Armed citizens capture bad girls

[safeinOhio]

and are now looking at 15 years in jail.

http://www.lenconnect.com/newsnow/x149331895/Capturing-teen-TP-party-brings-vigilante-prosecution-for-trio


ADRIAN, Mich. —
Chasing down suspected burglars with a shotgun came to a surprise ending last month for three people in Rome Township. Tables turned on the would-be posse when it caught a carload of teenage girls with only a trunk full of toilet paper and mischievous intent toward a classmate’s lawn.

Felony charges carrying maximum 15-year prison terms were issued against them for holding the four girls against their will until Michigan State Police arrived.

Deborah Kay Bogart, 49, and Tristan Christopher Helf, 20, both of Rome Township, and Joshua Alan Black, 28, of Blissfield, were arraigned Wednesday in Lenawee County District Court on four counts each of unlawful imprisonment. Helf, who was allegedly holding the shotgun, is also charged with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, felonious assault and carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent.

[RC]

1. Good. Serves them right for playing cops and robbers with real guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

3. So then....

Is it fair to conclude you are of the belief that only the police may stop a crime in progress?

The criminal charges will go nowhere and those charged will be acquitted. They acted in good faith - no different than if a cop arrested you thinking you committed a crime only to discover it was actually your evil twin brother you didn't know you had.

[RC]

5. There was no crime in progress, except for the vigilantes.

Terrorizing charges needed to be added the other charges.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. What they did....

...appeared to be burglars. The people who stopped and held them did so in good faith. That the girls actually committed no crime is a different story.

How would you perceive this had the girls actually just committed a burglary?

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. "What if" and "good faith" doesn't count, friend.

These three assholes are in deep shit - as well they should be.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

11. Yeah, sorry but it does.

They'll walk.

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. I doubt it.

How would you like to have some wannabe rambo chickenshit posse take your daughter/mother/wife at gunpoint? Think you'd just forgive and forget?

Thank god assholes like that are few and far between.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

14. I don't doubt it at all.

And yes, I speak from experience.

I did very much the same thing as these people did earlier this year. A bunch of teenaged kids were being a nuisance in a friends neighborhood and causing all manner of issues. I happened to be over at his house one evening when the little miscreants decided to egg his house. Chased them down, boxed them in, held them until the local po-po arrived. Got a "Thanks" from the cops, the stink-eye from the kids' parents and my buddy got his house power washed for free. The idea of charging us with anything never entered anyone's mind.

If my daughter pulled something like this, you bet your ass she'd get her ass reamed and the guy who held them waiting on the cops would be thanked for NOT shooting her.

Act like a criminal and surprisingly people will treat you like one.

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. You must be a real hoot a Halloween time

"chased 'em down and boxed them in" - I'll bet you're in your full glory.:rofl:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. I take a dim view of property damage.

Perhaps you are different.

I also recognize the difference between Halloween and the other 364 days of the year. Perhaps you have difficulty with that as well.

[Atypical Liberal]

95. I did the same thing.

We had a rash of kids bashing mailboxes on Friday nights on our road, which was a dead end.

I waited one night in a neighbor's driveway and sure enough, along comes a car with a kid hanging out the window with a bat.

I followed them and boxed them off at the dead end, and made them give me their driver's licenses. This was before cell phones, so I left them there while I walked home and called the police. The kids were smart and stayed put until they arrived. Nothing came of it, as the kids had not actually hit any mailboxes that night, and there was no proof that they had done it before. But strangely, the smashed mailboxes stopped appearing.

[Confusious]

80. No, the difference is is the person you detained

committed a crime. These girls had committed no crime yet.

[PavePusher]

19. It seems to count for police.

Perhaps we should revisit that....

[pipoman]

102. Google "criminal intent"..

Criminal intent may refer to:

* Criminal Act or Criminal Intent (requirements), With a few exceptions, a person can be convicted of a crime if only he or she (1) does somethig that violates a criminal law and (2) does it intentionally. These two requirements are called Criminal Act and Criminal Intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_intent

[DrDan]

112. and exactly what criminal act was committed?

[pipoman]

129. Seems they've been charged with..

"four counts each of unlawful imprisonment. Helf, who was allegedly holding the shotgun, is also charged with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, felonious assault and carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent."


Proving "unlawful intent" requires proof.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

130. The unlawful intent was holding them against their will.

THAT they intended to do.

You are making the mistake of confusing the law with their excuse.

[DrDan]

133. oops - sorry

I thought you were referring to criminal activities of the girls. There are those on this thread who seem to think they committed an act worthy of being held gunpoint.

