Active Now

my2cents
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Here's a question I'd like someone to answer if you can. Why didn't a bystander ARREST (CITIZEN'S ARREST) the cop who was committing murder?

Here's a question I'd like someone to answer if you can. Why didn't a bystander ARREST (CITIZEN'S ARREST) the cop who was committing murder?

Posted - April 21, 2021

Responses


  • 34264
    They would be arrested for interferring with an arrest. 
      April 21, 2021 7:12 AM MDT
    1

  • 6023
    reminds me of this ...


    The Andy Griffith Show S4E11 Citizen s Arrest 1 3 - Bing video

    This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at April 21, 2021 11:00 AM MDT
      April 21, 2021 7:59 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Devinely fine Walt. But could you answer the question I asked? Thanks! :)
      April 21, 2021 8:21 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    I think it's obvious.

    If you saw someone commit murder, would you try to arrest them?
    Most people have a strong enough sense of self-preservation, that they wouldn't unless they already "had the drop" on the murderer.
      April 21, 2021 10:56 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    There were a bazillion witnesses there Walt. It's not as if it would be one little old lady alone with a murderer. Allegedly there is strength in numbers. NOT ONE of the witnesses sided with what the murderer did! NOT ONE. They were united in horror and despair and so they all did whatever they could to DOCUMENT that including testifying and videotaping. Wouldn't YOU have done that under those circumstances? What would you be afraid of since everyone there EXCEPT THE THREE STOOGES COPS AND THE MURDERER were all on the same page? I don't get it. Thank you for your reply m'dear! :) This post was edited by RosieG at April 21, 2021 11:03 AM MDT
      April 21, 2021 11:02 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    Have you ever watched an old western, where a mob of townsfolk gather outside the jail to lynch the prisoner?
    The sheriff steps out and tells them to disperse and go home ... and someone says something like "You can't shoot all of us".
    To which the sheriff replies something like "No, but 6 of you will die."
    There may be 50 people in that mob ... but nobody wants to be one of the 6 who will die in the attempt.

    Human nature is that, you may know something is wrong and want to stop it ... but it's exceedingly rare for anyone to want to be a martyr.
      April 21, 2021 1:52 PM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Wat a minute. Who is talking about a "lynching" Walt? I am talking about a citizen's arrest of a murderer. They are not the same thing at all. Sure I've seen that scene a bazillion times and I agree with the sheriff. How is arresting a murderer the same as planning to lynch someone? Anyway thanks for the conversation. Why have CITIZEN'S ARREST if no one every does it? I don't get it. Would YOU just stand by and watch a murder from beginning to end and not step in? One of the right wing muggers said anyone who tried a citizen's arrest would be arrested for interfering with an arrest. She did not understand that the criminal you arrest is MURDERING someone. It was a non answer to my question. What have something if you never use it? I'll ask. Happy Thursday to thee and thine m'dear! :) This post was edited by RosieG at April 22, 2021 1:35 AM MDT
      April 22, 2021 1:34 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    My point was not about the lynching, but about the fact that a police officer has between 9 and 18 bullets in his gun.
    That means if he is murdering someone, he has 9-18 shots to kill anyone who tries to intervene.
    So yeah, even if I'm in a crowd of people and witness a po-po commit a murder, I'm not likely to attempt to stop it.
    If they have no compunction against killing 1-on-1, they won't mind shooting into a crowd.

    As to why Citizen's Arrest isn't used more often, even against non-government people ... legal liability.
    If you attempt to restrain the person, after arresting them, you can be charged with "unlawful restraint" - which is generally in the same legal category as "kidnapping".  Not to mention being charged with "assault" and/or "battery" - depending on how you restrain them.  Even if the DA elects not to charge you on behalf of the government, the criminal could file charges against you.  And if your trial goes before the criminals, you have no proof they were guilty because they haven't been convicted yet (so must be assumed innocent by the court/jury).
      April 22, 2021 10:08 AM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    Oh. Since you put it like that it would be foolish to do that wouldn't it? So why have it if the ramifications of using it are so tremendously against the invoker? Taunting tantalizing evil if you ask me. Something there that makes sense but if you dare use it you regret it. AARRGGHH! Thank you once again for filling in the blanks. Sometimes I CAHN'T STEND IT! This is one of those times Walt! :) :( I can't decide which so I just gave you both. Throw away the one you don't like. I won 't mind!
      April 22, 2021 10:58 AM MDT
    0

  • 11105
    Fear - they knew that if they tried to help they would likley  be on the ground with a knee on theIr neck. Cheers!
      April 21, 2021 8:31 AM MDT
    3

  • 113301
    There were more than three people standing there and there were only three cops standing there WATCHING. Chauvin wouldn't have moved. I don't get why SOMEONE didn't just arrest the murderer. How many witnesses were there for backup? All of them did whatever they could to document/testify/ TELL THE TRUTH. If that were to happen in my real life and all those folks were there who were as appalled as I was if someone among them didn't do it I WOULD. I swear to GOD I would have. I'd humiliate and embarrass those who looked on! An 83 year old slender female and not a macho dude or dudette DECADES younger than me? That would be appalling and disgusting. Don't you think? Thank you for your reply m'dear! :)
      April 21, 2021 11:08 AM MDT
    0