Another
A newly elected Lafollette city councilman is now facing Aggravated Assault charges for holding a suspected thief at gunpoint.
Police arrested Mike Stanfield on Tuesday, after finding him at the home of an alleged thief, holding a gun to the suspects head.
Yeah, threat of force for property doesn’t usually fly.
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:15 pm
I think he showed remarkable restraint. I predict he walks.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:27 pm
I dunno, he wasn’t preventing serious injury or death, I say he pleads down and walks.
November 24th, 2006 at 12:03 am
excuse me, but don’t our servants in police uniforms do that very thing? Where do they get the authority to proscribe actions they use, routinely, for their masters?
November 24th, 2006 at 12:45 am
The only thing that might justify what he did is his belief that the guy had run over his son, and that’s stretching it. Chasing a guy to his his house ain’t self-defense. I can feel for the guy and could see how he could lose control in a situation that wasn’t of his choosing, but it sure sounds like he let his rage take control of him.
November 24th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Honestly, I see nothing wrong with this. I think he did the right thing, whether or not the law says so. If police can do this why can’t citizens?
November 24th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Matt: and sometimes when the police do it even after supposedly being careful, here’s what happens.
Joel Rosenberg is fond of saying that a CCW permit doesn’t make you a junior G-man. It’s for your self-defense. It doesn’t make you a cop. Pursuing someone and then shoving a gun in their face in their own home is a recipe for a couple of disasters.
One reason states have castle doctrines is that if someone comes into your house, you can assume they’re up to no good. In this case the supposed good guy put himself on the bad end of that assumption. If there hadn’t been a witness, it would have been easy for the bad guy to blow Stanfield’s brains out and claim he was just defending his castle.
Stanfield might or might not get off the hook, but if he does that won’t make what he did something you’d want to imitate.
November 24th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Unless the prosecution can prove that he was aware the thief was heading back into the thief’s home, there’s no way they can show mens rea. If you see someone trying to steal your car, it’s not unreasonable to assume he’d be willing to break into someone’s house.
Stupid, but not really prosecutable.
November 24th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
More from Frank Strovel:
November 25th, 2006 at 10:32 am
You could argue that his actions were understandable, and I’d agree. But I don’t know of a single state that allows property owners to pursue suspects off their own property. Once you go from being a potential victim to an aggressor in a situation like this you forfeit any advantage you have under self-defense laws.
Honestly, I see nothing wrong with this. I think he did the right thing, whether or not the law says so. If police can do this why can’t citizens?
Police are specifically authorized by law to enforce laws; citizens have no such legal license. The law does allow citizens to effect an arrest of a suspect while the event is occurring, but it generally does not allow citizens to chase a suspect to his house and arrest him there, especially after the cops have already been notified and are in pursuit themselves. It sounds to me as if someone won an election and thinks he’s alot more powerful than he actually is.
November 25th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
You have all perhaps heard of the concept of a citizens arrest? Whether this case meets the local laws for that is the question, but the general concept is well established in our history.
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm
November 26th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Wow… okay, just looked it up. Tennesse’s Citizen Arrest laws are a bit… loose. Even by my tastes. They actually do fall in this guy’s favor, even if he wasn’t a politico.
Theft between $500 and $1000 is considered a class E felony. He’s allowed to arrest any individual who commits any felony “For a public offense committed in the arresting person’s presence; when the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the arresting person’s presence; or when a felony has been committed, and the arresting person has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it.” There is no limitation as to time. He is not required to provide the notice of arrest if the alleged felon is arrested during a pursuit. If the alleged felon attempts to escape, as long as he gave notice first he’s even allowed to break into the felon’s house.
November 26th, 2006 at 8:59 am
There is no human life without property. You should think this through, because you’re wrong.
November 26th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
He’s a dumbass, if for no other reason, for pulling an unloaded gun on someone. You never brandish a firearm unless you are prepared to use it. What’s more, had the thief shot him it might have been found to be justified self defense.