Yes - criminal charges against those idiots is appropriate.

[safeinOhio]

15. A couple of 15 to 18 year old

girls parked in a car is hardly "reasonable cause" to think a crime was in progress. I doubt if the State Police would have held them at gun point. This does constitute a false arrest. They were held at gun point and not able to leave. I would also guess any lawyer could get a few thousand out of the wanna be cops in about any court for false arrest. Lucky that one of the girls didn't make any quick movements and got blown away by the idiots. For a citizen to use deadly force, they better be able to prove and imminent danger and that a felony has been committed or in progress. While you think these bubbas are heroes, most think they are idiots.

[digonswine]

56. Did they commit burglary?

Do you mean to say it OK to detain someone at gunpoint who have not committed a crime? Would it be Ok to detain them at gunpoint if you had seen them TP a house? This is done ALL THE TIM#E EVERYWHERE!! The "victims" are almost always ok with it. WTF is wrong with you?

[PavePusher]

72. You keep missing the point: It had nothing to do with the young ladies actual intent....

and everything to do with their perceived intent.

Look and act like a criminal and you might actually get treated like one.

Would anyone be making this hue and cry if it had been police that first encountered them, then reacted exactly the same way?

[Confusious]

82. Police have the right to detain you if they suspect a crime

Regular citizens only get the right if they catch someone in the act.

[PavePusher]

92. Depends on the law in your stae. This varies. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

107. Minor correction....

Police have the AUTHORITY to detain you if they suspect a crime.

Citizens have rights. Government has no rights. You would do well to understand that.


In this particular case, I see nothing wrong with what they did, and neither did the cops on the scene. The fact they were released ROR tells me the judge doesn't really have a problem with it either.

[Confusious]

124. Citizens have rights

But we cede authority to government.

"right" can mean different things, but I guess I'll be more specific next time since you want to play the word parsing game.

[fishwax]

84. If they'd acted this way around with actual police, though, it actually would be a crime

Assuming the police officers turned on their lights and the girls didn't pull over.

[Confusious]

81. That's not the point

The point is they hadn't committed a crime, so they were detained against their will.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Vandalism is a crime.

I should know, the cops chased me enough times while I was doing the same thing. One drove his cruiser at high speed through a baseball diamond after me.

[roguevalley]

6. caught them before they acted. there was no crime yet. that is

probably the reason behind their charging.

[safeinOhio]

9. So then it would be fair to conclude

That I agree with the cop.
"It was a case of jumping to conclusions then taking actions that should be left to police, said 1st Lt. Tony Cuevas, commander of the MSP post in Adrian.

“They should have just called us and gotten a license plate number,” said Cuevas."

I feel there is no problem with firearms for self-defense. As for stopping some teen girls from TPing, not so much.

They may get off if they cop a plea, after big lawyer fees and never being able to possess firearms again.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

12. Just because we have hired the police...

...to investigate crimes and arrest criminals, does not mean we have totally ceded supreme authority to them. The people still hold that authority and can remove it from the police at any time.

If the police arrest someone in good faith, truly believing that person committed a crime, they are not charged if it turns out no crime was committed. The police simply say "Whoops! Our bad!" and things go back to normal. Same thing here. The people acted in good faith, believed a crime had been committed, and held the girls and turned them over to the cops.

The bigger question should be, what in the holy fuck were a bunch of teenaged girls doing out in a car at night on a school night with the intentions of criminal mischief?

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Your third sentence displays complete ignorance.

WTF business is it of anyone's what they're doing? And who are these self-appointed fuckwads to start waving guns anyway?

Is it against the law to be out on a school night?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

20. For starters...

it is their parent's business for certain. Those "self-appointed fuckwads" happen to own property in that neighborhood. You may have noticed the article pointed out there had been a rash of burglaries around there.

As I said, act like a criminal and you shouldn't be surprised if you're treated like one.

[PavePusher]

22. "WTF business is it of anyone's what they're doing?"

I guess you missed the part where they were intending to commit vandalism.

Whutevah

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. TP a classmate's house?

That's serious stuff. Imagine if they wrote on the sidewalk with colored chalk.

Wow, I guess you never had a childhood.


PS - and "intending" doesn't mean shit.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. That you consider it minor

doesn't change the fact that it IS vandalism and criminal mischief. It isn't very funny to the victim. Its also not a very bright idea in this day and age when people are understandably much more protective of their property.

