How much force can I use to free myself from a false CITIZEN's arrest?

[muldoonthief]

@UDS

You have a variation on that problem when the police arrest you. The police have wider powers of arrest, but not unlimited powers. If you know you’re innocent and a police officer detains you on the basis that he reasonably suspects you (or otherwise reasonably believes something that would entitle him to arrest you) how do you know whether his suspicion/belief is reasonable or not?

In either case, if you physically attack the arrestor, you do so at your own risk.
I think the middle ground is that the court will cut you some slack when it comes to sentencing.

If charged with assault, there is a defence of “self-defence”, and obviously you’d plead that defence. To make out that defence you have to show that you were resisting an “**apparent **threat of **unlawful **and immediate violence”. Granted that the attempted arrest is violent, and that it’s immediate, but does it appear to be unlawful? No, it doesn’t, unless you can point to something that shows the arrestor’s suspicion was unreasonable. If he says “citizen’s arrest!”, what he’s essentially saying is that he has a reasonable suspicion that you committed an offence. If he does, the arrest is lawful. This is not refuted by showing that you did not commit an offence.

So, before you kick him in the nuts and take to your heels, make very sure that you will able to show that his suspicion was not just objectively incorrect, but also unreasonable. Otherwise, your best course is to submit to the arrest and sue for false imprisonment later, when you’ve had more time to assemble the evidence that shows his suspicion was unreasonable.

I believe you are an attorney, and I most certainly am not. But if someone I never saw before in my life grabbed me and yelled “You’re under citizen’s arrest!”, and I knew I hadn’t done anything to warrant that, I, and I believe any other reasonable person, would assume that person was either deranged or using that as an excuse to keep me there for some nefarious purpose. I would certainly treat that as a situation to get myself out of, not to stick around for. I’d hope the DA and courts would agree with me.
I wonder if there’s any case law on this?

[Doctor_Jackson]

@kayaker

However, life on the lamb is excellent; plush and warm.

And edible!

[msmith537]

“How dare you touch me!! Do you have any idea who the fuck I am?!!”
“No…Who the f…”
PUNCH!!

[RTFirefly]

“And we like sheep!” - George Frideric Handel

[Ethilrist]

@ftg

Putting someone under false citizen’s arrest is a crime. Solution: you put them under citizen’s arrest. Any action they take can be reciprocated. They grab you, you grab them. Wait until a philosopher shows up to resolve it.

aaand now you’re both in headlocks again. This is going to take all day…

[ricksummon]

@ftg

Putting someone under false citizen’s arrest is a crime. Solution: you put them under citizen’s arrest. Any action they take can be reciprocated. They grab you, you grab them. Wait until a philosopher shows up to resolve it.

That reminds me; what happens if two actual law enforcement officers attempt to play “dueling arrests”? Say, if a state policeman tries to arrest an FBI agent for DUI and the FBI agent says the cop is under arrest for assaulting a federal agent? Is it a matter of who says “You’re under arrest” first?

[Dag_Otto]

@kayaker

However, life on the lamb is excellent; plush and warm.

Until it rains. Then life stinks.

[Weisshund]

@Dag_Otto

Until it rains. Then life stinks.

It can’t rain all the time

[Ludovic]

@RTFirefly

“And we like sheep!”

We are DeVos!

[Chimera]

@ricksummon

That reminds me; what happens if two actual law enforcement officers attempt to play “dueling arrests”? Say, if a state policeman tries to arrest an FBI agent for DUI and the FBI agent says the cop is under arrest for assaulting a federal agent? Is it a matter of who says “You’re under arrest” first?

Probably looks like that scene in Dirk Gently where the cops, secret agency and FBI guys all pull guns on each other outside Todd’s apartment.

[UDS]

@muldoonthief

I believe you are an attorney, and I most certainly am not. But if someone I never saw before in my life grabbed me and yelled “You’re under citizen’s arrest!”, and I knew I hadn’t done anything to warrant that, I, and I believe any other reasonable person, would assume that person was either deranged or using that as an excuse to keep me there for some nefarious purpose. I would certainly treat that as a situation to get myself out of, not to stick around for. I’d hope the DA and courts would agree with me.

I don’t think you’re assumption (derangement or nefarious purpose) is a reasonable one; you’re arbitrarily excluding the obvious possibility that some fact or circumstance which hasn’t yet come to your attention has led this person to form the reasonable but mistake assumption that you have committed a crime. Maybe you look strikingly like the person who mugged an old lady seconds before, just around the corner, which you’re not aware of yet.

And if you assault somebody when you have no reasonable belief that your assault is justified, well, that would be an assault, wouldn’t it?

You’re essentially arguing here that there’s a right to resist arrest violently if you believe yourself to be innocent of whatever it is the arrestor might suspect you of. That’s not the case. It makes no sense for the law simultaneously to recognise a right to arrest, and a right to resist that arrest with violence; that’s a recipe for disorder, which is the main thing the law is supposed to avoid.

@muldoonthief

I wonder if there’s any case law on this?

Probably.

[ftg]

@Ethilrist

aaand now you’re both in headlocks again. This is going to take all day…

That’s what the philosopher is for.

