• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Burglar sues men who captured him, claims rough citizens arrest

It doesn't matter to me if the guy suing is a convict or not... we should always be vigilant that our authorities are not overstepping or abusing their powers. I am shocked to see people here saying that convicts should have no right to raise complaints or take officers to court. Just what kind of dictatorship do you want us to live in? I find such claims laughable.... just like how cops in various districts are now considering video cameras to be "weapons". If you have nothing to hide and you're just doing your job, then a camera won't make a difference.

If there are abuses and there is evidence, it should be brought up.

LOL.

We get it, you hate the police.

But this thread isn't about the police.........................
 
LOL.

We get it, you hate the police.

But this thread isn't about the police.........................

We get it, you don't know how to read.
 
As far as a civil trial.... most juries wouldn't reward a crook jack ****.
Especially since when they caught up to him he was butt ass naked and still had cocaine on him.
 
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.

But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.

I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
There's a lot we don't know, such as how badly the plaintiff was injured.

I think it really depends. Sure, you can't have them gang up on the dude and beat the ever living crap out of him. But if he's running and they tackle him, say, that's fine. I don't think it's something we can completely dismiss by saying "the guy is a criminal"; there is a line which can be crossed. At the same accord, it shouldn't be expected that there would be no physical violence especially if the guy is trying to get away. People have the right to protect their property as well. So if they tackle him and hold him down, if he fights back and takes a couple swings; that's gonna happen. You can't curb stomp the guy, but there's going to be some level of physical altercation just given the nature of the system.
 
We get it, you don't know how to read.

OMFG are you serious?

Your accusing me of not knowing how to read when you jump into a thread about citizens and start accusing the cops of abuse and then follow it up by going COMPLETELY off topic about the video camera stupidity in your attempt to deamonize the police furthur.....

Yet you accuse ME of not being able to read? Out-****ing-standing! I am totally blown away!
 
You keep throwing up the statutes.
There is one problem with this.
Who decides when to prosecute a case? Why the district attorney's office of course.
Most district attorney's also won't prosecute because they don't want to discourage people from defending themselves.

It would have to be an extreme case, not a case of a guy sitting on an escaping felon and the felon having some broken ribs in the process.

As far as a civil trial.... most juries wouldn't reward a crook jack ****.

Yeah, well, statutes are the law. That's why I keep "throwing up the statutes." You have already decided this man's claims are baseless because he's in jail. And because you read some one-paragraph story about the incident. Fortunately, the courts don't work that way. They actually allow claimants to produce evidence. You've seen not one shred.

As I said before, unless the case is summarily thrown out, the guy being sued is going to lose one way or another, because it's going to cost him a small fortune to defend himself.
 
@ Orion -- Re juries? You might be interested to read this:

A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn’t violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed that he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.
The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn’t liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.
Re D.A.'s? You might be interested in this:

It’s one of the cases that gets ordinary people all riled up. A chronic criminal, Anthony Bennett, who some say stole from Chinatown stores for years finally got caught. A hard-working store owner, Mr. Chen, aided by two associates, witnessed a theft, confronted the culprit an hour later and then caught him, tied his hands, put him in a truck and called the police. And what do the cops end up doing? They charge Mr. Chen with assault, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, and carrying concealed weapons. The last charge is for having a box cutter.
But the cops had a lawful reason to arrest Mr. Chen. If citizens see crime in progress on their property, they can catch criminals. But Mr. Chen went after Mr. Bennett an hour after the theft. Mr. Chen and his two associates chased Mr. Bennett.
In the United States, people making citizen arrests are subject to "strict liability" -- a legal doctrine in which someone is held personally responsible for the damages caused by their actions, regardless of their intentions or personal fault. Read more: What are Citizen's Arrest Requirements? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6319479_citizen_s-arrest-requirements_.html#ixzz0vURQkUrI

Making a citizen's arrest is not for sissies.
 