Moving around someone's property at night is a very good way to get yourself a terminal case of lead poisoning. It isn't funny. It isn't a joke. It isn't just being a child.

Apparently you have no respect for the property of others, and little respect for yourself. Do not think for a moment the rest of us suffer from the same deficiencies.

[MadHound]

69. Wow, I feel sorry for you,

You live a very scared and fearful life. It has twisted and warped your soul.

[SteveM]

113. The might of your morality has caused me to nod off.................nt

[PavePusher]

40. Chalk on a sidewalk can be washed off in a pair of minutes.

I've seen it take days to clear TP from a house, the trees around it, the yard.....

I had a childhood, and it included not fucking up other peoples property, on pain of an ass-whopping.

Since the 'young ladies' involved gave every appearance of possibly intending something far more serious, I'd say all's well that ends well, and hopefully they learned a lesson: present better behavior, or get better at sneaking.

[digonswine]

58. Are you seriously OK with some yahoos-

pulling guns on teens intent on TPing a house? "I've seen it take days to clear TP from a house"--or just wait a few days-it goes away. In a desert-it takes longer. I have had my house treated like that. If anyone pulled a gun on those doing it--I would pull a gun on THEM. Cripes

[PavePusher]

70. Their true intent was not known at the time.

Cripes, indeed.

[iverglas]

127. "Their true intent was not known at the time"???

My true intent when I go walking down the street is not known to anyone but me.

This means that someone can decide they don't like the cut of my jib and pull a gun on me and hold me captive???

I don't think so, pal.

[safeinOhio]

35. Those folks had no idea what

those girls were intending to do. They thought they were going to commit a felony, yet unknown what that MIGHT have been. They were wrong and TPing another kids home is hardly an excuse for deadly force. It'd be like pulling a gun on the 15 year old that stepped on your grass, or was about to step(trespass) on your grass. There are no laws against "intending" to TP a house. Only weak laws if one does TP a house, hardly one that justifies deadly force.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. On the one hand...

...you say they had no idea what the girls were going to do, and in the next breath, say that because of what they claimed to do, deadly force (or the threat thereof) was unjustified.

You realize that is contradictory, don't you?

[TheMadMonk]

87. No criminal act had been committed. And apparently the CLUE...

...that they might be about to was they were parked in the street out front for a bit.

NOW, on the other hand the dickheads with the guns, had absoulte knowledge that they WERE themselves committing multiple FELONIOUS ACTS on unsupported suspiscion that a crime MIGHT be about to take place.

[safeinOhio]

18. So if you stop at night

to look at a map in front of my house, I should be able to hold you at gun point? No more reasonable cause than in this case.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

23. From the article

"The incident started the night of Aug. 23 when a resident noticed a car parked along Hoddinott Road near her home. She later told troopers her wallet had recently been stolen and she feared the thief may have come to the address on her identification to steal from her home.

She and Black, who was visiting at her home, drove up behind the parked car to get a license plate number, Cuevas said in a news release describing the investigation. The suspicious car suddenly sped away. The woman then called Helf, her fiance, and Bogart, her mother. Helf and Bogart got in a second vehicle and joined the chase.

After losing sight of the fleeing car for a time, Bogart spotted it again on Hoddinott Road and the pursuers managed to block it between their two vehicles near Springville Highway."

Now, that behavior is very different than simply parking in front of your home to look at a map, is it not? As soon as another car showed, the girls sped away. Hm...yeah, that's normal. Then they came back to the same area....I'd call that more than just a LITTLE suspicious.

Had the girls simply stopped to look at a map, i sincerely doubt this would have been the outcome. After reading the entire article, not just cherry-picking the parts about evil guns and finding an excuse for my poutrage, it is easy to see exactly why the homeowners acted as they did.

If they fight the charges, the case will likely be dropped by the prosecutor. It has no chance of holding up. They did not do what they did with any malicious intent, but rather in good faith and truly believing a crime had been committed.

[safeinOhio]

27. IF one of the girls had a CCW

and saw some one pointing a shotgun at them and pulled her gun and shot him, wouldn't she be able to claim self-defense? If you want to chase some one and get a plate number, that is one thing. Using deadly force with little more than a hunch is criminal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. Yes she would.

However, being under the age of 21, it would be legally impossible for her to have one. Further, being under the age of 21, it would have been legally impossible for her to possess a handgun, and a long arm is tough to use in a car.

Last but not least, people who have a CCW typically do not TP people's houses.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

131. How do you know that?

"Had the girls simply stopped to look at a map, i sincerely doubt this would have been the outcome"

Why do you say that? You think the girls wouldn't have driven off if a strange car pulled up behind them?


