Robber stopped by witness at Circle and Platte (Colo Spr)

[streetglideok]

KKTV is reporting a witness chased down a robber at circle and platte and held him at gunpoint until Colorado Springs Police arrived. Looks like the perp robberd the Flowerama store at the corner.

[T-Giv]

They will find some way to jam the witness up. Good work on his part though!

[OtterbatHellcat]

Good for that dude, and thanks to CC it seems.

[Hound]

Love to hear stories like this. I bet it happens a lot more than the media reports on it.

[Irving]

They will find some way to jam the witness up. Good work on his part though!


What do you mean by "jam the witness up?"

[BPTactical]

What do you mean by "jam the witness up?"

Find some way of lambasting him for what he did. Technically unless the robber posed an imminent threat to the witness he could get jammed for drawing his weapon.


You need to get a FM radio Stu, you would know these things....

[Irving]

Okay, I thought that was what he meant, but I wasn't sure. I haven't listened to AM radio since Phil Hendrie got taken off of 630 AM.

[Byte Stryke]

Felony menacing, Brandishing a deadly weapon, possibly assault with a deadly weapon and stalking (if they can prove he followed him)


I would expect nothing less out of DPRK (Demokratik Peoples Republik of Kolorado)

[BPTactical]

Okay, I thought that was what he meant, but I wasn't sure. I haven't listened to AM radio since Phil Hendrie got taken off of 630 AM.

FM Stu, FM

[alxone]

you guys and your fancy radios

[Bailey Guns]

You need to get a FM radio Stu...

Nothing but hippy music inspired by the devil on FM radio.

[streetglideok]

Link to story
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Store-Owner-Chases-Robbery-Suspect-204614521.html

[Bailey Guns]

Let's see... The victim of an aggravated robbery gives a firsthand account of the robbery to store owner. Store owner chases/catches/holds robbery suspect at gunpoint until police arrive.

If the facts in the story are correct I fail to see where the store owner committed any crime that would cause him to be arrested. There's definitely an argument to be made regarding whether or not he should've put himself at risk like he did, but I think some of you guys just look for reasons to rag on the cops even where none exist.

Any action you can take to defend yourself during the commission of a crime you can take to defend a third person. Your actions must be reasonable and lawful.

[streetglideok]

Hopefully Ted won't get targeted for malicious prosecution. He's a pretty stand up guy.

[buffalobo]

Let's see... The victim of an aggravated robbery gives a firsthand account of the robbery to store owner. Store owner chases/catches/holds robbery suspect at gunpoint until police arrive.

If the facts in the story are correct I fail to see where the store owner committed any crime that would cause him to be arrested. There's definitely an argument to be made regarding whether or not he should've put himself at risk like he did, but I think some of you guys just look for reasons to rag on the cops even where none exist.

Any action you can take to defend yourself during the commission of a crime you can take to defend a third person. Your actions must be reasonable and lawful.

Who is ragging the cops?

Maybe prosecutor?

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

[Dingo]

I think he could still claim that he followed the guy to make a citizen's arrest, the guy became violent, and THEN the owner drew down on him. Might not hold water in court, but it's something at least.

[Bailey Guns]

Who is ragging the cops?

Maybe prosecutor?

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

OK. How about LE? Feel better?

The guy did nothing wrong, there's no indication anyone is interested in charging him, yet a couple of members are talking about serious felonies and the store owner getting "jammed up" for perfectly legal actions.

If LE decides to "jam the guy up" then at least give them the opportunity to "jam the guy up" before talking about the guy being charged. FFS.

[10mm-man]

If LE decides to "jam the guy up" then at least give them the opportunity to "jam the guy up" before talking about the guy being charged. FFS.

I think T-Giv is coming from a point of view that carries some experience..... Don't think he would "Jam a guy up", but maybe he has seen some fellow LE that have. Or maybe even cases were a guy in this situation has. Guess we will just let him respond but wanted to let you know, he would be the last to "rag on cops".....

[Aloha_Shooter]

I think T-Giv is coming from a point of view that carries some experience..... Don't think he would "Jam a guy up", but maybe he has seen some fellow LE that have. Or maybe even cases were a guy in this situation have. Guess we will just let him respond but wanted to let you know, he would be the last to "bash a cop".....

Bear in mind this occurred in Colorado Springs. Both LE and citizenry here are a bit less polemistiphobic than in Denver. I would expect the DA down here would be more likely to give the citizen an award than "jam him up".