Last edited:
Well, honestly; it was a non-violent crime, and I don't think it's the place of random citizens to beat and injure him.
He had not been proven guilty in a court of law.
If he was resisting arrest and the police had to rough him up in order to take him down, that's one thing. They are within their rights to do so, I suppose. Whatever it takes to subdue him.

But I think it sets a bad precedent for the legal system to condone citizens beating other citizens with impunity, simply because they perceive them to be in the act of committing a property crime.

I feel the judge probably will not rule in favor of this plaintiff, but I think he/she should, if only to discourage citizens from this sort of vigilantism in the future.
There's a lot we don't know, such as how badly the plaintiff was injured.

Damn lucky he was not within my neck of the woods, his ass would be full of holes and at that he would be fortunate, myself, i would have shot the bast*rd.
 
Of course it wasn't a victimless crime.
It was a non-violent property crime.
I see no reason for random citizens to respond to non-violent crimes with violence, if that is in fact what they did.
I see no reason for the police to respond to non-violent crimes with violence, either, although I understand it is necessary for them to use whatever force is necessary to take the suspect into custody.

So what you going to do, sit him down with a cup of coffee and ask him to wait for the Police?
 
So what you going to do, sit him down with a cup of coffee and ask him to wait for the Police?

Ya see this is why I always keep a couple of rocks of crack in my house. Sit him down and let 'em smoke till the cops show....:mrgreen:
 
Ya see this is why I always keep a couple of rocks of crack in my house. Sit him down and let 'em smoke till the cops show....:mrgreen:

Ever heard of crack-head strength and crack-head speed?
 
Ya see this is why I always keep a couple of rocks of crack in my house. Sit him down and let 'em smoke till the cops show....:mrgreen:

Until you get busted for possession of crack cocaine. And then the government can take all your **** too.
 
Until you get busted for possession of crack cocaine. And then the government can take all your **** too.

Gawd damn thieves:mrgreen:
 
I doubt that will happen, and it wouldn't surprise me if he won.

Should be OK...it is florida. if it had been California the three would be so totally ****ed right now.
 
To me this case should be thrown out and the criminal have time added for filing such a lame case. About a year ago a friend and myself assisted a Wal-Mart employee detain a shoplifter who had left the store with the stolen items. The shoplifter was getting the best of the employee and the employee was shouting for help. The thief most likely would have gotten away if no one helped. We assisted in detaining the individual till the police arrived. IMO, it was the correct thing to do as well as it was the right thing for others to help detain the thief in the original post. For those that think on LE should get involved in detaining suspects, what happened to neighbor helping neighbor in this country?
 
The thief most likely would have gotten away if no one helped. We assisted in detaining the individual till the police arrived. IMO, it was the correct thing to do as well as it was the right thing for others to help detain the thief in the original post. For those that think on LE should get involved in detaining suspects, what happened to neighbor helping neighbor in this country?

Of course the issue is not the detaining in the first place, but the alleged amount of force used.

And jailed extra for excersising his rights to file what he views as greivances? I don't care about whether or not the claims are frivolous, but this is some scary thinking.
 
1. This is obviously a ridiculous case that will be thrown out. Prisoners do this kind of thing all the time, since they've got nothing to lose and nothing else to do while they're sitting there. 99.99% of all these cases die because they're frivolous. They grab the public attention though because of the fact that they are outrageous and then people do like the OP did and start blaming lawyers even though no lawyer is involved.

2. That doesn't mean that overwhelming force is allowable when you stop a thief. While the facts in this case do not seem to be outrageous (especially since the guy is asking for "mental damage" awards -- aw, the poor thief), it is not hard to imagine a situation where someone uses too much force. You have the right to use it to apprehend someone; you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.

3. The idea that there should be an extra punishment for exercising his Constitutional rights is well, frankly unAmerican.
 
You have the right to use it to apprehend someone; you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.

Frankly, you beat the **** outta them before the cuffs are on. Once the cuffs are on, you back off
 
Frankly, you beat the **** outta them before the cuffs are on. Once the cuffs are on, you back off

No, that's what they do in countries where people don't have rights. Maybe you might want to move there?
 