"truly believing a crime had been committed"

What crime? Parking on the side of the road?

[DrDan]

25. thinking about toilet-papering someone's house is "criminal mischief"??????

what a hoot

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. The girls

ADMITTED to the intent to commit the crime. They weren't "thinking about it". They were prepared and equipped to do it. They were interrupted before they could.

[DrDan]

30. did they do it?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

32. They were stopped before they could.

It was their actions with the intent to commit a crime which led the homeowner to react.

Consider this scenario: You're an off-duty cop in your personal car. You see a car parked in front of a business which you know has been robbed a few times recently. You pull up behind the car, and the moment you get close enough to read the tag, the car pulls off in a hurry. You chase it but it gets away. Later, on the same road, in front of the same business, you see the same car.

Now, so far, no real crime has actually been committed. Are you going to call the event in and detain the driver until uniformed units arrive, or are you just simply going to call the event in and say "Oh well" when the car pulls away?

That's essentially what happened here, except no cops were involved. Instead, the homeowner was, which is a higher authority than the cop is, incidentally.

The girls were acting in a very suspicious manner in an area which had experienced some recent crime. Yes, their actions deserved exactly the response they got.

Had they not sped off and then stupidly come back to the same damn street, but had just sat there, perhaps even explained what they were doing if the homeowner questioned them, they may have even gotten some help TP'ing the house.

[DrDan]

34. so you admit they commited no crime?

And these are no off-duty cops - just some idiots with a shotgun. Your example is bogus. I would trust the judgement of an off-duty cop - these guys? Not so much.

Are these guys trained to recognize suspicious activities? I certainly doubt it. They are bullies with a gun - nothing more.

I certainly hope the judge sees them for who they truly are.

[PavePusher]

42. So one must let the crime commence before taking action? Got it.

Whutevah.

[DrDan]

99. what ever. These guy are bullies, and will better understand that in short order.

[PavePusher]

43. "Are these guys trained to recognize suspicious activities?"

What training would that be, oh Mr. Security Specialist?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

49. Some people...

...seem to believe that the cops and only the cops are ever allowed to do anything about a criminal. We, as mere serfs, er i mean, citizens, are to meekly accept whatever act the criminal takes lest we violate the criminal's right to ply his trade. Afterwards, assuming we are still alive, we may enter the byzantine maze which of government and seek out the necessary functionary to whom we may plead our case. If the functionary believes our case has merit, he may or may not pass it along to actually be investigated.

[DrDan]

106. and then there are those who feel they are above the law simply

because they own a gun. They feel they are free to act as judge, jury and sometimes executioner. We see that in the OP, don't we. A group of bullies who judged some girls sitting in a car as criminals and decided to hold them against their will.

Had one of those girls made the mistake of trying to leave, do you think one of the bullies would have pulled the trigger? Do you think one of these miscreants could commit murder over the thought of toilet papering a house?

Never mind. I know your response.

[DrDan]

98. I freely admit I am not trained along those lines - hence you

shall never find me taking anyone into custody at gunpoint. So your juvenile insult is wasted (though not unexpected.)

These idiots are nothing but bullies with a gun - thinking they are free to form posses of vigilantes and go after all the town's toilet-paperers.

They shall pay - either through large attorney fees, lawsuits from the parents, or appropiate jail time.

[PavePusher]

117. You can not sort out "suspicious activities" from non-suspicious activites?

I see a bright future for you in the TSA....

[DrDan]

118. I freely admit I am not trained to do so - simply owning a gun

does not make one omniscient - much as those here would like to think - as well as the idiots holding those girls hostage at gunpoint.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

119. It may surprise you...

...but one need not be "trained" to do a lot of things.

Identifying suspicious behavior, for example, requires no real training, just a functioning brain and the ability to recognize unusual behavior.

Do you seriously think it takes training to recognize that the guy dressed in black standing at the back window of a jewelry store, at night, carrying a crowbar is probably not the owner?

[DrDan]

120. are you suggesting you are as well trained as a law enforcement professional?

Do a couple of young girls sitting in a car send chills up the spine pondering the evils that are soon to abound?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

121. As a matter of fact, I am.

Personally - probably more so - but that is due to other aspects of my life. Cops are not given super secret information on how to identify suspicious behavior. Most of it is pure observation and a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning.

Do a couple of young girls sitting in a car concern me? No - not specifically. However, that is NOT what transpired in this circumstance. One must consider all of the information.

