# On the subject of attacking an armed man and getting shot **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 9, 2020, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460 "2020-05-09T08:18:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/181 "2020-05-12T16:20:18Z")
A friend’s son got in trouble for entering an abandoned, soon to be demolished, house. He and a friend went in to look around. One of the kids had a can of spray paint, and my friend’s son spray painted his _first and last name_ on an interior wall. When the police came to their house, they scolded the kid, explaining the danger in walking around an abandoned structure. My friend wanted his son to be charged with a crime and maybe have community service, but the police said that was overkill. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/182 "2020-05-12T16:29:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Depends on what you mean by ‘benefit of the doubt on the law’. Whether or not they’re police officers, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. > > Regards, > Shodan My meaning of “benefit of the doubt” would be more that they don’t have the agency or authority to make capital legal decisions on the street. They weren’t reasonably assessing a public danger in a professional way, and had no right to try to do that. Their legal rights in trial are separate. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/183 "2020-05-12T16:30:54Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Wandering onto someone else’s property without permission isn’t a crime without a victim, because it’s not a crime at all. It’s only a crime if the property owner (or a legitimate representative of the owner) tells you to leave (or not enter). Well there’s posted notices too. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/184 "2020-05-12T16:34:37Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > It’s actually a felony in Florida to trespass on a construction site. I don’t know about Georgia, though. “You are a FLorida law officer! I demand that you arrest this man who trespassed on my site last week!” “Hm…Where’s he “from”? Got a pic?” I suppose it’s just what makes florida florida ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/185 "2020-05-12T16:44:09Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Another reason the construction companies wouldn’t want someone wandering around is that they could get injured. That is a legitiamte concern, which is why one should be careful when doing so. Yes, taking a shotgun blast to the chest can cause injury. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/186 "2020-05-12T16:47:13Z")
If you weigh the public danger between two things: Trespassing on a construction site to rest, stretch or check it out. 2 civilians grabbing rifles to chase a jogger down a public street in a pickup truck to entrap and question him about alleged previous crimes at gunpoint. Oh yeah: the older one had been a cop who had been involved in a prior case with the jogger. What do you get? We have heard here that we don’t want people trespassing. Has anyone mentioned that we don’t want people chasing others with rifles in vehicles on our streets just because they were “trespassing”? Let’s have an honest assessment of the relative dangers of these events. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/187 "2020-05-12T16:48:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Or is it one of those laws that exists specifically to be situationally enforced? I think just about everything exists to be situationally enforced. I’ve always understood it to be for two reasons. One is to protect all of the valuable, easily removed items. Not just tools and supplies, but also the exposed copper and all the other stuff that scrappers love to get. In fact, stealing anything at all from a construction site is Grand Theft in Florida. So, even stealing a hammer that some contractor left on the ground would be a felony. Plus another felony for the trespassing. The second reason is that police have the ability to arrest people who they _know_ were stealing stuff, but weren’t caught with anything. This way, they can still arrest the suspect for a felony just for being on the construction site in the first place. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > “You are a FLorida law officer! I demand that you arrest this man who trespassed on my site last week!” “Hm…Where’s he “from”? Got a pic?” > > I suppose it’s just what makes florida florida I don’t understand what you’re saying, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/188 "2020-05-12T16:52:12Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Has anyone mentioned that we don’t want people chasing others with rifles in vehicles on our streets just because they were “trespassing”? Yes. In fact, it was mentioned as recently as post 176. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/189 "2020-05-12T17:22:06Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > I don’t understand what you’re saying, exactly? Meaning all the letter of the law talk is just coded speech about p.o.c. and their presence in our society, and how much “leeway” we can give “others”. The way it gets expressed is in the disparate treatments of citizens of color. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/190 "2020-05-12T17:26:54Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Yes. In fact, it was mentioned as recently as post 176. I read 176 and it seems to grant rednecks powers I never knew about. You don’t see any conflict in claiming to be enforcing a legal citizens arrest for “trespassing”, while stalking a jogger down a public street in a truck with loaded shotguns, to entrap him into an armed interrogation? Huh? Sorry I really felt my message was needed in this thread. I still do. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/191 "2020-05-12T17:33:00Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > I think just about everything exists to be situationally enforced. Situational enforcement is a racist’s best friend. > [@](#): > > I’ve always understood it to be for two reasons. One is to protect all of the valuable, easily removed items. Not just tools and supplies, but also the exposed copper and all the other stuff that scrappers love to get. In fact, stealing anything at all from a construction site is Grand Theft in Florida. So, even stealing a hammer that some contractor left on the ground would be a felony. Plus another felony for the trespassing. The second reason is that police have the ability to arrest people who they _know_ were stealing stuff, but weren’t caught with anything. This way, they can still arrest the suspect for a felony just for being on the construction site in the first place. So, extremely heavy handed. I suspect that this is not enforced very often, if it were, and white suburbanites were going to jail for a year or more with their families for checking out the neighborhood’s newest addition, then it wouldn’t last long as a law. However, it could probably persist for quite a while if it is only ever enforced upon the less “desirable” demographics. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/192 "2020-05-12T17:34:49Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > However, it could probably persist for quite a while if it is only ever enforced upon the less “desirable” demographics. Welcome to America. