Citizen's Arrest- How far is too far?

[TheFeniX]

Since when is kicking someone's ass ever justifiable when he isn't resisting or trying to cause someone harm? They didn't respond to him attacking them when confronted with the idea of calling the police. They came at him as a mob and then started beating him in the face and head with fists and blunt objects. That's lethal force. They beat him bad enough to be listed in critical condition. That's attempted murder.

This isn't the fucking wild west. We don't round up a damn posse and "hang 'em high." They fucked up and used a completely unreasonable amount of force to affect an arrest and should not be defended for doing so. This bullshit about "well, they were justified because he was guilty" is just that: bullshit. Since when is the punishment for rape "kick his ass in the street and call the cops afterward?"

There's this little caveman inside of me that feels good that some scumbag got his ass-beat, but I damn sure am not about to say that we should base a justice system off that idiocy or the fact that one group happened to get lucky and kick the shit out of the "right" guy.

[Coyote]

Thats why you don't freaking beat a suspect. You don't bloody know if they are guilty or not. That entire mob should be charged with assault.

Actually, charged with battery. Battery is when you, well, batter someone. Assault is when you threaten to batter someone and display the means and intent to do so, but haven't actually carried it out yet.

[Tanasinn]

Rewarding or even not prosecuting this sort of behavior is setting a very poor precedent. A state should strictly and very loudly punish excessive use of force, lest other citizens get ideas and put someone into a coma or a grave. Even if the jury wouldn't convict, that's not an excuse to go "Derp, let's not bother!"

[Dark Flame]

You guys do realize that based on his injuries the police chief decided that the mob shouldn't be prosecuted and that their intent was to bring him to police. And we don't even know how serious his injuries are for sure. Lethal force? I think that's quite a stretch. Punching someone gets you battery, it doesn't get you attempted murder.

Oh, and on further re-reading he was taken in on an outstanding warrant. He was breaking the fucking law every single second that he wasn't in custody. That brings it a little closer to justification in my mind. Was the level of force too high? Yes, it was. He should only have been subdued, but as I already said, their intent wasn't to beat him senseless. They conceded to police authority and went on as peaceful citizens.

And I haven't seen anyone say that we should base a justice system on vigilante justice. Just for the record.

[Surlethe]

Lethal force? I think that's quite a stretch.

Someone took a baseball bat to him. It's not as much of a stretch as you seem to think it is.

[TheFeniX]

Lethal force? I think that's quite a stretch. Punching someone gets you battery, it doesn't get you attempted murder.

Hitting someone in the head with a blunt object is considered lethal force. Stomping someone when they're down on the ground can qualify as well. If that shit qualifies, I'm sure beating him bad enough to be listed in critical condition would. There's a fine line between two idiots at a bar slugging it out and a mob of people wailing on a guy.

He should only have been subdued, but as I already said, their intent wasn't to beat him senseless.

Their intent is worthless. Their actions are what I'm scrutinizing. If they were only concerned with an arrest, they would have held him there until police arrived. Instead, they took it upon themselves to kick his ass while they waited. In the case of the mistaken rapist: "They beat and kicked my son, while other people stood over him and said, 'That's what you get for raping little kids!'"

They were dishing out their own justice on that guy.

[Aeolus]

Thats why you don't freaking beat a suspect. You don't bloody know if they are guilty or not. That entire mob should be charged with assault.

While legally I agree with you as a practical matter how on Earth could you possibly get a jury to convict?

[Alyeska]

Thats why you don't freaking beat a suspect. You don't bloody know if they are guilty or not. That entire mob should be charged with assault.

While legally I agree with you as a practical matter how on Earth could you possibly get a jury to convict?

Maybe because he WAS NOT GUILTY OF ANY CRIME? Mistaken identity is not a defense when committing a crime against someone.

[FSTargetDrone]

You guys do realize that based on his injuries the police chief decided that the mob shouldn't be prosecuted and that their intent was to bring him to police.

