Your rights don't "kick in" as if they are activated. They are always active unless you surrender them, or you're convicted of a crime that then takes rights away.
Here is my opinion as an owner of a weapon and a handgun permit holder in Tennessee. As a Veteran, I placed rounds down range, and people died. I live with that every day. Although I am a legally carrying citizen, I would never pull my weapon unless it was a last resort. Veterans may understand that we live with that all our lives knowing we took a life under orders or protecting our fellow servicemen.
If he’s running away I have no interest in seizing, stopping, or apprehending someone, BUT it takes him less than a second to turn and start shooting or shoot even while still running away. It seems we should start putting a lot of emphasis on IMMEDIATELY moving to cover even if the situation “seems” to be resolved. Saw this in last few days with your video on the retired police captain at the gas station.
Sometime very soon next time there’s attorney interviews, there should be a video with both Terry Johnson and Mark Victor in the same video both giving their input with the questions that John asks.
I love the information but John your audio quality needs help. Your mic specifically or lack there of was a distraction. It's the little things that can make the biggest difference.
Your thoughts on the unconstitutional terry v ohio John. In the case brief they say a seizure is a common law arrest not a restriction of your freedom to move/detain you.
An off duty firefighter in Chicago was shot and killed by attempted carjackers while they were running from his gunfire. He was very quick noticing the intent of the car stopping in front of him and even beat them to the draw, but he left cover. I generally use the logic that until they're out of my immediate area and line of fire, turning their back just makes them a worse shot, not less than a deadly threat.
Just be careful with that. I think in the immediate scene of a deadly threat that logic likely holds, but the jury will still require you to be reasonable, and at some point that threat ends. I think WHERE is a matter of some interpretation.
I don't like the distinction between private citizen and government. People working for the government should be under the same constraints as everyone else. The point of the person showing themselves to be a threat to the community should stand whether you are police or not. I get that for private citizens proving that it's reasonable will be much harder, and for later court cases you might not want to shoot at someone fleeing. It's the principal of the thing that bothers me.
So, John et al, if an armed bad guy is running away, how do I know he is not just seeking a better position from which continue the attack? Could that be an argument in defense for the private citizen?
"if an armed bad guy is running away, how do I know he is not just seeking a better position from which continue the attack? Could that be an argument in defense for the private citizen?" Sounds like you just want a reason to shoot someone. Remember only shoot in "MUST" scenarios, avoid "Should" or "Could" situations.
If someone is armed after just assaulting you, you do not need to conclude he won’t come back at you. The standard will always be what a jury finds to be “reasonable.” If it was reasonable that he is running to get a better position from which to shoot you, and a jury sees it as reasonable, then you’re fine. But the problem is that you don’t know what a jury will find to be reasonable until you ask them. For instance if he ran away but came back again, and now he’s running away again, I would surmise a jury will find it reasonable to shoot him even if he is running “away.” If someone is in your house trying to take your TV, you should have every reason to believe he is armed or might otherwise shoot you.
No. Their coverage continues if a plea bargain is in your best interest. There are limits, but their coverage does not prohibit that if it’s in your interest.
@@Asidebar And then the civil suit begins... Which is why i asked. Most programs won't cover you foe that after you've taken a plea in your criminal case. This one does. That's important.
The law is wrong, if it says an honest citizen is not allowed to stop a violent criminal, who has committed a crime. The moral obligation to protect your neighbors, should be legal as well. The problem with the law, is it is frequently amoral or even at times immoral.
The reason there's a disconnect between the morally just action of stopping a criminal and what the law permits is because the misuse of deadly force isn't a thing you can just undo. We don't want untrained and uninformed citizens using deadly force in any kind of morally gray area, especially when the consequences of being wrong are permanent.
@@elendarulianreo I don’t believe someone using a gun in a crime, can be considered a “morally grey area”. It’s pretty clear cut that they have the intention of doing harm.
I think it is also worth mentioning that Tennessee v Garner did not give any special rights or abilities to the police - instead it restricted their powers more than before. So it really is a bit misleading to say "Tennessee v Garners says I can do X" when really that case REDUCED the scope of X.
This point of contention came up in another discussion/ comment following a previous ASP video involving 3 separate armed robberies in which no one was injured. John posed the question [ paraphrasing ] does any viewer see an opportunity for counter ambush. There were some " Clarence Darrow " types that believed that one of the robbers should have been shot in the back as he was leaving the scene of a store robbery. Mind you, the robber was armed, had not injured anyone in the course of the robbery, and was walking away from the scene. I disagreed with that, stating that the robber no longer poses a threat to the store clerk. The counter argument was something to the effect " What if " the suspect decides to turn and open fire? To which I replied, he didn't. Glad to get some real world expert advice in regard to this matter, and I'll be looking for the armchair experts to " make their case ".
