PDA

View Full Version : Laws for citizens arrest?



harbl_the_cat
02-20-2015, 06:27 PM
Anyone know the laws concerning citizens arrest?

More to follow.

Drache
02-20-2015, 06:29 PM
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/wyntk.html

What You Need to Know About Making a Citizen's Arrest

Whenever possible, you should report wrongdoing to the police instead of taking action on your own. Police officers are equipped with the proper intervention tools and trained to deal with incidents which may escalate to become violent.
Important Considerations

Making a citizen's arrest without carefully considering the risk factors may have serious unintended consequences for you and others involved. In most cases, an arrest consists of either actually seizing or touching a person's body in an effort to detain them.

Before deciding whether to make a citizen's arrest, you should be aware of the Citizen's Arrest Laws and consider the following:

Is it feasible for a peace officer to intervene? If so, report the crime to the police instead of taking action on your own.
Your personal safety and that of others could be compromised by attempting an arrest. Relevant considerations would include whether the suspect is alone and whether they possess a weapon.
Will you be able to turn over the suspect to the police without delay once an arrest is made?
Do you have a reasonable belief regarding the suspect's criminal conduct?

Making a Citizen's Arrest

If you do decide to make a citizen's arrest, you should:

Tell the suspect plainly that you are making a citizen's arrest and that you are holding him or her until police arrive.
Call the police.
Ask explicitly for his or her cooperation until police arrive.
Avoid using force, if at all possible, and use it to the minimum possible otherwise.
Do not question or search the suspect or his or her possessions. Your purpose is only to temporarily detain him or her until police arrive.
When police arrive, state the plain facts of what happened.

Citizen's Arrest Laws

In most cases, you must find a person either in the act of committing a crime, or escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person, in order to lawfully make a citizen's arrest. In particular, if you are arresting a person for an indictable offence, which is the most serious type of offence and includes violent offences, you can only make the arrest at the time you witness the person committing the offence. It is against the law to arrest a person after any lapse in time for having committed an indictable offence, unless it is relation to your property.

In special circumstances of any type of criminal offence that is committed on or in relation to your property, you may either:

arrest a person you find in the act of committing a crime; or
arrest a person within a reasonable period of time after having found that person committing a crime.

To be eligible to make a citizen's arrest for a crime on or in relation to property, you must be one of the following:

the owner of the property;
in lawful possession of the property; or
have been authorized by the owner or the person in lawful possession of the property.

The law allows you to use as much force as is necessary for the purpose of making a citizen's arrest, as long as you are acting on reasonable grounds. However, any force you use must be tailored to the circumstances, and you are criminally responsible for any excess force you use. In addition to the potential for a criminal prosecution, you may also face a civil lawsuit in relation to your conduct and any injury you cause.

The law requires that when making a citizen's arrest, the arrested individual must be delivered to a police officer without delay. If you make a citizen's arrest and do not call the police as soon as possible, the arrest might be ruled illegal, and you could face civil or criminal consequences.
Correctly identifying a suspect

In the special circumstances of making an arrest ""within a reasonable time after"" observing an offence (as opposed to while the offence is in progress), you are strongly urged to exercise additional care in confirming the identity of the suspect.

It is always extremely important to correctly identify a suspect and their criminal involvement. If you make a citizen's arrest at the very time a person is found committing a crime, the correct identification of the suspect will not likely be called into question.

However, if you make an arrest ""within a reasonable time after"" observing the offence, the accuracy of the identification of the suspect may be called into question.

You need to be conscious of the fact that situational factors such as the presence of a weapon, the number of individuals involved, environmental factors and heightened stress levels can negatively affect your recollection of a past incident and your ability to correctly identify a person you have previously seen committing an offence. Even if you genuinely believe that you have correctly identified the suspect after the crime was observed, the risk of mistaken identity is real, and must not be minimized.

If the person you attempt to arrest is the wrong person, the situation is potentially very dangerous. The person being arrested will not understand why they are being detained and may not submit to the arrest. In these circumstances, there is a real risk that if you arrest the wrong person, you could provoke a violent confrontation, and risk injury or death.
Warning

A citizen's arrest is a very serious and potentially dangerous undertaking. Unlike a police officer, private citizens are neither tasked with the duty to preserve and maintain public peace, nor properly trained to apprehend suspected criminals. Exercise extreme caution when attempting to make a citizen's arrest.