And the police are, in my opinion, quite wrong to allow this to happen with no legal response despite the intentions of the mob. Remember, another mob (it's unclear if any of the same people were involved in both incidents) set upon another man they thought was involved in the rape. That man was later cleared by the police. That mob was wrong to attack that man. You can't have it both ways just because they thought they had the right man in the other instance.

Oh, and on further re-reading he was taken in on an outstanding warrant. He was breaking the fucking law every single second that he wasn't in custody. That brings it a little closer to justification in my mind. Was the level of force too high? Yes, it was. He should only have been subdued, but as I already said, their intent wasn't to beat him senseless. They conceded to police authority and went on as peaceful citizens.

This is pretty simple: The mob decided to dispense their own justice. The mob doesn't have the details of a given suspect's legal history at hand and even if by some stretch they knew all the facts of past crimes, it still doesn't make it right for them to apply street justice. The general public is not law enforcement. The general public is not a prosecutorial entity. The general public is not a judge.

Incidentally:

Posted on Tue, Jun. 9, 2009

Police: Carrasquillo to be charged in brutal rape of schoolgirl

By Robert Moran

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Police this afternoon announced a positive DNA match linking Jose Carrasquillo, 26, to the brutal rape of an 11-year-old Kensington girl last week.

At a news conference, police officials said the ex-con - who was arrested in Kensington last Tuesday after a mob pounced on him as he walked on the street - will be charged in the case.

The girl was attacked on the morning of June 1, shortly after she had dropped off her sister at a day-care center and began walking along the 3300 block of Kensington Avenue. The girl told police that her attacker had said he had a gun and forced her to walk to the 2000 block of East Westmoreland Street, where he attacked her behind a house.

The attack was so severe that the girl was hospitalized at St. Christopher's Hospital for Children and required surgery.

Earlier, police had said they had recovered evidence at the scene that linked Carrasquillo to the crime but were waiting for DNA results to proceed with the case.

Carrasquillo, who has a long record of drug convictions, was arrested shortly after police identified him as "a person of interest," and distributed his name and mug shot to residents in the Kensington area and the news media.

Like I said earlier, if he is found guilty, he can rot. I still, however, am not in favor of the public acting like a kangaroo court.

[Dark Flame]

Someone took a baseball bat to him. It's not as much of a stretch as you seem to think it is.

Yeah, they had a baseball bat. We still don't know the extent of his injuries. If he got a little bump, it's not lethal force. If his face was split open with the bat, it is. I think it's hasty to declare that it should be called attempted murder.

Their intent is worthless. Their actions are what I'm scrutinizing. If they were only concerned with an arrest, they would have held him there until police arrived. Instead, they took it upon themselves to kick his ass while they waited. In the case of the mistaken rapist: "They beat and kicked my son, while other people stood over him and said, 'That's what you get for raping little kids!'"

Their intent is not worthless. If the accused rapist had died, the mob's intent would dictate what punishment they would recieve. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to the current situation. Their actions were not right, and I've given up arguing that they're justifiable, but the beating isn't the only part of the story that matters.

And the police are, in my opinion, quite wrong to allow this to happen with no legal response despite the intentions of the mob. Remember, another mob (it's unclear if any of the same people were involved in both incidents) set upon another man they thought was involved in the rape. That man was later cleared by the police. That mob was wrong to attack that man. You can't have it both ways just because they thought they had the right man in the other instance.

Why not? In one case, they detained the right guy (and added in their own brand of justice, which wasn't right) and turned him over to the police. The other guy was not the right guy, and did not need to be brought to justice, either the mob's or the justice system's.

Personally, I think they should prosecute the members of the "wrong" mob as hard as they can. Since they're not prosecuting both mobs, at least they can send a message that says "Get the right guy or you're going down." That's a better message than "Beat up anybody you think is involved, whether they are or not."

This is pretty simple: The mob decided to dispense their own justice. The mob doesn't have the details of a given suspect's legal history at hand and even if by some stretch they knew all the facts of past crimes, it still doesn't make it right for them to apply street justice. The general public is not law enforcement. The general public is not a prosecutorial entity. The general public is not a judge.