Citizen's Arrest Law and Legal Definition A citizen is allowed to make an arrest in certain instances, as determined by state laws, which vary by state. Making a citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It is a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score. Because a person making a citizen’s arrest may be subjected to charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest, especially if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated, the following guidelines are suggested by law enforcement officials: Notify police upon observing a crime. Provide police with information to assist in identifying the violator. Sign the complaint form. (After this, most cases are concluded without your further involvement.) Appear in court when requested by the District Attorney's Office.
I think Graham v Connor and the private citizen would be a good discussion. My apologies if you already did that one. As you stated, it technically only applies to police officers on duty, but I think it's a good goal for the private armed citizen: would another person in same or similar situation reasonably make the same decision.
@@ASPextra Seriously, pull your head out. You stated police are there to protect the community and those are just two of the cases that prove that police have ZERO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC…
I agree however I don't care. Very simple. I would never shoot a criminal fleeing IF they haven't physically harmed anyone. However if the criminal has already shown the willingness to fatally or grievously injure another person then I would shoot them fleeing. Does this mean I'm legally right? NOPE. I just don't care. If I had the opportunity to stop a known violent criminal and I let him go then he went on to harm or kill someone else in his escape attempt I dont know how I'd live with myself. Would I go to prison...probably. Do I know the risk...yes. Do I care...no
So on one hand, the law says you can shoot someone breaking and entering (armed self-defense is broadly ref to as the Castle Doctrine)... On the other hand, if you catch them After they broke their way in, then "saw them with your tv", you can't shoot rofl? no thanks. Good luck with that plan
@@4corander What is so confusing? You only shoot people who you reasonably fear present an immediate danger to you (death or great bodily harm). The assumption in your home is that they are there to do you harm. However, is a guy holding your TV with both hands an immediate threat to you? You make the call but be ready to legally/morally defend/articulate your reasons.
@@papimaximus95 Yep, understood. Basically what I was saying is if I discover someone in my house without permission... I feel I'm prepared to rationalize I was in fear and the only tool I had was a carbine
@@victorygarden556 It was a her and I was not only congratulated by the cops but the state’s attorney told her defense lawyer that I was going to be a better witness than many cops if I went on the stand. I never got called back so I imagine they either cut a deal or dropped the charges. Thank God it was a crazy woman and not a crazy man. She was driving and forcing cars off the road then blowing traffic lights at a high rate of speed. I caught up with her in traffic at another light. I opened her door, reached in and took her keys. I would not have been able to live with myself if i did nothing and she killed some innocents. She knew I had been chasing her and she acknowledged it. She had her blouse unbuttoned to her navel. Very weird. Hope I never get put in such a position ever again.
@@your_royal_highness oh yeah absolutely, that’s not just drunk driving. More like reckless operation, maybe aggravated attempted assault, fleeing scene etc. And stealing keys is legally less a deal than holding someone somewhere
@@victorygarden556 that is what i meant by a “quasi” citizens arrest. She weren’t goin nowhere without the keys. This was way before cell phones and I told my gal to get over to a cop who had made a traffic stop nearby. It was a stressful few minutes and when I made the decision to hop out of my car i had already determined the gender of the driver.
Your rights don't "kick in" as if they are activated. They are always active unless you surrender them, or you're convicted of a crime that then takes rights away.
I wish more people watched these videos. They are extremely important
I think this is the first time that I didn't hear Terry say, "It depends." That, in and of itself speaks volumes about this subject.
Haha that right there is a fact!!!
Citizen's Arrest would be a good topic. Apologies if you already have covered this.
Here is my opinion as an owner of a weapon and a handgun permit holder in Tennessee. As a Veteran, I placed rounds down range, and people died. I live with that every day. Although I am a legally carrying citizen, I would never pull my weapon unless it was a last resort. Veterans may understand that we live with that all our lives knowing we took a life under orders or protecting our fellow servicemen.
If he’s running away I have no interest in seizing, stopping, or apprehending someone, BUT it takes him less than a second to turn and start shooting or shoot even while still running away. It seems we should start putting a lot of emphasis on IMMEDIATELY moving to cover even if the situation “seems” to be resolved. Saw this in last few days with your video on the retired police captain at the gas station.
TN v Garner was one of the first cases we studied in the police academy.
Great topic thanks for covering it
I hear ya, gentlemen. Thanks for the lesson 🙂
Thanks for getting right to, & staying on point. Good onya, gents.
You should make ASP underwear and call them Johns Breifs.
I love you guys.....AS ALWAYS YOU AND YOUR TEAM OF PEOPLE ARE IMPRESSIVE. AND THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR TIME AND EFFORT!!!!!!!