Swampdonkey
02-20-2015, 06:30 PM
Good or any indictable or dual-procedure offence. Read sections 25 and 26 first.

harbl_the_cat
02-20-2015, 06:46 PM
I was with my wife and kids at the food court in a mall. I was at Subway, my wife at a Chinese kiosk a few venders down with my girls.

At Subway, I saw a couple of teenage boys talking about "spraying" something on someone's head - it struck me as a bit odd, but not alarming.

I placed my order, then my wife started calling to me.

I went over, and saw she was verbally accosting two of the same teenage boys.

She accused one of the boys of spraying her with some chemical and took a few photos of the boy.

My daughters bottle and blanket as well as my wife's shirt had the smell of some feces - suggesting to me the boys had sprayed her with something.

I asked the boys if they did what my wife said they did, I smelt the chemical and believed her, but the boys denied it. In my heart, I knew they had done something, but I just didn't know what to do, so I let them go and reported the incident to security (who informed me there were reports of teenage boys spraying people in the mall with something).

I felt really ashamed of myself - I should have escorted the youth to security - but I was too apprehensive about what would have happened if I physically restrained the youth and carted him off.

I was much bigger than him and, if he didn't have a weapon, would have had no problem.

On the drive home, I felt angry and had wished I had clocked the boy in the face - but I'm certain had I done that, it wouldn't have ended well for me.

One puzzling part was how he posed gangsta style when my wife was taking his photo.

I'm especially angry at the youths parents especially. What kind of values do parents teach a child to get them to the point to think it is every acceptable to assault a woman with two young children?

Drache
02-20-2015, 06:49 PM
You should have called the mall security right away and let them deal with the problem.

harbl_the_cat
02-20-2015, 06:55 PM
You should have called the mall security right away and let them deal with the problem.

The security office was a minutes walk away from where we were.

When I asked the security guard if I COULD have detained them, he said I could have made a citizens arrest.

Drache
02-20-2015, 07:03 PM
The security office was a minutes walk away from where we were.

When I asked the security guard if I COULD have detained them, he said I could have made a citizens arrest.

Yes you could have but you didn't know the laws concerning such.

You should have asked any of the places in the food court to contact security. They would have the number in their phones for safety purposes.

Buster
02-20-2015, 07:38 PM
Some times you just have to ask the pukes if they have balls big enough to spray you too, if not tell them to take their little pu$$ies home before you twist them both together in a pretzel with eachothers heads stuffed up their asses, then remind them the old saying "a coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies just once", then ask them which one they are.

Either your going to get to make them bleed or they will walk home feeling like chumps, either way they may learn something.

I learnt in my younger years there's nothing to brag about unless your going for the top dog, there is nothing admirable about harassing the weak.

short1
02-20-2015, 07:40 PM
You had better be EXTREMELY careful dealing with Minors. You say they were teenagers ?
All it takes is for one of them to (falsely) say you sexually touched him and your world will crash. You might be surprised how many youths know this and use it like a trump card to get away with all kinds of Crap.

Foxer
02-20-2015, 07:50 PM
The law is a little complex. Here's the basic deal. There is no real thing as 'citizens arrest' in the law, just that anyone has the power to detain people under various conditions. the police have a few more rules and such and privileges but regular people have a lot of power too. So we'll CALL it 'citizens arrest' right now for the sake of simplicity and because it's a commonly used term, but just remember you won't find that term in the law (unless it's changed) and it's more like 'non-police arrest'.

This is covered in the Criminal Code of Canada under: Arrest without Warrant and Release from Custody

Now - here's how it works. IF YOU have solid reasons to believe an INDICTABLE crime has taken place, you may detain the people involved and turn them over to police. You used to have to SEE the crime yourself, but nowadays that's been relaxed in the law and you only have to have good reason to believe if someone else has seen it.

Here's the law:

Arrest without warrant by any person

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
Marginal note:Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) The owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest a person without a warrant if they find them committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property and

(a) they make the arrest at that time; or

(b) they make the arrest within a reasonable time after the offence is committed and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is not feasible in the circumstances for a peace officer to make the arrest.
Marginal note:Delivery to peace officer

(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.
Marginal note:For greater certainty

(4) For greater certainty, a person who is authorized to make an arrest under this section is a person who is authorized by law to do so for the purposes of section 25.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 494;
2012, c. 9, s. 3.

Now - an indictable offense is a crime which COULD result in jail time. That is a crime for which the punishment if convicted COULD - but not necessearily WILL - result in jail. This is important because some crimes are 'hybrid' crimes, where the judge could choose to jail the person OR fine them - but because they COULD go to jail it's an indictable offense as far as I understand.