No, that's what they do in countries where people don't have rights. Maybe you might want to move there?

Best defense is a good offense. Once, the perp tries to hurt you, attack balls to the wall and don't stop until he's in bracelets or unconscious. Preferably both.
 
1. This is obviously a ridiculous case that will be thrown out. Prisoners do this kind of thing all the time, since they've got nothing to lose and nothing else to do while they're sitting there. 99.99% of all these cases die because they're frivolous. They grab the public attention though because of the fact that they are outrageous and then people do like the OP did and start blaming lawyers even though no lawyer is involved.

2. That doesn't mean that overwhelming force is allowable when you stop a thief. While the facts in this case do not seem to be outrageous (especially since the guy is asking for "mental damage" awards -- aw, the poor thief), it is not hard to imagine a situation where someone uses too much force. You have the right to use it to apprehend someone; you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.

3. The idea that there should be an extra punishment for exercising his Constitutional rights is well, frankly unAmerican.

I agee with 1 and 2. Yes, maybe I went over board saying tack on some extra time for filing a suit. The point I have is while you have a right to sue, there are some cases that are a waiste of time and money. Seems like for this case we are the United States of Litigation.:lol:
 
2. you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.

Frankly, some criminals must have the crap beat out of them before they are subdued. Have you ever worked the streets as a cop or paramedic? I'm guessing no.
 
1. This is obviously a ridiculous case that will be thrown out. Prisoners do this kind of thing all the time, since they've got nothing to lose and nothing else to do while they're sitting there. 99.99% of all these cases die because they're frivolous. They grab the public attention though because of the fact that they are outrageous and then people do like the OP did and start blaming lawyers even though no lawyer is involved.

2. That doesn't mean that overwhelming force is allowable when you stop a thief. While the facts in this case do not seem to be outrageous (especially since the guy is asking for "mental damage" awards -- aw, the poor thief), it is not hard to imagine a situation where someone uses too much force. You have the right to use it to apprehend someone; you don't have the right to beat the crap out of them once they are subdued.

3. The idea that there should be an extra punishment for exercising his Constitutional rights is well, frankly unAmerican.

Perhaps not, but we do have the right to beat the crap out of them before they're subdued. I think in a situation like that, "subdued", can be all about perspective.

My perspective would be that he's not subdued until I've beat him so bad that he can't get up anymore; at which point--of course--I'll stop beating the crap out of him.
 
OMFG are you serious?

Your accusing me of not knowing how to read when you jump into a thread about citizens and start accusing the cops of abuse and then follow it up by going COMPLETELY off topic about the video camera stupidity in your attempt to deamonize the police furthur.....

Yet you accuse ME of not being able to read? Out-****ing-standing! I am totally blown away!

I didn't accuse the cops of anything. I said if they are doing no wrong, they should have nothing to hide and there should be no fear of a court case. How can you not see the clear distinction between one and the other? Stop foaming at the mouth and take the time to read what people say before you go off on them.

Saying that convicts should have no right to have court cases about police brutally is equally as extreme as saying police are always abusing their authority and never doing their jobs. The rights of the individual are paramount, and if the people who arrested the guy in this case did so within the proper letter of the law then they have nothing to worry about.

Now stop having a heart attack over something I never even said, and calm the **** down please.
 
They grab the public attention though because of the fact that they are outrageous and then people do like the OP did and start blaming lawyers even though no lawyer is involved.

Regardless of whether or not he has a lawyer or he is representing himself(the article didn't say which) it is still the fault of greedy ambulance chasers what these bull **** lawsuits happen. Its because of them why people think that just because some retard ignored common sense by knowingly put a cup of hot liquid in between her legs and burned herself as a result of her own stupidity that that they have a chance with their fraudulent lawsuits. This is why a jar a of peanut butter has warning this contains peanuts" or why something with a razor blade might have the warning "caution sharp".
 
Back
Top Bottom