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/193 "2020-05-12T17:40:55Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I read 176 and it seems to grant rednecks powers I never knew about. What powers? The power of citizens arrest? All citizens have that power, provided they witnessed someone committing a felony. > [@](#): > > You don’t see any conflict in claiming to be enforcing a legal citizens arrest for “trespassing”, while stalking a jogger down a public street in a truck with loaded shotguns, to entrap him into an armed interrogation? Huh? Are you sure you read the post? Did you read the part that said: > [@](#): > > …those guys never should have been chasing him down brandishing weapons like that. Maybe go back and read it again? I specifically said that trespassing was no reason to chase someone down the street with a gun. I also said that even if the trespassing was a felony, it was not a violent or forceable fellony, so it would still not be an excuse to chase someone down the street with a gun. I don’t know how to be more clear than that. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/194 "2020-05-12T17:50:22Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Situational enforcement is a racist’s best friend. So true. But, from a societal stand point, I’m not sure that a Zero Tolerance approach would be better. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/195 "2020-05-12T17:55:58Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > What powers? The power of citizens arrest? All citizens have that power, provided they witnessed someone committing a felony. > Are you sure you read the post? Did you read the part that said: > > Maybe go back and read it again? I specifically said that trespassing was no reason to chase someone down the street with a gun. I also said that even if the trespassing was a felony, it was not a violent or forceable fellony, so it would still not be an excuse to chase someone down the street with a gun. I don’t know how to be more clear than that. I was responding to this, which I found odd: “Whether or not it was a felony is what actually matters, because that will determine the defendant’s ability to claim a citizen’s arrest.” I can’t see how this gets to that point. The chasing is not incidental or just a separate issue to this. It _ **is** _ the issue, and not trespassing. I can’t see how CA can be seriously put up as a reason for civilian gunmen to “investigate” a putative "trespassing"any more than one would suggest that one should use a bazooka to “investigate” jaywalking. To say that it might be a felony somewhere and provide legal cover for the act is a strange take to me, when the chasing itself was wholly illegal and on a whole other level of evil. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/196 "2020-05-12T18:06:07Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > What powers?. The white privilege to engage in an illegal conspiracy to kidnap, assault and intimidate, and then be gifted by society with the “gentlemans excuse” that you were only making a “citizens arrest” ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/197 "2020-05-12T18:11:10Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > So true. But, from a societal stand point, I’m not sure that a Zero Tolerance approach would be better. Or maybe have less draconian laws in the first place. If a law, when enforced equitably, is harmful to society, it is a bad law, and is harmful to society even if enforced unequally. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/198 "2020-05-12T18:19:45Z")
We need trespass laws, and fair application, both. With only one or neither it doesn’t work. Trolls and evil actors will try to use the gap to 1) do evil and 2) look good. There is nothing worse for the rule of law, the trespassing law, and the citizens arrest statute, than those two mfs and their lawyers trolling with legal theories. They are the trumps of racist kidnappers. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/199 "2020-05-12T18:22:53Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I was responding to this, which I found odd: “Whether or not it was a felony is what actually matters, because that will determine the defendant’s ability to claim a citizen’s arrest.” This is the excuse the defendant’s have claimed. They said they were performing a citizen’s arrest. You can find mention of that in just about every article pertaining to the incident. My point was that if this wasn’t a felony, then the entire claim of “citizen’s arrest” is out the window because for a citizen’s arrest to even apply, the crime would have to be a felony and the defendants would have had to witness the crime. > [@](#): > > I can’t see how this gets to that point. The chasing is not incidental or just a separate issue to this. It _ **is** _ the issue, and not trespassing. But there are situations where chasing someone down with a gun is legally defensible. Those situations are dependent on the events leading up to the chasing. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss those preceding events in order to justify or refute the defendant’s defense. For this particular case, there was nothing to justify it. And these people were completely in the wrong. They should be punished accordingly. > [@](#): > > I can’t see how CA can be seriously put up as a reason for civilian gunmen to “investigate” a putative "trespassing"any more than one would suggest that one should use a bazooka to “investigate” jaywalking. That’s the reason they gave. My post explained that their reasoning isn’t justified. And no, CA doesn’t allow anyone to “investigate” or even to “detain”. Any detention automatically becomes an arrest, and that arrest MUST meet the conditions necessary or the CA becomes a false arrest, which is a serious crime. > [@](#): > > To say that it might be a felony somewhere and provide legal cover for the act is a strange take to me, when the chasing itself was wholly illegal and on a whole other level of evil. If the crime is a felony in Georgia, and they witnessed it, then they _can_ claim it was a citizens arrest. However, that still isn’t going to justify the shooting. It may or may not justify the brandishing of firearms (IMO, it does not. But a lawyer might have some luck with it). It would definitely be used to successfully justify the chasing and the stopping, though. At that point, it becomes a self-defense issue (a la Zimmerman) and an entire other can of worms. So, perhaps my phrasing was horrible. But the reason it matters whether or not the crime was a felony is because their entire excuse of CA is total shit from start if there was no felony to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2020, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460/200 "2020-05-12T18:23:57Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > The white privilege to engage in an illegal conspiracy to kidnap, assault and intimidate, and then be gifted by society with the “gentlemans excuse” that you were only making a “citizens arrest” You got all that from my post? Strange. I didn’t know they had those powers either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-subject-of-attacking-an-armed-man-and-getting-shot/853460.md?page=11)