Yes, a car full of people who do not live on that street parked and remaining in the car, at night, who speed away at another car's approach and then return to the same location IS suspicious.

[PavePusher]

122. Holy Jebus on a fucking pogo stick.....

If you were to dissimilate any furthar, you'd be eligible for a job with the BATFE.

[DrDan]

134. coming from one who defends illegally holding would-be toilet-paperers at gunpoint

Do you realize the disservice you are doing to other gun-advocates?: You should give a glance at the GD forum. Not a whit of support for your your position - even from other gun supporters.

But - keep it up please!

[PavePusher]

136. Yes, I did endorse that people with criminal intent, acting like people with worse criminal intent..

could be treated like criminals.

Shame on me indeed. Or something....

[We_Have_A_Problem]

45. I admit they did not - certainly.

I also recognize their behavior as suspicious.

My example is not bogus - an off-duty cop is a private citizen. Further, just because we have the police, does not in any way mean we have completely ceded our rights to them.

One need not be "trained" to recognize suspicious activities. Some things are pretty obvious to those who are able to tie their shoes without help. What these girls did was legitimately perceived as suspicious.

Some other little facts for you from the article to consider:
The girls were questioned by the police. Why would the police do that if they also did not believe their activity was questionable?

The people who were charged were NOT taken into custody by the cops. That rather indicates that the cops on the scene didn't see anything wrong with what they did.

Charges were filed after the fact when some prosecutor read the report.

The individuals were arraigned and released ROR. Had the court actually believed they had committed a crime worthy of up to 20 years in jail, they would have at least had to post bond.

Ultimately, this is a total non-starter. The case wont see trial, and if they are smart, the homeowners won't even consider a plea. Proving an actual crime would be virtually impossible. Remember, the state has to actual prove they acted with ill intent. Doesn't take much to create reasonable doubt on this one, or even to create a situation where the jury will see they acted in good faith.

[DrDan]

100. they are clearly in violation of Michigan laws

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=465054&mesg_id=465107

They will pay - as bullies should - significant legal fees, potential lawsuits, potential jail time. No "doubt on this one".

Vigilantism run amok.

[digonswine]

59. This might possibly be--

the most bombastic nonsense I have seen on this website. I have lurked here for ages--I don't believe you actually believe what you are saying--it defies logic! And any common sense.

[TheCowsCameHome]

31. And no "crime" was committed, however

They should get 10-20 years just for being kids out on a school night - and in a car!

This must be stopped, and stopped NOW!

Give it up, dude.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

33. I said nothing about

charges being brought against the girls.

How about you give it up and actually address the topic at hand?

[TheCowsCameHome]

37. I suggest you read your own post #12 -

Read the third sentence, which you so eloquently penned - It's none of your goddamned business (or anyone elses)what they were doing out in a car at night.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

47. I can honestly say I have no idea what you're talking about.

I never said it was none of anyone's business what they were doing out at night. In fact, I very clearly stated it is absolutely the PARENT'S business.

I also never said jack shit about the girls being charged with anything. I have clearly stated, repeatedly, that they did not actually commit a crime but most assuredly admitted to the intent to do so.

[PavePusher]

44. Cite to where anyone claimed that....

except you.

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. WTF are you talking about?

seriously.

[PavePusher]

53. You implied that people here were suggesting the car of young ladies....

should be charged for having commited no offense:

"They should get 10-20 years just for being kids out on a school night - and in a car!

This must be stopped, and stopped NOW!"

No one has said or implied anything like that, except you.

What has repeatedly been said is that their actions matched those of people preparing to commit a serious crime, which is why citizens intervened, something they have every right and power to do.

[TheCowsCameHome]

76. Read post 12, third paragraph, slowly.

1. W.H.A.P. thinks it's totally outrageous that they were *gasp* out in a car on a school night. OMG, how horrendous. Everyone in bed by 8pm, no exceptions.

2. 10-20 years for them was pure sarcasm, which is obviously lost on you.

The criminals here are the vigilantes that held the girls at gunpoint. If my daughters were held by these self-appointed gun-totin' crimestoppers, there would be big trouble brewing........believe that.

[PavePusher]

79. 1. I grew up with a curfew on school nights, unless I had a planned event, cleared with my parents.

It's called "being involved". I didn't have to be in our house, but I did have to be on our property unless I had permission to be elsewhere. (Granted, "our property" was several square miles of woods and fields, but we did have to leave a general location so people would know where to look if we didn't show up by a reasonable time.)

