LogFAQs > #939180693

CableZL posted...

The law specifies "if it's a felony" in the context of permitting a citizen to pursue a fleeing suspect.

Where are you getting that, because I've not seen it anywhere. The only time it mentions a fleeing suspect is the judgement call for a person to decide if they can make an arrest for a felony and they're fleeing. That's it from what I've seen. Which just means they have less strict requirements to make a citizen's arrest if it's a felony.

It's like saying, "You can perform a citizen's arrest if you know of a crime. If the crime is murder you can make that call based on just hearing a gunshot." If that's the case, and you didn't hear a gunshot, it doesn't mean you can't perform a citizen's arrest. It means if you only heard a gunshot, you can perform a citizen's arrest under the thinking a murder has been committed. Just like you have less strict judgement requirements to perform a citizen's arrest if a felony has been committed and someone is fleeing. It doesn't mean those are the conditions in all situations to perform a citizen's arrest like you keep suggesting.

The Mcmichaels had no knowledge of a crime being committed in the first place in order to perform a citizen's arrest.

We know they had knowledge of what appears to have been a crime. Is trespassing a crime? Casing a construction site? Then running away when confronted can appear to be a crime and someone sees you take off could be considered immediate knowledge. Those aren't, "Yes or no" statements, they're judgement calls that will be important interpretations in this case. I'm not saying one way or the other because it all depends on the exact wording and context.

There was no crime being committed and again, the law does not support citizens arrests based solely on what someone thinks. It specifically mentions the crime being done in the person's presence or immediate knowledge.

What someone thinks in a situation is considered their immediate knowledge. Especially if they call the cops to inform them of the situation. It's just odd that they'd call the cops to report non-criminal activity and then make chase. Clearly they believed a crime was being committed. Whether that is accurate is not the point that they were performing a citizen's arrest that was based on their immediate knowledge (what they thought) of the situation.

The crime wasn't committed in the presence of the Mcmichaels, nor did they have immediate knowledge of the crime being committed.

The fact that no crime was committed supports that fact. It's simple logic. If no crime was committed, then a crime was not committed in their presence, nor did they have immediate knowledge of a crime being committed.

Again, like I said in prior posts, what is considered "immediate knowledge?" They knew immediately about it when he took off running from the property and began their attempt at arrest. There wasn't a lapse in time where they were informed of this occurrence second-hand. At least based on the videos/articles it appears this could be considered immediate knowledge, but again...I'm not taking absolutes here like you continue to do. I'm just suggesting this is interpreted, and in my mind I'd consider that at least a possibility.

---

If you don't want to argue about something, take the initiative and stfu.
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!