[Bill Hicks]

So you have property and someone tries to break into it, so you make a citizens arrest.
You would expect the Police to be on you're side.............

Wouldn't you?

BBC NEWS | England | Kent | Man arrested for citizen's arrest

[Saldawop]

A couple of years ago I saw two kids(one wearing a tag) crash a stolen scooter into a car.One of the kids ran away.The other was injured but tried to run.The car owner chased him,and held on to him until the police arrived.Even though there was a witness(me) ,they seemed more interested in how the car owner had detained the boy.

[Geege]

Well we don't know the full facts. Why did he have a weapon with him? What happened when he confronted and detained the suspect? Why did he have a weapon? Did he use reasonable force in order to detain the suspect?

Det Insp Andy Pritchard said: "We've received quite a number of allegations from quite a large number of people stating there is a serious allegation here of assault and the carrying of a weapon."

[mij]

A citizens arrest is not as simple as many think it is, too many grey areas.

Sounded like kids being kids in an allotment and he wanted to batter them, an over reaction due to fear brought on by the daily media led hysteria we now live with.

A good whack with his spade would have been more than enough punishment for them & maybe force-feeding them some raw onions, but you do have to be careful with not going too far.

[eric pisch]

ahhh nulabores policy of protecting the criminals rights, he should have known better by now

and they wonder why there are armies of thugs roaming london, stealing, mugging, stabbing at will with no fear of any consequence

[Wild Weasel]

It's not the first time this has happened. The police are paranoid about the public doing their job for them. Usually they charge the person who made the citizen's arrest with wrongful imprisonment and let the real criminal off with a pathetic police warning.

[Codehead]

Minimum/Reasonable force is the key phrase here. Self defence does not extend to detaining someone.
That said, if the brown adrenaline is flowing, it's hard not to get carried away.

The problem is, chasing someone off repeatedly and staying within the law like good citizen is tiresome. At some point, you're going to try to put a stop to the problem if the authorities can't deal with it. I suspect that's what's happened here. Why else would the guy need a weapon in an alotment? Really big snails?

[Saldawop]

What is a weapon? Almost anything.Perhaps he had a trowel in his hand,or a shovel,or a broom. Something that one might be expected to be carrying on an allotment.

[andrew markwort]

This is one of the grey areas of the law where it can seem ridiculous. If someone is clearly committing a crime on your property, why should you be held accountable? The most extreme example I can think of is someone who was breaking into a factory who fell through the roof and successfully sued the factory owners for having an unsafe roof.

However, the issue comes down to what is reasonable behaviour if the person detained or hurt is innocent. Suppose in the roof example, someone had been up there for an innocent reason (e.g. they were a contracted workman, a dad had gone on the roof to retrieve their kid's kite, that sort of thing). In those circumstances, it would be right that the owners were sued. Again, suppose that some have a go hero detained you because you were innocently passing the scene of the crime and you looked suspicious. How would you feel about being physically restrained, threatened with being hit, etc? You would (rightly) have grounds for suing the person.

I know that it makes the blood boil when police appear to be bovine over this, but the point of the law is that it must unambiguously protect the innocent. If this means the guilty get away with things on occasion, then that is the price to be paid. The alternative is far worse. How would you like it if vigilante groups started patrolling the neighbourhoods assuming police powers when they saw anyone they thought was suspicious?

Having said all of this, I've tried being a good citizen on a couple of occasions and the police have treated me like a time-wasting moron. For example, I once found £200 in notes tied up with a rubber band in the street. I handed it in to the police station and they treated me like I was a gullible idiot ('oh well, I'd better do the paperwork' was the response I got; actually, I got to keep the money in the end because no one claimed it, but that's besides the point ). Or on another occasion I saw a group of chav teens, none above the age of about 15, driving a brand new Rover pretty erratically along a road, pulling over onto the verge so they could swap drivers. I phoned the police and got the question - 'why do you think they could have stolen the car?'.

[Codehead]

Originally Posted by Saldawop

What is a weapon? Almost anything.Perhaps he had a trowel in his hand,or a shovel,or a broom. Something that one might be expected to be carrying on an allotment.

Indeed, the peasants of feudal Japan were pretty handy with agricultural tools.

[benjohnson]

Yup, you can kill someone with a pencil...

As we are not in possesion of all the facts, then it is irrelevant to comment, but 'reasonable force' differs from person to person - self defence is an admissable plea if you were in fear of imminent harm to yourself or others, but as he was chasing them away apparently with a weapon, I doubt that'd wash

[FZR400RRSP]

Originally Posted by Saldawop

What is a weapon?

I would take a stab (sic), that the the legal definition of a weapon is 'something that it is reasonable to assume may be being carried with the intention of causing harm'
One would assume someone carrying a knife may be doing so to cause harm.
One would not assume someone carrying a pencil may intend to do harm.
So one is classed as a potential weapon, one isn't.