[Bailey Guns]

I think T-Giv is coming from a point of view that carries some experience..... Don't think he would "Jam a guy up", but maybe he has seen some fellow LE that have. Or maybe even cases were a guy in this situation has. Guess we will just let him respond but wanted to let you know, he would be the last to "rag on cops".....

I think we can all cite instances where someone was screwed by an overzealous cop or prosecutor. I saw it a few times myself during my career. That's not the point. The point is can't we wait until it actually happens rather than just assume it will?

[10mm-man]

I think we can all cite instances where someone was screwed by an overzealous cop or prosecutor. I saw it a few times myself during my career. That's not the point. The point is can't we wait until it actually happens rather than just assume it will?

I hear ya,this is were I bow out. Not sure why he said what he did, maybe it was directed at prosecutors. Not my fight, but my point was; he wasn't ragging on police or at least would be the last to do it.

[Bailey Guns]

It doesn't have to be a felony for a citizen to make an arrest. A person who is not a peace officer can arrest someone for any crime committed in their presence.

In this case, the store owner will most likely be viewed as having used force to stop a crime, or stopping the criminal from escaping...not necessarily making an arrest. That's perfectly lawful. Even though he didn't witness it he has the statutory authority to use reasonable force to stop the fleeing felon. Detaining someone until the police get there isn't the same as arresting them.

It would be no different if your wife ran into the store where you were and told you she had just been robbed and pointed out the robber to you. You'd have the authority to chase him down and hold him for police.

It may be semantics but that's how I've handled it and seen it handled many, many times and that's the justification that was used.

[CroiDhubh]

Actually, Baily, remember, it's a felony not committed in their presence and they have probable cause to believe said person is the felon, OR a misdemeanor committed in their presence. They cannot, just like an officer, arrest for an infraction, but they can be the one to sign the ticket when the officer arrives. They also cannot arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence, unlike an officer.

You are correct on everything else, and I agree the guy should be fine as long as some idiot doesn't decide to make an unlawful example of him.

[Bailey Guns]

16-3-201. Arrest by a private person

A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.


Annotation:
[An arrest must be first authorized under this section before a private person can use physical force to effect the arrest. People v. Joyce, 68 P.3d 521 (Colo. App. 2002).]

[When "in presence" requirement met. The "in presence" requirement of this section is met if the arrestor observes acts which are in themselves sufficiently indicative of a crime in the course of commission. People v. Olguin, 187 Colo. 34, 528 P.2d 234 (1974).]

[Hoser]

Get some Ted.

[CroiDhubh]

16-3-201. Arrest by a private person

A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.


Annotation:
[An arrest must be first authorized under this section before a private person can use physical force to effect the arrest. People v. Joyce, 68 P.3d 521 (Colo. App. 2002).]

[When "in presence" requirement met. The "in presence" requirement of this section is met if the arrestor observes acts which are in themselves sufficiently indicative of a crime in the course of commission. People v. Olguin, 187 Colo. 34, 528 P.2d 234 (1974).]

And knowing is half the battle! *LOL* Thanks, Bailey.

[Bailey Guns]

Agreed. I wouldn't recommend to someone they chase down an armed robber because they have their permit (or for any other reason, really). Way too many things can go wrong.

[streetglideok]

Good guys 1 Bad guys 0. Now everyone go to Short Stop and order up some burgers and show support for Ted, because you know the whiney liberals will want to do a protest of his establishment.

[CroiDhubh]

Good guys 1 Bad guys 0. Now everyone go to Short Stop and order up some burgers and show support for Ted, because you know the whiney liberals will want to do a protest of his establishment.

+1

[10mm-man]

16-3-201. Arrest by a private person

A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.


Annotation:
[An arrest must be first authorized under this section before a private person can use physical force to effect the arrest. People v. Joyce, 68 P.3d 521 (Colo. App. 2002).]

[When "in presence" requirement met. The "in presence" requirement of this section is met if the arrestor observes acts which are in themselves sufficiently indicative of a crime in the course of commission. People v. Olguin, 187 Colo. 34, 528 P.2d 234 (1974).]

Glad your bringing up facts in this case, can you tell me when lethal force would be justified? I ask because it says he held him at gunpoint, the guy asked him to shoot him. Could he have, because he requested it? No j/k! But when could he have or could he?

[CroiDhubh]

He could only have when justified. A basic version of the law states when you/another is in immediate threat of severe bodily harm or death. There's more to it than that, of course.

The guy just yelling or even just running at him would not be justified. If the guy started to reach behind himself or in a pocket, etc, then yes. However, do you want to go up against a lawyer who is feeding a liberal jury the fact you didn't need to chase the person down?