2. I do get sarcasm, but it has to be actually based on a kernel of fact to be, well, sarcasm. No-one, in fact, was calling for any punishment for kids who had not yet actually broken any laws. I would imagine that their parents might have some words for them, however.

And again, this word, "vigilantes", I do not think it means what you think it means.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

108. As a parent....

...yeah, I do rather wonder what they were doing out and if their parents were aware. That is a far cry from suggesting criminal penalties.

[TheCowsCameHome]

110. As a parent....

I would not for one moment stand for some posse-wannabe Dudley Do-Rights shoving a shotgun into my daughter's face, no matter what they thought she and her friends were up to.

Those three are a disgrace to the human race. I wish them nothing but misery in this case.

[DrDan]

101. "actions matched those of people preparing to commit a serious crime"

I get your point now. It is not unlike a carload of blacks driving up I-95. Right?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arkansas Granny]

75. Sure, they committed a crime. It's called "driving with toilet paper".

Moreover, I've even seen people drive with paper towels. I don't know what the punishment for that should be.

[TheCowsCameHome]

77. DWTP is serious stuff, Granny

We don't tolerate it in the Gungeon. There's enough other "shit" to deal with.

[Confusious]

83. What you're propsing is that anyone can detain anyone

regardless of whether a crime has been committed or not. All you have to say is "I thought they were going to commit a crime". That is why we cede that power to the police.

Otherwise there would be total confusion.

[PavePusher]

93. It comes down to "reasonableness".

In other words, it better sound good to the judge.

It's not licence to detain anyone at any time for any reason.

[Confusious]

96. I don't want to take a chance on some strangers

"reasonableness" any more then I want a to a cop. But a cop has the force of law behind him.

All the laws quoted here still show someone has to commit a crime before you can detain them.

[PavePusher]

115. Citizens still have "force of law" behind them.

We do not abdicate our own empowerment merely due to the existance (no matter how distant) of police.

[Confusious]

123. There is still no way a citizen can detain someone

If no crime has been committed. Even if you suspect a crime WILL be committed. There is no office of pre-crime.

If you don't believe it, I suggest you try it.

someone said said above, that in some places, even the police cannot do that.

And we cede powers all the time. It's the cost of living in society.

Just one example: What if those girls had been sitting in the parking lot because they were debating about going through with it? What if they had decided not to just before they were detained?
Not everyone who sets out to do a crime actually goes through with it. What should they be charged with? Thinking about a crime?

[digonswine]

55. You don't really mean to say--

that it is appropriate or not completely fucked up, that someone would pull a gun on TP-ing teenagers. I hope you are kidding.

[Kolesar]

2. Send some bad girls this way! eom

[DrDan]

4. K&R - ridiculous - throw the book at these wannabe's

holding these girls at gunpoint should be no-brainer jail time

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Nice work.

Capturing concealed toilet paper isn't for the faint of heart.

[gravity556]

36. Good.

I'm about as pro-gun as one can be, but these mental midgets screwed the pooch and deserve the rogering they're about to recieve.

[safeinOhio]

38. Michigan law on citizen arrest

764.16 Arrest by private person; situations.
Sec. 16.
A private person may make an arrest-in the following situations:
(a) For a felony committed in the private person's presence.
(b) If the person to be arrested has committed a felony although not in the private person's presence.
(c) If the private person is summoned by a peace officer to assist the officer in making an arrest.
(d) If the private person is a merchant, an agent of a merchant, an employee of a merchant, or an independent contractor providing security for a merchant of a store and has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has violated section 356c or 356d of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.356c and 750.356d of the Michigan Compiled Laws, in that store, regardless of whether the violation was committed in the presence of the private person.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Citizens_Arrest_State_of_Michigan#ixzz1ZNdq7Hs7


They broke the law in making the stop. PERIOD. End of story.

[safeinOhio]

39. Michigan law on the use of deadly force

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(f0efyhm15vatkh45gfeigsnp))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-780-951

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. Arguably....

...they acted in good faith belief of items (a) and (b).

Did they break the law? Possibly. However, nobody was actually harmed so, just as you seem inclined to give the girls a pass, perhaps you should apply the same logic to the homeowner....or are they assumed guilty since they had a gun with them?

[safeinOhio]

52. Yes, holding people at gun point

is the use of deadly force. Intent to TP is not a felony or even against the law.
a. and b. refer to felonies.

They are guilty of, or at least rightly accused of violating Michigan felony laws. The girls are not charged with anything, because they did nothing illegal.

