Tactics: Passive Non-Compliance

[Scratch705]

another good thing, if you have a hot pot of coffee, bring it out then pour it on his face. that should stop him. although would hot coffee be considered assault?

[trinydex]

Is a citizen's arrest a kidnapping?

does citizens arrest involve knocking someone out with chemicals?

[trinydex]

Re: cops v. civilians
The police have specialized training in techniques to deal with "passive non-compliance".

we all gotta get this training then, just like we should all get some training on how to use our guns. this all goes along with being responsible for your own safety. some are responsible, some aren't. some are willing to act, some aren't.

Officers are also trained (to some extent) on less-than lethal force tools, including but not limited to, chemical agent sprays, tasers, stun guns, baton techniques, body pressure points and various "come-along" grips. Most civilians are not so trained.

gotta get these tools and get the training for them. same reasons as above.

The biggest pitfall, however, is that police have rules and polices by which they must operate. Policies on when certain tools may be used, excessive force laws and policies, etc. In some cases, thugs know and exploit these to try to thwart the cops, knowing they don't want to risk their job over certain complaints.

since we're discussing the legality and defensibilty of protecting yourself and being responsible... how else than to emulate the police?

Criminals worry more about meeting an armed homeowner or civilian than the police. Why? Because they are less predictable. If Joe Sixpack catches you trying to steal his Chevy truck, he may not know exactly how the law works and actually use that 12-bore on you. If you're stealing the wheels off a car in someone's driveway, unlike the cops yelling "don't move!" that citizen is likely to be angry enough to open fire with no warning.

that unpredictability is great, it's on our side. doesn't mean we have to make good on it.

[J-cat]

And maybe J-Cat can't help but introduce irrelevant questions into the original question.

The fact of the matter is that the event occurred before sunset and there was at least 300 yards visibility. The car was parked on a circular driveway round-about in front of the house with plenty of visiblity in all directions. His home is actually semi-rural, but I put it into a suburban context for familiarity reasons.

Re: cops v. civilians
The police have specialized training in techniques to deal with "passive non-compliance". In addition, in most states, one must obey an officer's lawful orders and reasonable requests. You have to provide your identity to a police officer too. None of that is true for 99.9% of the civilian population.

Officers are also trained (to some extent) on less-than lethal force tools, including but not limited to, chemical agent sprays, tasers, stun guns, baton techniques, body pressure points and various "come-along" grips. Most civilians are not so trained.

The biggest pitfall, however, is that police have rules and polices by which they must operate. Policies on when certain tools may be used, excessive force laws and policies, etc. In some cases, thugs know and exploit these to try to thwart the cops, knowing they don't want to risk their job over certain complaints.

Criminals worry more about meeting an armed homeowner or civilian than the police. Why? Because they are less predictable. If Joe Sixpack catches you trying to steal his Chevy truck, he may not know exactly how the law works and actually use that 12-bore on you. If you're stealing the wheels off a car in someone's driveway, unlike the cops yelling "don't move!" that citizen is likely to be angry enough to open fire with no warning.

And a woman holding a gun is like her holding nitrogylicerine. You never know if it'll go off because she intends to shoot you or because she's scared and shaking.California does not specifically authorize civilians to use force to make an arrest (e.g. 'reasonable force'). However, it defines "arrest" as taking a person into custody in a case and manner authorized by law. Since custody means having "immediate charge and control" it implies that some minimum amount of force may be used to effect the arrest.


Most criminals tend to fear encountering an armed woman because most of them will be very frightened and thus unpredictable. And society usually favors women in physical confrontations with the benefit of the doubt.
Unlike a police officer, citizens cannot arrest on the "reasonable cause to believe" that some crime was committed. You may arrest for a crime committed in your presence; a felony that was actually committed by the person, although not in your presence; and for a felony actually committed and you have reasonable cause to believe the person committed it.

First, watching your back is never irrelevant. Maybe if you have ever arrested someone you'd know what I mean.

Second, you missed PC 835.

835. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by
submission to the custody of an officer. The person arrested may be
subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and
detention.

[J-cat]

does citizens arrest involve knocking someone out with chemicals?

Knocking someone out is not kidnapping.

[BillCA]

if you have a hot pot of coffee, bring it out then pour it on his face. that should stop him. although would hot coffee be considered assault?

Quite possibly, yes. If it is hot enough to cause any serious burns (i.e. 2nd degree blistering) it can fall under assault with intent to commit great bodily harm.

does citizens arrest involve knocking someone out with chemicals?

we all gotta get this training then

Not too many people are willing to pay for hours of training for things they will seldom need to use. It's hard enough (and expensive enough) to get people to pay $100-$200 for CCW training. And training isn't enough. You must practice sufficiently to become competent in each technique.

Plus, certain items, such as batons, are restricted by law.

First, watching your back is never irrelevant. Maybe if you have ever arrested someone you'd know what I mean.

Second, you missed PC 835.

835. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the custody of an officer. The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.

I never said watching your back or watching for accomplices was irrelevant. I said your bring it up was irrelevant because of the way you brought it up. And FYI: I have made a number of felony arrests in my time. Almost never alone either.

When you say How did the OP know his vehicle burglar didn't have a partner nearby it tells me you did not read the full posting. And rather than take the post for what it is, you cast aspersions that the OP was somehow incomplete or misleading in an attempt to support your thesis that theives work in pairs. It doesn't wash Bucko.

Lastly, I did not "miss" PC 835, I deliberately omitted it since it does not apply to a citizen's arrest. See the highlighted section above.

[J-cat]

Lastly, I did not "miss" PC 835, I deliberately omitted it since it does not apply to a citizen's arrest. See the highlighted section above.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[trinydex]

Knocking someone out is not kidnapping.

knocking someone out and restraining them...?

[J-cat]

When you say How did the OP know his vehicle burglar didn't have a partner nearby it tells me you did not read the full posting. And rather than take the post for what it is, you cast aspersions that the OP was somehow incomplete or misleading in an attempt to support your thesis that theives work in pairs. It doesn't wash Bucko.

I never said the OP was misleading. I was going off the scenario posted on page 1 of this thread, your scenario.

[J-cat]

knocking someone out and restraining them...?

is not kidnapping.

[trinydex]

what is kidnapping then?

[J-cat]

doing what you say AND transporting the victim. The whole act must be intentionally unlawful. Kidnapping does not apply if you are effecting an arrest.

[Stormfeather]

I would help him remove the equipment that he was trying to remove, then help him carry some of it to his vehicle, give him the morning newspaper, a warm cup of coffee, a McMuffin, and two bullets to the side of the head once he sat down in his car.

[M1884]

Go in house, get camera/cell phone with camera; with one hand holding gun just in case, ask him to say Cheese and start clicking. Offer photos to police and local TV news for dissemination, and offer a small reward. He will get betrayed.

[b.faust]

I'd threaten to make him read this whole thread.

j/k

I would probably shrug and say, "You can talk this over with my two dogs when I let them out..." and walk back inside.

On a side note, I did catch a guy breaking into my car once in SF. Being pretty steamed about the broke window, I chased him, caught him and took him to the ground (I do Jujitsu and Sambo).

Cops came, he wasn't hurt, I filled a citizen's arrest, got a lecture about how dangerous that was, and I'm sure they let him go an hour later. In hindsight, it wasn't worth the time and energy to 'deal' with him sad as that sounds. I now have a locked gated garage, which while not completely thief proof, does give an extra level of deterrence.

I didn't however see him again in my neighborhood.