So a) - you have to have either seen the offense or the person has to be running from someone who HAS got the legal authority to arrest them (including a private person who has seen the offense and has the power to arrest them thusly).

So you didn't see the crime - but your wife did, and therefore you couldn't arrest them, but SHE could, and if she did you'd be authorized to assist if they tried to run or the like.

Now - that raises the question ... was this an indictable offense? Arguably it is if they sprayed her with something she has reason to believe is potentially dangerous or represents an assault.

If she reasonably believed it was dangerous it would fall under this:

1. Any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of

(a) tear gas, Mace or other gas, or

(b) any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person.

it's a little thin - but possibly. She doesn't know what they had - it could be antrax for all she knew. If they didn't tell her, she would be reasonable to assume it could be dangerous.

It might also be considered assault, depending on the circumstance.

So what should likely have happened is that the wife should have told them they were under arrest - that gives you authority to assist. Then turn them over and tell the police they came up and sprayed your family and you're afraid it was with something dangerous, and they won't say. I think there's enough possible indictable offenses involved that you'd be pretty safe, and seriously what cop is going to give you a hard time about THAT?

Hope that clears it up a LITTLE bit anyway.

short1
02-20-2015, 08:03 PM
Also, Were you wearing your "Tactical Daddy" outfit ?

harbl_the_cat
02-20-2015, 08:26 PM
You had better be EXTREMELY careful dealing with Minors. You say they were teenagers ?
All it takes is for one of them to (falsely) say you sexually touched him and your world will crash. You might be surprised how many youths know this and use it like a trump card to get away with all kinds of Crap.

Honestly - that's what worries me the most, especially volunteering with youth myself. Children are bubble wrapped by our society to their detriment.

What these boys needed was their Dad to give them a good licking with the belt (buckle side). A friend of mine who was a former police officer says that's illegal though.


Also, Were you wearing your "Tactical Daddy" outfit ?

Yes.

short1
02-20-2015, 08:33 PM
There must be so many surveillance cameras inside a food court, they could recreate the scene in 3d like a holodeck if they chose. Perhaps you could make an official complaint to the police ? get them working for you for once. I was once taught that even spraying someone with a squirtgun could be considered Criminla assault. Your wife sounds like she was assaulted.

harbl_the_cat
02-20-2015, 08:53 PM
There must be so many surveillance cameras inside a food court, they could recreate the scene in 3d like a holodeck if they chose. Perhaps you could make an official complaint to the police ? get them working for you for once. I was once taught that even spraying someone with a squirtgun could be considered Criminla assault. Your wife sounds like she was assaulted.

She was REALLY distraught after the incident. While we were in the security office one of the guards said they caught one of the youth.

DOA
02-21-2015, 12:36 AM
Foxer explained it well. Security Guards have the same authority as you do with the added authority of acting on behalf of the property owners. You believed on your wife's statement that they assaulted her, you could have detained them and called the police. Witnesses in a public place help protect you from a false accusation as would video from security cameras, a cell phone would help. It's hard to know this without reading it for yourself, it's worth your time if you're the type to help out.

blacksmithden
02-21-2015, 01:03 PM
Honestly - that's what worries me the most, especially volunteering with youth myself. Children are bubble wrapped by our society to their detriment.

What these boys needed was their Dad to give them a good licking with the belt (buckle side). A friend of mine who was a former police officer says that's illegal though.



Yes.

You can't legally dish out corporal punishment with anything other than your hand. That being said, junior got my belt (not the buckle) delivered across his backside a few times in his life when he decided to be a smart-a-- to his mother over and over again, basically thumbing his nose at his punishment for doing it the first time. I don't really care if it's legal or not. If the government thinks they can raise kids better than I can and wants to give me free room and board for their trouble, so be it. I will NOT raise one of those kids that you encountered in the mall.....and if I ever find out one of my kids pulled something like that...God help their souls when I get them home, because it won't be pretty. Over all, given their special circumstances, our kids have turned out pretty good....at least that's what people tell us.

cathaldj
02-21-2015, 01:57 PM
I always thought that 'detainment' during a citizens arrest (for the lack of a better term) could not involve restraints. So the question becomes, how much force is too much?