[muldoonthief]

@UDS

I don’t think you’re assumption (derangement or nefarious purpose) is a reasonable one; you’re arbitrarily excluding the obvious possibility that some fact or circumstance which hasn’t yet come to your attention has led this person to form the reasonable but mistake assumption that you have committed a crime. Maybe you look strikingly like the person who mugged an old lady seconds before, just around the corner, which you’re not aware of yet.

And if you assault somebody when you have no reasonable belief that your assault is justified, well, that would be an assault, wouldn’t it?

You’re essentially arguing here that there’s a right to resist arrest violently if you believe yourself to be innocent of whatever it is the arrestor might suspect you of. That’s not the case. It makes no sense for the law simultaneously to recognise a right to arrest, and a right to resist that arrest with violence; that’s a recipe for disorder, which is the main thing the law is supposed to avoid.

I still disagree that resistance for escape would somehow be leave me open for prosecution if I hadn’t in fact committed any crime, even if the law allowed for a citizen’s arrest on “reasonable suspicion”. I just can’t believe that the magical phrase “citizen’s arrest!” somehow removes all right I have to defend myself from assault or false imprisonment.

And for jurisdictions that don’t allow arrest on “reasonable suspicion”, it’s absolutely false arrest, and presumably then I can resist - cite for Massachusetts:

Commonwealth v. Harris , 11 Mass. App. Ct. 165 (1981). Citizen’s Arrest.
“In Massachusetts a private person may lawfully arrest someone who has in fact committed a felony… The stricter requirement for a citizen’s arrest – that the person arrested be shown in fact to have committed a felony – is designed to discourage such arrests and to prevent “the dangers of uncontrolled vigilantism and anarchistic actions.” …Generally, the person arrested must be convicted of a felony before the “in fact committed” element is satisfied and the arrest validated. If the citizen is in error in making the arrest, he may be liable in tort for false arrest or false imprisonment.”

So here in MA, if someone grabs me and yells “citizen’s arrest!”, I’m absolutely going to kick him in the nuts and high tail it out of there, secure in the knowledge that I’m behaving lawfully.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

A citizen’s arrest can typically only be made for a felony, unless it is committed in the presence of the arresting citizen. And the arresting person must identify the crime for which the arrest is made:

If a peace officer makes an arrest without a warrant, the fact that he is in uniform, or so displays his badge of office as to be reasonably visible to the other, is a sufficient manifestation that he is making an arrest upon suspicion of felony or for a breach of the peace or other conduct for which by common law or by statute he is authorized to arrest the other. Therefore, the officer need not, before making the arrest or while he is making it, apprise the other of the conduct for which the arrest is being made. If, however, the other, upon the officer’s manifesting his purpose to arrest, asks the officer for what conduct the arrest is being made, the officer must apprise him of the charge, and if he does not do so, the other is privileged to resist the arrest as unprivileged. If, after an arrest made without apprising the other of the cause, the other asks information and the officer refuses to give it, the other is privileged to use such force as is reasonably necessary to free himself from the custody which the officer has taken of him.

Restat 2d of Torts, § 128

Needless to say, this also applies to citizens’ arrests.

@ricksummon

That reminds me; what happens if two actual law enforcement officers attempt to play “dueling arrests”? Say, if a state policeman tries to arrest an FBI agent for DUI and the FBI agent says the cop is under arrest for assaulting a federal agent? Is it a matter of who says “You’re under arrest” first?

As a general matter, state officials may not arrest federal officials while they are in the course and scope of their official duties. So drunk in a bar is okay, but other situations, probably not.

[Ranger_Jeff]

@muldoonthief

So here in MA, if someone grabs me and yells “citizen’s arrest!”, I’m absolutely going to kick him in the nuts and high tail it out of there, secure in the knowledge that I’m behaving lawfully.

I’d ask them if they know who they’re dealing with first.

[Casey1505]

@dtilque

But there was a ten minute difference in their posting times. That was quite a long headlock.

They’re clearly using the same computer/laptop.

[ol]
[li]**Sicks Ate **posts.[/li]
[li]Restatrts computer accidentally instead of just logging off of SDMB–he’s got Dr. Crap in a headlock, keep in mind.[/li]
[li]Computer finally reboots. **Dr. Crap **forgets password (lack of oxygen to brain, re: headlock).[/li]
[li]Dr. Crap finally signs in, posts.[/li][/ol]

Ta-daa.

[Sicks_Ate]

Wow…you guys ran with that.

[Wilson]

Yeah, well, we knew you couldn’t catch us, since how fast can you run when you’ve got someone in a headlock?

[Melbourne]

@muldoonthief

.
And for jurisdictions that don’t allow arrest on “reasonable suspicion”, it’s absolutely false arrest, and presumably then I can resist - cite for Massachusetts:

So here in MA, if someone grabs me and yells “citizen’s arrest!”, I’m absolutely going to kick him in the nuts and high tail it out of there, secure in the knowledge that I’m behaving lawfully.

…And you can do that even if you have committed a crime, if the crime isn’t going to be prosecuted.

Which may seem a dangerous assumption, but I’ve seen it applied in a “theft from employer” case. The employer refused to prosecute, which left the security guard strung out.

Conversely it’s a powerful incentive to prosecute even when you’re not sure there is a moral or factual basis for prosecution: if you can get the conviction you’re safe, if not, you’re in jeopardy.