One time I witnessed a driver hit another car and take off down the road. I followed and watched this driver go off both sides of the road and hit street signs and another vehicle. I followed at a safe distance and called 911. While following the car I followed the dispatcher's instruction. The car finally came to a stop. I stayed in my car and stayed on the phone with police until the SP arrived. I could have jumped out of my car, pulled my carry pistol and pulled the guy out of the car and made a citizens arrest. I witnessed at least 4 felonies, so what, I'm not stupid. These guy were.

[PavePusher]

54. You still ignore the "good faith" part.

The Citizens had valid reason to believe that a serious crime was intended. Why do you keep ignoring that part?

[digonswine]

60. What??

[safeinOhio]

61. You ignore the law of Michigan

on citizen arrest. See post #38.
Any court would see this as an arrest. The people were detained and not allowed to leave if they wanted to. This was an illegal arrest for a non crime. Only police and business owners have the power to detain to gather evidence, not citizens, according to the stated Michigan laws on citizens arrest.

[PavePusher]

68. I owe you an apology.

I wasn't ignoring the law, but I completely misread the Citizen Arrest law, especially sec. d.

Damn, I hate when I do that. Please disregard my entire argument and I'm sorry I wasted everyones time.

[Confusious]

86. There is no good faith part in the law. nt

[PavePusher]

94. My apology, I meant the "reasonable cause to believe" portion....

but it turns out I misread the rest of it anyway. See thread immediately above this.

I'm apparently reading to many web pages at once tonight and confusing myself. I hate when that happens...

[beevul]

57. Thats a stretch.

"Yes, holding people at gun point is the use of deadly force."

No, it really isn't.

The implied THREAT of deadly force, and the actual USE (thats the word YOU penned, and in the same context) are two far different things.

[digonswine]

65. How far different?

One should assume that the person holding the gun means to use it. That is not too far from different. If someone has a gun trained on me, I assume they will use it. Get your shit strait.

[beevul]

135. And this assumpton...

Is it a full time assumption, or only one that happens when non police are the people pointing the guns?

"Get your shit strait"

It just so happens, that for something to be considered the "use of deadly force", deadly force has to actually be USED.

It really just doesn't matter what someone assumes. The term "deadly force" actually has a meaning, which does not change based on someones assumpton.

"That is not too far from different."

Uh...yeah right. :eyes:

Its as different as night and day, and you well know it.

In this instance, its VERY simple. If the person FIRES the gun, they're using deadly force.

If a person simply points it, thats the THREAT of deadly force.

Odd, how those are completely different things, yet you don't see much difference.

Me, I figure theres a world of difference between simply having a gun pointed at me, versus actually having a lead slug tear through my bodily tissue.

You asked "how far different"...Theres your answer.

[Confusious]

85. A and B

(a) For a felony committed in the private person's presence.
(b) If the person to be arrested has committed a felony although not in the private person's presence.

They committed no crime. It's the law right there. Nowhere does it say "good faith"

[Hoyt]

46. Let's hope these "armed citizens" get book thrown at them. Jury shouldn't be swayed by their crying.

This is exactly the problem one should expect when guns become commonly accepted. Bet this doesn't show up in gun crime stats, but it should.

[AnOhioan]

62. Good...vigilantism at its best (worst)

[gejohnston]

66. not by definition

They were not summarily punished, simply held for police. Unlawful arrest maybe. I don't claim to know anything about Michigan law on this issue.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilante

[AnOhioan]

67. Fine..call it kidnapping then..either way, they deserve the charges

[Turbineguy]

63. Thankfully they did not shoot them.

Coked on Fox News no doubt.

[MADem]

64. I see, in my legal crystal ball, a little bit of wrist slapping and parole...

maybe fines, assuming everyone gets good lawyers.

This comes off as a "Go and sin no more" crime. No one got shot, after all.

[digonswine]

71. I would like to see pro-gunners denounce this shit-

It is insane to do something like this.

[MADem]

73. I can't say that I can relate to the mindset of these vigilante guys.

However, I don't live in their neighborhood, I don't know what the crime rate is like, and I don't know what the details were on the ground. Sometimes, the way things are written, details are glossed over, little elements go unmentioned, and they can change perspectives. As written, though, I think they overreacted.

I guess we'll just have to trust the legal system to make a sensible determination, here.

I'm not a pro-gunner, or an anti-gunner. I think guns are inappropriate in some settings, and appropriate in others. If I'm camping in the wild, I'd like someone to have a frigging gun, especially if there are large carniverous animals about. If I'm in a grammar school cafeteria, I would be uncomfortable if people were packing.