If someone is trying to firebomb my house, and I leave the house to stop them and I'm holding my rifle as I don't know if my life is in danger (I am allowed to defend my property as per the changes to the laws around self-defence, 2012), and I execute a detainment until the police arrive. Their lawyer could say that I threatened them with the firearm and used excessive force to detain them against their will.

I would reason that I might be using too much force, but what about my slightly built wife? There is no way that she would a match for some teenage guy.

AB.Boy
02-21-2015, 04:22 PM
That is a tough situation and it would be hard not to react physically especially if the are messing with your family. I know I'd be shaking with rage if I was in your shoes. You mentioned the security caught one of the little bastards. We're the police called? Charges laid? That food court must have pretty good security cameras to show what happened if it's your word against theirs. What mall were you at?

Edenchef
02-22-2015, 12:00 AM
I would say that if I were confronting someone, in the process of firebombing my house, I would be pulling the trigger until the threat is stopped. Hopefully they are then immolated by their own firebomb. Detainment by force would not be a problem. The question would be....hot dogs or marshmallows?

Cheers!

DOOK
02-22-2015, 07:06 AM
I don't agree with the provision that you cannot search your detainees person. That is the first thing a LEO would do. For your own safety, I would do a quick pat down with one hand on their body, the other wrapped firmly around interlaced fingers held over their head. They move the hands, they get pain.

Foxer
02-22-2015, 11:49 AM
I always thought that 'detainment' during a citizens arrest (for the lack of a better term) could not involve restraints. So the question becomes, how much force is too much?

There's plenty of court cases covering this, you should read a few to get an idea of what the judges are looking for. Basically they're pretty forgiving. They will frequently note that citizens are not trained experts like police so are held to a lower standard, and they basically look at whether or not what you did was intended to restrain or whether it was punitive.

Now - you're probably getting the 'no restraints' idea from the fact that if you DO restrain someone and it turns out you WEREN'T legally allowed to arrest him in the first place, you've basically committed an act of kidnapping and unlawful restraint. This is what happened in the famous 'lucky moose' case which is the case that caused the self defense and property defense laws to be changed - they determined he didn't have lawful authority to detain the person, therefore the restraints were a criminal offense.

The way the law works is that you can 'detain' someone with cause. If that person then tries to leave, you may use reasonable force to restrain him given the circumstances, which most people can figure out an the judges are going to be a little relaxed about. If the person attacks you at that point, then you are into self defense rules and can defend yourself as per the law, which is fairly forgiving now as well.

Best thing you can do is read up on it and learn from what the judges have said in the past.

short1
02-22-2015, 12:14 PM
---

Foxer
02-22-2015, 12:53 PM
How bout providing a link to such a case of arrest foxer ?

Well i'm not going to dig up a bunch of cases for you guys this morning, but I will give you a link you should be aware of to make it easy to find your own examples:

http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html

It's great for searching cases on a number of subjects such as castle doctrine, self defense, when is something a concealed weapon, etc etc etc.

In this case, just search for 'citizen's arrest' to get you started. You can refine searches quite a bit if you want, but that should give you a bunch of reading to start with. Enjoy!

Drache
02-22-2015, 12:57 PM
How bout providing a link to such a case of arrest foxer ?
Seems to me if you are standing before a judge, You already been charged criminally, And have probably spent $10K plus in lawyers fees just to get there, even if the charges are dropped. Isn't that the way it is in Canada ? The police say "charge em and let the judge figure it out". And you might just be denied the renewal on your PAL since you have a "history" as it were.

The most recent case comes to mind of that guy chasing a criminal from his store and then tying the criminal up in his van until police arrived or something like that. Store owner was on trial (acquitted) for unlawful confinement.

Foxer
02-22-2015, 01:02 PM
The most recent case comes to mind of that guy chasing a criminal from his store and then tying the criminal up in his van until police arrived or something like that. Store owner was on trial (acquitted) for unlawful confinement.

That would be the 'lucky moose' incident - and that's the one that lead to the change in our laws to clarify them and address problems like this one.

In that case, the bad guy got away at first. He came back much later and the store owners recognized him and grabbed him and held him for police.

The law at that time said that you could ONLY arrest someone if they were basically IN THE ACT of committing the crime - not at a later time. So initially he was found to have committed a crime.

The CPC changed the laws to allow people to arrest someone at a later time (within 24 hours I think) if it was unlikely that the police could intervene in a timely fashion.

