http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Starbucks-robbery-crime-stabbing-Good-Samaritan-12213420.php
I'd argue that if the guy kept fighting, clearly more stab wounds were necessary to stop the threat. Thoughts?
As a police officer, my perspective of the incident is a little biased toward what I would have done in that situation to take the guy into custody. But the Good Guy (GG) is not the police. How far is he legally allowed to go to detain the Bad Guy (BG) until the police arrive? The BG was trying to leave the store. As such, can it be argued he was no longer a threat? He was fighting with the GG because the GG was not letting him leave. It's easy to say the BG was a threat to society based on his willingness to commit the crime. That's the rationale behind shooting a fleeing felon and the Supreme Court said there has to be more substantial evidence to do so.
In my opinion, the BG was a threat because the GG was detaining him. So does a civilian have any legal limits on how far he can go to detain someone who he has observed committing a crime? And does it matter if the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony?
As a police officer, my perspective of the incident is a little biased toward what I would have done in that situation to take the guy into custody. But the Good Guy (GG) is not the police. How far is he legally allowed to go to detain the Bad Guy (BG) until the police arrive? The BG was trying to leave the store. As such, can it be argued he was no longer a threat? He was fighting with the GG because the GG was not letting him leave. It's easy to say the BG was a threat to society based on his willingness to commit the crime. That's the rationale behind shooting a fleeing felon and the Supreme Court said there has to be more substantial evidence to do so.
In my opinion, the BG was a threat because the GG was detaining him. So does a civilian have any legal limits on how far he can go to detain someone who he has observed committing a crime? And does it matter if the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony?
Flores was arrested after he allegedly tried to rob a barista with a fake gun and Transformers mask
As a police officer, my perspective of the incident is a little biased toward what I would have done in that situation to take the guy into custody. But the Good Guy (GG) is not the police. How far is he legally allowed to go to detain the Bad Guy (BG) until the police arrive? The BG was trying to leave the store. As such, can it be argued he was no longer a threat? He was fighting with the GG because the GG was not letting him leave. It's easy to say the BG was a threat to society based on his willingness to commit the crime. That's the rationale behind shooting a fleeing felon and the Supreme Court said there has to be more substantial evidence to do so.
In my opinion, the BG was a threat because the GG was detaining him. So does a civilian have any legal limits on how far he can go to detain someone who he has observed committing a crime? And does it matter if the crime was a misdemeanor or a felony?
And here is a perfect example of what is wrong with the leo of today.
I remember when the police was happy the GG was involved and helped others from dying.Now they just want yu to call them so they can take
45 minutes to get there to say,oh the BG left already.Sure we will keep
an eye out for him.Sorry the 3 dead people had to die for nothing.
What happened to the good ol days of GG helping out others to not die.
I'm just amazedat the words that come out of leo today.Most are helpful,but some ,such as this are just a nusense to society.\
Maybe instead of make america great again,maybe say.Bring America back again!!!!
With that in mind, his only options are to disable him physically, take his (known / visible) weapons, or hold him down until someone arrives with means of detaining him.
I don't think once he engaged, it would be safe for him to let off and hope the guy runs off. So he was in imminent danger the entire time.
GG needs to say he that the BG had the gun in his other hand and GG was in fear of his life.
Or say that he never saw the BG drop the gun. It's a minor difference but that way he's covered if the BG did drop the gun at some point during the altercation.
And here is a perfect example of what is wrong with the leo of today.
I remember when the police was happy the GG was involved and helped others from dying.Now they just want yu to call them so they can take
45 minutes to get there to say,oh the BG left already.Sure we will keep
an eye out for him.Sorry the 3 dead people had to die for nothing.
What happened to the good ol days of GG helping out others to not die.
I'm just amazedat the words that come out of leo today.Most are helpful,but some ,such as this are just a nusense to society.\
Maybe instead of make america great again,maybe say.Bring America back again!!!!
As a police officer, my perspective of the incident is a little biased toward what I would have done in that situation to take the guy into custody. But the Good Guy (GG) is not the police. How far is he legally allowed to go to detain the Bad Guy (BG) until the police arrive? The BG was trying to leave the store. As such, can it be argued he was no longer a threat?
That is a good question that should be answered for future GGs sake. But honestly it would be hard to know when a threat is no longer a threat unless they are no longer moving (for whatever reason) otherwise it is a massive gamble with your own safety and the safety of those nearby. Just because he "appears to be unarmed and trying to escape/disengage" does not make it so. It's a hard judgement call.
Also, don't police assume they are armed until searched and proven otherwise? How would it be unreasonable for a civilian to assume the same?
(Edited for clarification)
Sent from an unidentified bayou mobile device