I'm situational, I guess.

[digonswine]

78. Yeah--

I tend to carry in the wilds. I live in Wisconsin, though. No danger--unless you go off the road to avoid hitting a deer. From what I read--which is all I have to go on--if these terrible teens were hell-bent on TPing a house- preventing it by holding them at gunpoint in would be completely nuts. Completely.

[iverglas]

126. yeah, this whole thread is pretty funny

If I or someone else points out the inappropriateness of somebody shooting somebody else where, in my opinion, it was inappropriate, I am told I am a criminal-hugger or whatever moronic expression they've come up with this week.

Here we have a bunch of yahoos with no fucking basis in the world for their actions chasing some teenaged girls engaged in a teenaged prank that would have harmed nothing and no one, and holding them captive at gunpoint -- and the rush to condem the VICTIMS would flatten a herd of elephants.

Pretty damned funny.

[safeinOhio]

89. Also meets Michigan's law

of assault with a deadly weapon.

assault---- Law an act, criminal or tortious, that threatens physical harm to a person, whether or not actual harm is done.

[MADem]

90. Be interesting to see how the wheels of justice grind this case out. NT

[Logical]

74. I question any "pro-gun" person who thinks this was a valid use of a gun.

[RC]

88. Agreed.

If they had taken the girls somewhere else to hold them, that would be kidnapping. And the fact that the girls were under age, it could get very expensive for the vigilantes, what with court costs, lawyer fees, etc.

[safeinOhio]

91. Those that defend those people

do no service to gun rights. Others find it revolting, see follow up post in GD.

[Francis Marion]

97. At least their papers were in order.

"...with only a trunk full of toilet paper..."

Lighten up, Barney Fife.

[pipoman]

103. A criminal conviction requires "criminal intent",

this differs from "ignorance of the law" in that under other circumstances the acts of these people would have been lawful. The criminal conviction will likely hinge on the "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person believed a criminal act had occurred? If the answer is 'yes', there is no ignorance of the law, or criminal intent, thus no conviction. This is not the standard for civil liability however. There may be civil penalty for their actions, though without a criminal conviction the civil case may not have the legs for a win either.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

132. Given the circumstances in the article, how do you imagine...

... the defendants will be able to show a reasonable person WOULD HAVE believed a criminal (FELONY per mich statute) act had occurred?

"My wallet was stolen weeks ago" won't cut it.

The crime was holding the girls at gunpoint and THERE WAS intent to do so.

[TheCowsCameHome]

104. Advice to vigilantes: When you're in the shit, seek toilet paper immediately.

....these doofuses did.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Funniest Gungeon thread ever.

Thanks for the laughs.

[jeepnstein]

105. Ride the Bull, get the horn.

Chasing burglars down the street is not self defense. Not even close. Ohio's Castle law wasn't an open declaration of "wabbit season" on TP tossers.

They won't actually go to prison. They will catch a felony conviction and have that dead seabird hanging around their necks for the rest of their lives. At least they didn't shoot anyone.

[ileus]

109. Try and do what's right and look what happens...

:(

[GreenStormCloud]

111. Once they had the license plate they should have stopped.

Attempting to capture and detain is damned dangerous business. No one has considered what would have happened if that had been genuine thugs in the car. A real gun fight could have developed. Gun fights are to be avoided if at all possible as the outcome is going to bad no matter what. There is the possibility that you may lose the gunfight. Most of us who have guns and CCWs are not wannabe cops and it hurts the pro-RKBA movement when someone does dumb stuff like those guys did.

[SteveM]

114. I've read this, and it looks like an over-reaction to me...

We'll see how it plays out in court; I don't really know what the outcome will be. But on first blush, these guys could have taken other action and should have.

As it is, the gun-controllers have found a day-old dead kitten of a victory, and are proudly prancing around with it.

[aikoaiko]

125. I support residents confronting criminals (armed if needed), but one must follow the law

...or pay the price. Its risky business.

[iverglas]

128. hey, the bad girls got off lucky

That kid in Boca Raton who was playing doorbell on Hallowe'en could have told them to be more careful.

His neighbour shot him in the back as he ran away. He's dead.

Heck, the guy with the gun thought he might be a burglar too. After all, burglars generally ring doorbells on Hallowe'en.

And the Guns forum rushed to vindicate the neighbour, who after all had not been charged immediately ...

When the neighbour (who, yes, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon) ultimated pleaded guilty to manslaughter, well, the silence was deafening.