Foxer
02-22-2015, 01:06 PM
I'm feeling a little generous so i'll post the links to that news story and one of the court cases:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/lucky-moose-bill-loosens-self-defence-citizens-arrest-laws/

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2010/2010oncj641/2010oncj641.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAaRGF2aWQgQ2h lbiBjaXRpemVucyBhcnJlc3QAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

RangeBob
02-22-2015, 01:15 PM
The most recent case comes to mind of that guy chasing a criminal from his store and then tying the criminal up in his van until police arrived or something like that. Store owner was on trial (acquitted) for unlawful confinement.

That would be the 'lucky moose' case. [ http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/lucky-moose-bill-loosens-self-defence-citizens-arrest-laws/ ]

It's not worth looking up for this though. The judge basically said: I don't believe the prosecution's witnesses; and the defence's witnesses are "Where I found Chen reticent and evasive, I found Li was in an alternate reality. Where I found that some of Chenís evidence required a healthy dose of gullibility, I found Liís amounted to an outright fictionalized account."
The judge ended with "it is impossible for me to say that I am satisfied on the material evidence before me that I know what happened that day. It follows therefore that the only conclusion that I can come to is that I have a reasonable doubt. All such doubts must always be resolved in favour of the defence."
-- http://canlii.ca/t/2f7qc

Drache
02-22-2015, 01:33 PM
Ok from what it sounds like, if you have reasonable grounds, you may restrain a person if it's necessary. But be aware you can face forcible confinement charges if you are in the wrong.

Foxer
02-22-2015, 02:06 PM
Ok from what it sounds like, if you have reasonable grounds, you may restrain a person if it's necessary. But be aware you can face forcible confinement charges if you are in the wrong.

Essentially. And even then the judge in that lucky moose case specifically said that if they'd just said "we were caught up in the moment we're not trained for this and we weren't sure what to do" that this could have been a completely viable defense for the 'excessive' actions they took.

What the law wants you to do is hold the person with the least REASONABLE amount of force necessary given the circumstances. But the law does not expect you to be experts or to spend a half hour trying to figure out what the 'least' amount might be.

short1
02-22-2015, 03:09 PM
---

Foxer
02-22-2015, 03:54 PM
So Harbl, Maybe you were looking for some actual examples of situations where "citizens arrest" was performed and the civilian doing the arresting was not charged with anything ?
Instead you got a link to a court case database where many people were charged criminally and faced a judge. You too could have your name go down in the archives of canlii as well. It might cost you $10G minimum, Or it might cost you much, much more.......

Unfortunately, thats a very real possibility no matter what information you're given. No matter how clear the laws are the interpretation of the law by a judge or by the crown prosecutor who may take you to court is never guaranteed. Even if you are found to be on the right side of the law, it may cost you a huge amount of money to prove that and you may be charged just because the police officer doesn't like what you did.

If you want a case where a person arrested someone and wasn't charged, that's a little harder to come by usually. Obviously they are not documented well. Most are anecdotal and you don't know all of the details well enough to use it as a guide for the future. All we can look at his cases where people successfully beat the charges. The only case where no charges were laid I can offer is my own experience where I did arrest somebody who was beating a woman over A traffic incident. He wouldn't get off of her, so I hit him, put him under arrest, and called the police. The police came, took a look at the situation, charged the man and I was not charged. Neither was the young man who rushed across the street to help after I had arrested him. I told the officer that I had specifically told him he was under arrest. We restrained him physically but not by tieing him up or the like and he didn't try to flee although he did try to get at the woman one more time. If anything, the police were thankful and supportive. Would that be the same case in another city? I have no way of knowing. My dad did intervene rather dramatically to help a cop who was chasing a bad guy a few years before that, but that's a little different because the police officer was less than a minute behind and was already in pursuit of the bad guy when dad got involved. But in both cases, no charges and the police were supportive of the actions.

It all comes back to what I keep saying over and over: there really isn't a problem with our laws, there is a problem with the inconsistency of applying those laws across Canada. All you can do is look at cases where the judge found that the person had acted appropriately and try to understand the law as best you can. Judges will tend to be slightly more consistant than crowns or cops across the country.

Edenchef
02-22-2015, 05:06 PM
It all comes back to what I keep saying over and over: there really isn't a problem with our laws, there is a problem with the inconsistency of applying those laws across Canada. All you can do is look at cases where the judge found that the person had acted appropriately and try to understand the law as best you can. Judges will tend to be slightly more consistant than crowns or cops across the country.