Our pleasure!
Sometime very soon next time there’s attorney interviews, there should be a video with both Terry Johnson and Mark Victor in the same video both giving their input with the questions that John asks.
Bizarrely the city of Chicago does not want cops to chase suspects even when the are displaying a gun!!
And allows gang members to light each other up without fear of prosecution as long as they are "mutual combatants." Lol
I love the information but John your audio quality needs help. Your mic specifically or lack there of was a distraction. It's the little things that can make the biggest difference.
PLEASE bring up the Ahmad Arbury case in the citizens arrest episode.
Those guys are going to be convicted of murder, I am fairly sure.
@@ASPextra Completely agree, but a perfect example of why a “citizen’s arrest” is never a good idea.
Your thoughts on the unconstitutional terry v ohio John. In the case brief they say a seizure is a common law arrest not a restriction of your freedom to move/detain you.
An off duty firefighter in Chicago was shot and killed by attempted carjackers while they were running from his gunfire. He was very quick noticing the intent of the car stopping in front of him and even beat them to the draw, but he left cover. I generally use the logic that until they're out of my immediate area and line of fire, turning their back just makes them a worse shot, not less than a deadly threat.
Just be careful with that. I think in the immediate scene of a deadly threat that logic likely holds, but the jury will still require you to be reasonable, and at some point that threat ends. I think WHERE is a matter of some interpretation.
I don't like the distinction between private citizen and government. People working for the government should be under the same constraints as everyone else.
The point of the person showing themselves to be a threat to the community should stand whether you are police or not.
I get that for private citizens proving that it's reasonable will be much harder, and for later court cases you might not want to shoot at someone fleeing. It's the principal of the thing that bothers me.
So, John et al, if an armed bad guy is running away, how do I know he is not just seeking a better position from which continue the attack? Could that be an argument in defense for the private citizen?
"if an armed bad guy is running away, how do I know he is not just seeking a better position from which continue the attack? Could that be an argument in defense for the private citizen?"
Sounds like you just want a reason to shoot someone. Remember only shoot in "MUST" scenarios, avoid "Should" or "Could" situations.
If someone is armed after just assaulting you, you do not need to conclude he won’t come back at you.
The standard will always be what a jury finds to be “reasonable.” If it was reasonable that he is running to get a better position from which to shoot you, and a jury sees it as reasonable, then you’re fine. But the problem is that you don’t know what a jury will find to be reasonable until you ask them. For instance if he ran away but came back again, and now he’s running away again, I would surmise a jury will find it reasonable to shoot him even if he is running “away.”
If someone is in your house trying to take your TV, you should have every reason to believe he is armed or might otherwise shoot you.
Does Firearms Legal Protection's coverage cease if you accept a plea bargain?
No. Their coverage continues if a plea bargain is in your best interest. There are limits, but their coverage does not prohibit that if it’s in your interest.
@@Asidebar What's over?
@@ASPextraThat's very important. Thank you.
@@Asidebar And then the civil suit begins... Which is why i asked. Most programs won't cover you foe that after you've taken a plea in your criminal case. This one does. That's important.
The law is wrong, if it says an honest citizen is not allowed to stop a violent criminal, who has committed a crime. The moral obligation to protect your neighbors, should be legal as well. The problem with the law, is it is frequently amoral or even at times immoral.
The reason there's a disconnect between the morally just action of stopping a criminal and what the law permits is because the misuse of deadly force isn't a thing you can just undo. We don't want untrained and uninformed citizens using deadly force in any kind of morally gray area, especially when the consequences of being wrong are permanent.
@@elendarulianreo I don’t believe someone using a gun in a crime, can be considered a “morally grey area”. It’s pretty clear cut that they have the intention of doing harm.
Your morality is wrong.
@@ASPextra I respectfully disagree.
I think it is also worth mentioning that Tennessee v Garner did not give any special rights or abilities to the police - instead it restricted their powers more than before. So it really is a bit misleading to say "Tennessee v Garners says I can do X" when really that case REDUCED the scope of X.
1:53---It did happen in Chicago! The guy was jumping over a fence when je was shot! I don't think they ever found a gun!
This point of contention came up in another discussion/ comment following a previous ASP video involving 3 separate armed robberies in which no one was injured. John posed the question [ paraphrasing ] does any viewer see an opportunity for counter ambush. There were some " Clarence Darrow " types that believed that one of the robbers should have been shot in the back as he was leaving the scene of a store robbery. Mind you, the robber was armed, had not injured anyone in the course of the robbery, and was walking away from the scene. I disagreed with that, stating that the robber no longer poses a threat to the store clerk. The counter argument was something to the effect " What if " the suspect decides to turn and open fire? To which I replied, he didn't.