[Bailey Guns]

Yep. Basically you need to have a reasonable belief that: 1) you (or another) are imminent danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death, and 2) any lesser degree of force (anything short of deadly force) would be inadequate to protect yourself.

Obviously you're going to be required to articulate why you felt that way and it would really be helpful if you had witnesses or other physical evidence to corroborate your version of what happened. The fact you chased the guy down could be used to show how blood-thirsty you are by the guys lawyer (or his estate's lawyer when you get sued for killing him). It doesn't make you wrong...but pretty much anything will be used against you. The type of ammo you used, the type of gun you used, etc.

[10mm-man]

He could only have when justified. A basic version of the law states when you/another is in immediate threat of severe bodily harm or death. There's more to it than that, of course.

The guy just yelling or even just running at him would not be justified. If the guy started to reach behind himself or in a pocket, etc, then yes. However, do you want to go up against a lawyer who is feeding a liberal jury the fact you didn't need to chase the person down?


Yep. Basically you need to have a reasonable belief that: 1) you (or another) are imminent danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death, and 2) any lesser degree of force (anything short of deadly force) would be inadequate to protect yourself.

Obviously you're going to be required to articulate why you felt that way and it would really be helpful if you had witnesses or other physical evidence to corroborate your version of what happened. The fact you chased the guy down could be used to show how blood-thirsty you are by the guys lawyer (or his estate's lawyer when you get sued for killing him). It doesn't make you wrong...but pretty much anything will be used against you. The type of ammo you used, the type of gun you used, etc.


Only thing I can think in this situation is; good thing it turned out the way it did! Could have been worse....

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah...a lot worse. Like maybe the guy didn't wanna go to jail and he killed the store owner instead of begging to be shot. If the guy had shot him it would certainly help his case that the suspect had just committed an aggravated robbery.

[Sharpienads]

Good guys 1 Bad guys 0. Now everyone go to Short Stop and order up some burgers and show support for Ted, because you know the whiney liberals will want to do a protest of his establishment.

Yummy, Short Stop... what were we talking about again?

[Hoser]

So how about everyone stop armchair quarterbacking this? Just because the media didnt publish all the details, there is no reason for any speculation. We were not there. We dont have the details.

All the details we need to know is below.


Good guys=1, bad guys=0.

Lets all head to Short Stop, order lots of food and say thank you to Ted.

[streetglideok]

So how about everyone stop armchair quarterbacking this? Just because the media didnt publish all the details, there is no reason for any speculation. We were not there. We dont have the details.

All the details we need to know is below.


Good guys=1, bad guys=0.

Lets all head to Short Stop, order lots of food and say thank you to Ted.
Amen!

[T-Giv]

I for one armchair these situations like hell. Not to nitpick what the guy did wrong but to better prepare myself should I land in something similar. The key is having a plan. The time to work through what you're going to do is now. I always play the "what if" game. What if you were in a store and someone pulled a gun to rob it? You would draw down on the dude and order him to drop the gun and get on the ground? Then notify the clerk to call the cops and get them rolling? Or would you draw your gun and move to cover in the store? Then if things turn south up front you would engage? If you have a plan for the what if you won't be surprised or shocked when that robbery happens you'll just act.

[Sharpienads]

So how about everyone stop armchair quarterbacking this? Just because the media didnt publish all the details, there is no reason for any speculation. We were not there. We dont have the details.

All the details we need to know is below.


Good guys=1, bad guys=0.

Lets all head to Short Stop, order lots of food and say thank you to Ted.

As if I needed another excuse to go eat tasty, tasty burgers.

[CroiDhubh]

I for one armchair these situations like hell. Not to nitpick what the guy did wrong but to better prepare myself should I land in something similar. The key is having a plan. The time to work through what you're going to do is now. I always play the "what if" game. What if you were in a store and someone pulled a gun to rob it? You would draw down on the dude and order him to drop the gun and get on the ground? Then notify the clerk to call the cops and get them rolling? Or would you draw your gun and move to cover in the store? Then if things turn south up front you would engage? If you have a plan for the what if you won't be surprised or shocked when that robbery happens you'll just act.

+1 on this.

I play what if all the time. Not to be paranoid, but to have a plan. Always running through scenarios and alternatives to said scenario all the time.

[Hoser]

I for one armchair these situations like hell.

Thats fine. I get that. But to draw conclusions about anyones actions after reading a two paragraph blurb or maybe a 30 second sound bite on some news site and second guessing someone?