Agreed. However, treating them like attempted murderers is far too harsh for the circumstances. They got carried away and took the law into their own hands out of emotion, that's not right. But the guy did need to be brought to (official, real) justice. The means they went about it weren't right, but the end result seems to be the correct one. I'm not going to say that the means justifies the end, because in this case it doesn't. However, I believe a little bit of leniency for the "right" mob wouldn't be the legal travesty that you see it as.

[Aeolus]

Thats why you don't freaking beat a suspect. You don't bloody know if they are guilty or not. That entire mob should be charged with assault.

While legally I agree with you as a practical matter how on Earth could you possibly get a jury to convict?

Maybe because he WAS NOT GUILTY OF ANY CRIME? Mistaken identity is not a defense when committing a crime against someone.

My point is no DA would charge the crowd because the Jury would not vote to convict. DA's being elected officials simply would not risk their careers on such case. Particularly with the history of the man who the crowd beat. I know that mob violence is wrong and very dangerous and it can easily turn into a full on lynching. However in some cases like the one this thread is about it becomes very difficult for the law to punish the mob.
Historically the way to deal with lynching which was most often racist crowds killing an african american man was to move the trial to a different location. In this case it's a child rapist, even if he didn't rape that particular child he has raped other children and the public knows this. Where do you move the trial? No matter where you move it the jury will not convict the members of the crowd who did the beating. If the DA goes to trial he loses both the trial and quite possibly the following election. What is the solution?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Someone took a baseball bat to him. It's not as much of a stretch as you seem to think it is.

Yeah, they had a baseball bat. We still don't know the extent of his injuries. If he got a little bump, it's not lethal force. If his face was split open with the bat, it is. I think it's hasty to declare that it should be called attempted murder.

Legally, this is what's known as escalation. If I were to "merely" batter you with my fists, it'd be simple battery. However, if I were to brandish a large blunt object, or any other weapon easily capable of doing lethal injury, I've taken the fight up to the level of "lethal force." If you had a gun, you'd be fully justified in shooting me with it in the act of self-defense; whereas the police would charge you with manslaughter, if not out-and-out second-degree murder, if you'd shot me while I was just brandishing my fists. It'd be the same if I'd waved a loaded gun at you and just pistol-whipped you with it. Just the fact that I brandished a lethal weapon would automatically upgrade the charges against me to from simple assault and battery, to aggravated assault. One is a misdemeanor, the other is a felony. Just because all you'd gotten was a 'bump,' doesn't automatically make it better.

The point is that the mob was not in any way, shape, or form, justified in using more force than was required to hold him for the police. And even then, they'd be on shaky legal ground because performing a citizens' arrest automatically causes you to tread a very fine legal line, and people who do so should be subject to intense scrutiny. They were not justified in escalating the conflict with the threat of deadly force, because they were not in immediate danger for their lives. Legally speaking, the only time you may respond to a situation with lethal force is when your life is in immediate danger.

[Alyeska]

My point is no DA would charge the crowd because the Jury would not vote to convict. DA's being elected officials simply would not risk their careers on such case. Particularly with the history of the man who the crowd beat. I know that mob violence is wrong and very dangerous and it can easily turn into a full on lynching. However in some cases like the one this thread is about it becomes very difficult for the law to punish the mob.
Historically the way to deal with lynching which was most often racist crowds killing an african american man was to move the trial to a different location. In this case it's a child rapist, even if he didn't rape that particular child he has raped other children and the public knows this. Where do you move the trial? No matter where you move it the jury will not convict the members of the crowd who did the beating. If the DA goes to trial he loses both the trial and quite possibly the following election. What is the solution?

If I were on that Jury I would convict those assholes in a heartbeat. Ignorance is not a F*cking defense. These people didn't know shit who this guy was and beat the fuck out of him to satisfy their need for revenge without concern for who he actually was.