I would guess location comes into the equation as well.
For example, I may face a 'weapon' charge if I'm carrying a Stanley knife down a high street at 11pm at night.
I probably won't face a 'weapon' charge if I've just purchased a stanley knife in B+Q and I'm walking to my car with it.

[Geege]

I don't think there was any issue with the citizen's power of arrest, from what I've read in the article this was fine, I think the question is what amount of force did he use in order to detain the suspect. Was this reasonable? and proportionate to the circumstances?

[Kebabhead]

Whilst watching an episode of Road Wars last week, the Police were called to a citiznes arrest for attempted burglary

The supsect had been detained by three men one of who was weilding a baseball bat

The Police arrested the supsect who whilst being driven back to the station claimed he had been assaulted and why the police had arrested the men. Being black he then proceeded to play the race card

Nothing came of the incident, none of the men were questioned and the suspect was let off with a caution

I think consisitency or lack of between police forces is the problem

[benjohnson]

Originally Posted by Geege

I don't think there was any issue with the citizen's power of arrest, from what I've read in the article this was fine, I think the question is what amount of force did he use in order to detain the suspect. Was this reasonable? and proportionate to the circumstances?

That's the rub - 'reasonable' is a very subjective term, some people would relish the oppourtunity to measure out some of their own 'justice'...

Also these youths were 'attempting' to break into the sheds, meaning they hadn't actually done anything criminal at that point, so the arrest could well have been unlawful

[Wild Weasel]

You can be arrested for 'going equiped', they don't need to catch someone red handed half way through a window.

[loz]

It should be very simple.

If you are on my property without an invitation, then
1. you have committed an offence. Pure and simple
2. by entering my property, you are the instigator of any subsequent action by me. Not me, the property owner who was happily minding his own business.
3. consequently, you should have no rights to complain about my actions.
4. If you don't want to suffer those actions, then don't enter my property without an invitation. Simple.

Sorry, but criminals who enter a property without an invitation have already made a concious decision to forfit their rights. So why are they protected, and the victim isn't?

[Steven]

That article contains absolutely zero information. Paul Dacre would not even think to use this thread title as a headline

[Codehead]

Originally Posted by loz

It should be very simple.

If you are on my property without an invitation, then
1. you have committed an offence. Pure and simple
2. by entering my property, you are the instigator of any subsequent action by me. Not me, the property owner who was happily minding his own business.
3. consequently, you should have no rights to complain about my actions.
4. If you don't want to suffer those actions, then don't enter my property without an invitation. Simple.

Sorry, but criminals who enter a property without an invitation have already made a concious decision to forfit their rights. So why are they protected, and the victim isn't?

Problem there is you could drag someone into your house and kick seven shades of snot out of them and claim they broke in.

[andrew markwort]

It should be very simple.

If you are on my property without an invitation, then
1. you have committed an offence. Pure and simple
2. by entering my property, you are the instigator of any subsequent action by me. Not me, the property owner who was happily minding his own business.
3. consequently, you should have no rights to complain about my actions.
4. If you don't want to suffer those actions, then don't enter my property without an invitation. Simple.

Sorry, but criminals who enter a property without an invitation have already made a concious decision to forfit their rights. So why are they protected, and the victim isn't?

Read my earlier post - the point is to protect the innocent victim of vigilante action. This leads to bizarre and at times morally unfair anomalies, but the alternative is ultimately far worse. To give one example, if your final argument is right, then you should have no objection to toffs having mantraps set in their grounds of their stately homes, and if beside poachers the occasional innocent rambler got maimed for life, or killed, this would be okay, would it? The law was changed in the last century PRECISELY because of the mantrap-type problem.

And I'm afraid the rest of your argument is totally specious. The laws on trespass as far more complex than you've implied.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by Codehead

Problem there is you could drag someone into your house and kick seven shades of snot out of them and claim they broke in.

Nonsense. If loz wants to rationalise that "criminals" are fair game to whatsoever action he so chooses then who is to say otherwise. I only hope no children play football on the street outside

[benjohnson]

Originally Posted by loz

So why are they protected, and the victim isn't?

depends what action the 'victim' takes..
Everyone has rights, if we declare martial law when one is on another's property, as loz suggests then it leads to some very unsavoury scenarios-basically a licence to maim - it'd be 3 kids scrumping on an orchard hospitalised, that sort of thing
(Just playing devil's advocate btw)

But it is non-news, designed to get a reaction exactly like loz's - as it says in the article, there were allegations from the detainees, and the police had to follow these up-they cannot just accept one person's word when they arrive somewhere, they have to ascertain the truth through witnesses etc - just doing their job.