I disagree Foxer. We have a big problem with our laws, because when the crowns or the cops screw up and this is "corrected" by a judge there is no compensation to the "victim" of their error/incompetence/negligence and little or no "correction" of their behavior, to improve the legal system. Without "feedback" to correct these errors; the system will just spiral into chaos, eventually. If our laws were perfect we would not need "feedback", but we both know the law of this land is far from perfection.

Cheers!

Foxer
02-22-2015, 08:12 PM
I disagree Foxer. We have a big problem with our laws, because when the crowns or the cops screw up and this is "corrected" by a judge there is no compensation to the "victim" of their error/incompetence/negligence and little or no "correction" of their behavior, to improve the legal system.
That's not a problem with our laws tho. That's a problem with our legal system. Change the law all you like and the cops and crowns would STILL use 'punishment by process' to mess with people. What would need to change is our legal system itself.


Without "feedback" to correct these errors; the system will just spiral into chaos, eventually. If our laws were perfect we would not need "feedback", but we both know the law of this land is far from perfection.

Well you're correct of course, but again it's not really a problem with the law. It's a problem with the fact that the crowns and cops can charge regardless of the law and still cause someone massive hardship even tho the court is going to find him innocent.

Now some cases are just 'grey' and there's no getting around going to the judge. In the case of the lucky moose, the judge was quite clear that this was a legitimate case worthy of consideration and not just a 'witch hunt' or punishment by process (which is concerning, because it does indicate the judge thinks some prosecutors do that). But the law here really isn't the problem. It's pretty clear and it's pretty lenient to the person making the arrest. Even in this case the judge indicated that he felt if everyone wasn't trying to lie their way out of this the store owners would likely still have been found to be justified. As it is, they still walked. Had they known the law a little better they would likely have never been in trouble in the first place.

harbl_the_cat
02-24-2015, 06:55 PM
So I walked away from this thread for a bit.

It was at Cross Iron Mills when it happened.

Honestly - I am EXTREMELY slow to anger, very much to my detriment.

My wife on the other hand is Vietnamese tiger lady, and actually I had to restrain her a bit, because I felt she was close to going nuclear on these young boys. The thing is, while it was on the back of my mind to unleash the thunder on those boys, first and foremost my sense of reason made me realize I could be putting myself at even more jeopardy legally if I had acted in a way that made sense.

I'm going to share this story tonight with the youth in my group tonight to get their perspective on things.

What kind of bothered me about it though was my knowledge of the legal consequences caused me to hesitate when I should have acted. What if those boys had a gun or a knife - how would I have acted then?

Kobs
03-02-2015, 04:58 PM
The law allows you to use as much force as is necessary for the purpose of making a citizen's arrest, as long as you are acting on reasonable grounds. However, any force you use must be tailored to the circumstances, and you are criminally responsible for any excess force you use. In addition to the potential for a criminal prosecution, you may also face a civil lawsuit in relation to your conduct and any injury you cause.

The law requires that when making a citizen's arrest, the arrested individual must be delivered to a police officer without delay. If you make a citizen's arrest and do not call the police as soon as possible, the arrest might be ruled illegal, and you could face civil or criminal consequences.

In a few words, let the bad guy do what ever he pleases and get the hell out of his way or you will be charged and prosecuted... Simple isn't it . Welcome to Canada

RAFMedic
03-02-2015, 05:38 PM
The law allows you to use as much force as is necessary for the purpose of making a citizen's arrest, as long as you are acting on reasonable grounds. However, any force you use must be tailored to the circumstances, and you are criminally responsible for any excess force you use. In addition to the potential for a criminal prosecution, you may also face a civil lawsuit in relation to your conduct and any injury you cause.

The law requires that when making a citizen's arrest, the arrested individual must be delivered to a police officer without delay. If you make a citizen's arrest and do not call the police as soon as possible, the arrest might be ruled illegal, and you could face civil or criminal consequences.

In a few words, let the bad guy do what ever he pleases and get the hell out of his way or you will be charged and prosecuted... Simple isn't it . Welcome to Canada

I've actually had to do this 3 times in the past decade (have I mentioned I really need to move ?hehe)

2 were attempted assaults (actually on me, so it was self defence). But I did utter those words. The other was a DUI that I witnessed crashing into a ditch. Non-inditable (sp) , until he fell and a large quantity of pills in baggies fell out of his pocket. Okey doke, says I. All 3 occasions a nice thumblock was sufficient for restraint.

Never been charged and the local Horsemen come for tea all the time.(bacon)