Glad to get some real world expert advice in regard to this matter, and I'll be looking for the armchair experts to " make their case ".
Citizen's Arrest Law and Legal Definition
A citizen is allowed to make an arrest in certain instances, as determined by state laws, which vary by state. Making a citizen's arrest maliciously or without reasonable basis in belief could lead to civil or criminal penalties. It is a violation of a suspect's civil rights to use excessive force, to torture, to hold in unsafe or cruel conditions or to invent a reason to arrest for the ulterior motive of settling a private score.
Because a person making a citizen’s arrest may be subjected to charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest, especially if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated, the following guidelines are suggested by law enforcement officials:
Notify police upon observing a crime.
Provide police with information to assist in identifying the violator.
Sign the complaint form. (After this, most cases are concluded without your further involvement.)
Appear in court when requested by the District Attorney's Office.
What about citizen's arrest?????
I think Graham v Connor and the private citizen would be a good discussion. My apologies if you already did that one.
As you stated, it technically only applies to police officers on duty, but I think it's a good goal for the private armed citizen: would another person in same or similar situation reasonably make the same decision.
We haven't released that one yet. But soon!
Detention vs arrest
Psychological vs physical
Warren vs DC and Gonzales vs Castle Rock… pull your head out…
You apparently don't understand either.
@@ASPextra Seriously, pull your head out. You stated police are there to protect the community and those are just two of the cases that prove that police have ZERO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC…
The audio sucks, me loves. But none the less, Thanks! 😊
Bad form, even though kidding, referring to Terry as least scumbag lawyer.
So, you never joke with your friends?
I found it funny.
Most lawyers are scumbags. Change my mind.
I agree however I don't care.
Very simple. I would never shoot a criminal fleeing IF they haven't physically harmed anyone. However if the criminal has already shown the willingness to fatally or grievously injure another person then I would shoot them fleeing. Does this mean I'm legally right? NOPE. I just don't care. If I had the opportunity to stop a known violent criminal and I let him go then he went on to harm or kill someone else in his escape attempt I dont know how I'd live with myself.
Would I go to prison...probably. Do I know the risk...yes. Do I care...no
So on one hand, the law says you can shoot someone breaking and entering (armed self-defense is broadly ref to as the Castle Doctrine)... On the other hand, if you catch them After they broke their way in, then "saw them with your tv", you can't shoot rofl? no thanks. Good luck with that plan
Way too many laws on the books in 2021, that's the problem. They all overlap and confuse people
@@4corander What is so confusing? You only shoot people who you reasonably fear present an immediate danger to you (death or great bodily harm). The assumption in your home is that they are there to do you harm. However, is a guy holding your TV with both hands an immediate threat to you? You make the call but be ready to legally/morally defend/articulate your reasons.
@@papimaximus95 Yep, understood. Basically what I was saying is if I discover someone in my house without permission... I feel I'm prepared to rationalize I was in fear and the only tool I had was a carbine
@@papimaximus95 And there are no cameras so, good luck proving me wrong, from the grave.
@@Asidebar Yeah I wouldn't chase anyone... unless I had to get someone back...
I made a quasi citizens arrest once. Detained a drunk driver who was fixin to kill somebody
Be careful man lol. Unless he committed a felony you probably did by detaining him.
@@victorygarden556 It was a her and I was not only congratulated by the cops but the state’s attorney told her defense lawyer that I was going to be a better witness than many cops if I went on the stand. I never got called back so I imagine they either cut a deal or dropped the charges. Thank God it was a crazy woman and not a crazy man. She was driving and forcing cars off the road then blowing traffic lights at a high rate of speed. I caught up with her in traffic at another light. I opened her door, reached in and took her keys. I would not have been able to live with myself if i did nothing and she killed some innocents. She knew I had been chasing her and she acknowledged it. She had her blouse unbuttoned to her navel. Very weird. Hope I never get put in such a position ever again.
@@victorygarden556 I would think what she did was a felony
@@your_royal_highness oh yeah absolutely, that’s not just drunk driving. More like reckless operation, maybe aggravated attempted assault, fleeing scene etc. And stealing keys is legally less a deal than holding someone somewhere
@@victorygarden556 that is what i meant by a “quasi” citizens arrest. She weren’t goin nowhere without the keys. This was way before cell phones and I told my gal to get over to a cop who had made a traffic stop nearby. It was a stressful few minutes and when I made the decision to hop out of my car i had already determined the gender of the driver.
Can you say yealink
How about adding a mic to your holster ???🤐
I wouldn't really recommend it.
@@ASPextra
Lawyer and mike sounded solid. John’s audio needed help.
Can I? Should I? Must I? Wise questions.
The TX attitude of "but I can..." is highly over-rated.
Amen.