Imagine this one - someone breaks onto your allotment, you call the police and apprehend them, but they overpower you and sit on you till the police arrive, when they do, they claim they are you and you are the one which was breaking in - by the logic above, the police would arrest you without question, and thank the criminal, sending him on his merry way..

[Geege]

Originally Posted by benjohnson

That's the rub - 'reasonable' is a very subjective term, some people would relish the oppourtunity to measure out some of their own 'justice'...

Also these youths were 'attempting' to break into the sheds, meaning they hadn't actually done anything criminal at that point, so the arrest could well have been unlawful

Attempt burglary is an offence.

[benjohnson]

Ah fair dues, forgot about that

[mrmcdean]

Originally Posted by andrew markwort

Read my earlier post - the point is to protect the innocent victim of vigilante action. This leads to bizarre and at times morally unfair anomalies, but the alternative is ultimately far worse. To give one example, if your final argument is right, then you should have no objection to toffs having mantraps set in their grounds of their stately homes, and if beside poachers the occasional innocent rambler got maimed for life, or killed, this would be okay, would it? The law was changed in the last century PRECISELY because of the mantrap-type problem.

And I'm afraid the rest of your argument is totally specious. The laws on trespass as far more complex than you've implied.

Not that I completely agree with Loz and I appreicaite its only an example you provide but I think its going to be a lot easier to argue your innocence if found somewhere on a country estate of many acres than it is when found in someones 10m x 10m back garden at 11 o'clock at night, let alone in their lounge with a stereo under your arm. Granted there are a number of reasons anyone could be found outside someones property but once they enter (let alone break into) a property that is not theirs and they have no right to be there then surely a line has been crossed.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Codehead

Problem there is you could drag someone into your house and kick seven shades of snot out of them and claim they broke in.

Originally Posted by andrew markwort

Read my earlier post - the point is to protect the innocent victim of vigilante action. This leads to bizarre and at times morally unfair anomalies, but the alternative is ultimately far worse. To give one example, if your final argument is right, then you should have no objection to toffs having mantraps set in their grounds of their stately homes, and if beside poachers the occasional innocent rambler got maimed for life, or killed, this would be okay, would it? The law was changed in the last century PRECISELY because of the mantrap-type problem.

And I'm afraid the rest of your argument is totally specious. The laws on trespass as far more complex than you've implied.

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

Nonsense. If loz wants to rationalise that "criminals" are fair game to whatsoever action he so chooses then who is to say otherwise. I only hope no children play football on the street outside

I didn't say that the action had to involve immediate acts of physical violence.

I was just pointing that my actions, and my rights, must take precedent over theirs once they had forgiven their rights by committing a criminal act.

The action clearly should be fair and in context, and commensurare with the 'crime'.

I wouldn't want to see children hospitalised for retrieving their football out of my garden either.
But I might for example, want to see their parents accept they must pay the cost of replacing the flowers they damaged in the process when they ran all over the flowerbeds...

But if I find you in a bedroom molesting one of my children, I am not going to meakly return to my bedroom, phone the police, and await their arrival.

Equally, I understand there will still be the burden of proof.
I must be able to prove you entered my property illegally, and were commiting some act that led to my actions.
So no, I can't just drag people in off the street and beat them up, as presumably there would be some proof that this is what happened.

[bosque]

Originally Posted by andrew markwort

The laws on trespass as far more complex than you've implied.

And that's why there could be a situation such as the cat burglar sitting on the Queen's bed with her Maj staring up at him while wondering whether a crime had been committed.

[Geege]

We are not in possession of all the facts of the case so it would be difficult to make a judgement on whether the citizen's arrest was lawful or not and why the police arrested him. It would be unfair to automatically assume the police were taking sides and not on the side of the law abiding citizen.

Essentially, citizen's powers of arrest were amended by the introduction of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

A citizen can arrest without warrant:

• Anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence
• Anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence

If an indictable offence has been committed, a citizen may arrest without warrant:

• Anyone who is guilty of the offence
• Anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

The power of arrest is only exercisable if

• he has reasonable grounds for believing it is necessary to arrest the person and
• it appears to the citizen making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it.

What makes it necessary?
To prevent the person:

• Causing physical harm to himself or any other person
• Suffering physical injury
• To prevent loss of or damage to property
• Making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him

[Wild Weasel]

The police can't even look after their own property.

Gypsies trash £5million police helicopter

A group of gipsies wrecked a £5million police helicopter to stop officers keeping them under surveillance.

By Ben Leach

The gang used axes to smash five windows - causing thousands of pounds worth of damage to the only police helicopter in the county.

The vandalism followed weeks of aerial surveillance on a travellers' site where stolen cars and goods are believed to be being kept.

Gypsies trash £5million police helicopter - Telegraph