com/gov-kemp-set-rep ... 29969.html
Citizens arrest law repealed in Georgia.
A citizens arrest is probably a bad idea anyway.
Not something I would want to do.
I agree that it is a bad idea for a casual observer to try to arrest someone they see committing a crime, where the observer is not a victim of the crime.
But I also think the devil is in the details here. The article says that businesses can still detain people, presumably with force, and that licensed security officers can also detain people.
To me, a key question would be whether a regular homeowner could detain an intruder until police arrive, including the use of force to do so. Or would this be unlawful under the revised law?
[/quote]
I don't see Citizens arrest action in the same category as self defense or a a castle doctrine action. In the first situation one is attempting to make an arrest after seeing a crime. In the second situation one is utilizing self defense when the crime is against them. Maybe I am wrong, I am not an attorney and did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
[/quote]
First of all, I am not a lawyer. The great wisdom I'm about to dispense comes from a 3 day class I took a couple of years ago. So, here goes.
I believe the term "Citizen's Arrest" is a misnomer that could lead to some unfortunate decisions. From what I remember from my Level III security class is that citizens (and that's what commissioned Security Officers are) have no arrest powers. Any citizen may detain another citizen for sufficient reason. (I'm still pretty vague on what is a "sufficient" reason) I know that in my case I never get physical or attempt to detain without physical threat to me or those entitled to my protection. If somebody doesn't follow the rules, I ask them to leave. If they refuse, I call the police.
Even in the case of theft, I won't go hands on. I'll try to bluff them into surrendering and take them to a holding room until the police arrive. If they run, I'll be a good witness. I have NO qualified immunity. I'm not an employee of the state. That's not cowardice. In court I'll be judged by a jury that doesn't understand I'm not a cop and will hate me with the same passion reserved for police. They will hear that the boy I took down has severe injuries and was a good boy trying to turn his life around. That black eye proves brain damage because this Rent-a-cop thought he had authority.
Once a citizen detains another citizen, they must immediately notify a constable. (Police Officer) The constable will determine whether or not an arrest is warranted. And if the detaining citizen doesn't have a justifiable reason for the detainment, they may be the one arrested.
And I at least have a license that should provide a reason for my actions. A regular citizen won't even have that. Remember what an angle Travon Martin was. I'm not in hurry to be the next George Zimmerman.
[/quote]
KC5AV wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 11:27 am
philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:19 pm
https://www.insider.com/man-charged-wit ... al-2021-10
So one of the defendants is attempting to get banned evidence of his license plate that shows a confederate flag.
So if this is let in, I’d say the fix is in for these guys.
Generally I feel if your a defendant you should be allowed to defend yourself any way you want. So if they guy you killed has mental issues, you should be able to say that. The woman your accused of raping is a topless dancer, you should be able to say that.
That said how about the other side. Can they present anything they want?
I have a problem with that. If the defendant KNEW that the person had a history of mental issues, it would be fine to have it used as a defense. If it wasn’t known, there is no way it should be used as part of the defense.
And just because a woman happens to be a topless dancer, stripper, whatever, that doesn’t come close to being evidence that she was or wasn’t raped or sexually assaulted. “
Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury, this young “
lady” (wink wink) is a
STRIPPER. She takes her clothes off for money, so it should be obvious that she was just asking for my client to make advances… Why, it’s almost like she got what she deserved.”
Agreee 1000000% with every last word you said. Not sure why the guy above suggested that it should be used. That doesn’t make any sense at all.