In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
citizens can't use deadly force on fleeing felon
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Court rules citizens can't use deadly force on fleeing felon
Decision reinstates charges against Carson City man over '97 incident
By SEAN WHALEY
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Apr-11-Thu-2002/news/18494448.html
CARSON CITY -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that citizens cannot use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon, thereby reinstating charges against a Carson City man who fired shots in a 1997 altercation.
The court was unanimous in its interpretation of the law, but disagreed 4-3 over whether charges against local businessman Rolland Weddell should be reinstated.
The case involved an October 1997 confrontation between Weddell and James Bustamonte at Bustamonte's home after Bustamonte allegedly injured one of Weddell's employees in a confrontation the previous day.
When Bustamonte and a woman exited the house and walked toward a vehicle, Weddell parked behind it to prevent its departure. While pointing his gun at Bustamonte, Weddell ordered him to place his hands on the hood. After a disputed verbal exchange, Bustamonte turned and ran, and Weddell shot at him several times, according to the opinion. Bustamonte was not injured.
The Carson City District Attorney's office charged Weddell with assault with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm at another person.
The district court dismissed the charges, and the district attorney appealed. A three-member panel of the Supreme Court ruled last year against Weddell and said the charges should be reinstated.
Weddell sought and won a review by the entire seven-member court. The court majority agreed with the earlier panel decision.
Weddell argued that private citizens have a common law right to use deadly force to arrest or prevent the escape of a fleeing felon.
The court majority rejected the argument, however, saying the Legislature repudiated the common law standard when it enacted a 1993 law limiting the use of force by police officers when making a felony arrest.
The court majority said that a private citizen can use no more force than necessary and reasonable to make an arrest.
Justice Deborah Agosti, who wrote the majority opinion, said: "We further hold that deadly force is, as a matter of law, unreasonable, unless the deadly force is used in defense of self or others against a threat of serious * injury."
Justice Bob Rose, who was joined by Chief Justice Bill Maupin and Justice Cliff Young, agreed with the analysis by the majority, but said it is, in effect, a new rule that should not apply to Weddell.
The statute regarding use of force by police does not specifically address use of force by citizens, so the opinion by the court is a new interpretation of that law, he said.
Because of the imposition of the new rule, Rose said he would affirm the dismissal of charges against Weddell.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Decision reinstates charges against Carson City man over '97 incident
By SEAN WHALEY
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Apr-11-Thu-2002/news/18494448.html
CARSON CITY -- The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that citizens cannot use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon, thereby reinstating charges against a Carson City man who fired shots in a 1997 altercation.
The court was unanimous in its interpretation of the law, but disagreed 4-3 over whether charges against local businessman Rolland Weddell should be reinstated.
The case involved an October 1997 confrontation between Weddell and James Bustamonte at Bustamonte's home after Bustamonte allegedly injured one of Weddell's employees in a confrontation the previous day.
When Bustamonte and a woman exited the house and walked toward a vehicle, Weddell parked behind it to prevent its departure. While pointing his gun at Bustamonte, Weddell ordered him to place his hands on the hood. After a disputed verbal exchange, Bustamonte turned and ran, and Weddell shot at him several times, according to the opinion. Bustamonte was not injured.
The Carson City District Attorney's office charged Weddell with assault with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm at another person.
The district court dismissed the charges, and the district attorney appealed. A three-member panel of the Supreme Court ruled last year against Weddell and said the charges should be reinstated.
Weddell sought and won a review by the entire seven-member court. The court majority agreed with the earlier panel decision.
Weddell argued that private citizens have a common law right to use deadly force to arrest or prevent the escape of a fleeing felon.
The court majority rejected the argument, however, saying the Legislature repudiated the common law standard when it enacted a 1993 law limiting the use of force by police officers when making a felony arrest.
The court majority said that a private citizen can use no more force than necessary and reasonable to make an arrest.
Justice Deborah Agosti, who wrote the majority opinion, said: "We further hold that deadly force is, as a matter of law, unreasonable, unless the deadly force is used in defense of self or others against a threat of serious * injury."
Justice Bob Rose, who was joined by Chief Justice Bill Maupin and Justice Cliff Young, agreed with the analysis by the majority, but said it is, in effect, a new rule that should not apply to Weddell.
The statute regarding use of force by police does not specifically address use of force by citizens, so the opinion by the court is a new interpretation of that law, he said.
Because of the imposition of the new rule, Rose said he would affirm the dismissal of charges against Weddell.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878