[Dark Flame]

Legally, this is what's known as escalation. If I were to "merely" batter you with my fists, it'd be simple battery. However, if I were to brandish a large blunt object, or any other weapon easily capable of doing lethal injury, I've taken the fight up to the level of "lethal force." If you had a gun, you'd be fully justified in shooting me with it in the act of self-defense; whereas the police would charge you with manslaughter, if not out-and-out second-degree murder, if you'd shot me while I was just brandishing my fists. It'd be the same if I'd waved a loaded gun at you and just pistol-whipped you with it. Just the fact that I brandished a lethal weapon would automatically upgrade the charges against me to from simple assault and battery, to aggravated assault. One is a misdemeanor, the other is a felony. Just because all you'd gotten was a 'bump,' doesn't automatically make it better.

The point is that the mob was not in any way, shape, or form, justified in using more force than was required to hold him for the police. And even then, they'd be on shaky legal ground because performing a citizens' arrest automatically causes you to tread a very fine legal line, and people who do so should be subject to intense scrutiny. They were not justified in escalating the conflict with the threat of deadly force, because they were not in immediate danger for their lives. Legally speaking, the only time you may respond to a situation with lethal force is when your life is in immediate danger.

Very good point. This also makes a good case for aggravated assault and battery, but I still don't see it as attempted murder. I don't know the justice system very well, so I will concede if I'm wrong, but without there actually being intent to kill, it should not be ruled as an attempted murder.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Historically the way to deal with lynching which was most often racist crowds killing an african american man was to move the trial to a different location. In this case it's a child rapist, even if he didn't rape that particular child he has raped other children and the public knows this. Where do you move the trial? No matter where you move it the jury will not convict the members of the crowd who did the beating. If the DA goes to trial he loses both the trial and quite possibly the following election. What is the solution?

You're assuming that a judge would allow the jury to know that the guy is child rapist. Since his actual innocence or guilt isn't relevant to the charges, it would be pretty prejudicial to include it. Of course, trying to keep that information out as a practical matter would be a challenge, considering that the court would have to keep the defendants from blurting out anything about how "he deserved it, too" or the like. Plus, what they thought he had done is relevant---the jury might guess what the lack of any statement about his innocence means.

[Surlethe]

The jury would probably be explicitly told that they were not to consider whether the defendant is guilty of child rape. The rapist could probably also ask that the trial be moved to a different location, where the media exposure to the events wouldn't be so high.

[Stuart]

You're assuming that a judge would allow the jury to know that the guy is child rapist. Since his actual innocence or guilt isn't relevant to the charges, it would be pretty prejudicial to include it. Of course, trying to keep that information out as a practical matter would be a challenge, considering that the court would have to keep the defendants from blurting out anything about how "he deserved it, too" or the like. Plus, what they thought he had done is relevant---the jury might guess what the lack of any statement about his innocence means.

Any competent defense lawyer would make sure the jury knew.

Competent Defense Lawyer to client on stand: "Were your actions effected by your knowledge that the victim was a child-rapist with a warrant out for his arrest on yet another charge of sexual assault?"

Prosecution: "Objection!"

Judge: "Sustained"

CDL (griining broadly): "Question withdrawn."

[Alyeska]

Any competent defense lawyer would make sure the jury knew.

Competent Defense Lawyer to client on stand: "Were your actions effected by your knowledge that the victim was a child-rapist with a warrant out for his arrest on yet another charge of sexual assault?"

Prosecution: "Objection!"

Judge: "Sustained"

CDL (griining broadly): "Question withdrawn."

You watch too much TV. It doesn't necessarily work that way in a real court room.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Any competent defense lawyer would make sure the jury knew.

Competent Defense Lawyer to client on stand: "Were your actions effected by your knowledge that the victim was a child-rapist with a warrant out for his arrest on yet another charge of sexual assault?"

Prosecution: "Objection!"

Judge: "Sustained"

CDL (griining broadly): "Question withdrawn."

Any competent prosecutor would get a motion in limine (Wiki warning) ahead of time, getting a ruling that the issue must not be brought up in any way. Violating one of those could get the defense attorney in deep shit. In theory, anyway. I get the impression that the US legal system is somewhat lax in penalizing attorneys who cross the line in all sorts of cases.

A competent prosecutor would also be ready for a defense attorney to try something like that, and would object far earlier into the question.