[chipperyman573]

In the US, you can make a citizen's arrest if you are in the presence of a crime being committed (or if a felony was committed not in the citizen's presence), but you can't use too much force (varies by state). Also, if you're wrong, you can face charges. For example, if you lock someone in a room to arrest them while the police are coming, and the person wasn't doing anything wrong, you could face wrongful imprisonment charges.

[jMyles]

Show me a state law that says that police are authorized to use greater force than other citizens.

edit: Why the downvotes? Come on now, HN. Just post a link. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But at least give a source.

[stevenwoo]

There is a controversy right now in California that the bar for police to use deadly force is too low - currently the police officer needs to claim fear in a situation to justify use of deadly force. http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article207741689.html There was a Supreme Court case recently that gives law enforcement a pretty wide latitude to justify deadly force - the police officer in this case disobeyed a superior's order and also was not trained in the situation for which he decided to shoot. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-police-sho...

[jMyles]

Again: that has nothing to do with effecting arrest. I realize that sworn officers have legal protections regarding their actions to protect others, including the use of deadly force.

Can you show me where they have wider latitude to use force to effect an arrest?

[s73v3r_]

The fact that they get away with it.

[jMyles]

That's not the discussion here. GP claimed that the law varied state by state. I'm asking to be shown such a law which gives police increased latitude to use force.

[s73v3r_]

That's entirely the discussion here. If, when judged, cops are judged with one standard, and everyone else by another, then yes, they are given increased latitude to use force.

[Retric]

The US operates on common law, so much of it is a matter of precedence now simply what's written down. And their are many cases of police but not private citizens being given deference on the use of force.

[jMyles]

Sure, that's true.

But this person claimed that the amount of permissible force varied by state, as if different state statutes allowed for different amounts of force from police vs other citizens, and I don't think that's so. Or at least, I've never seen it.

Some states give police specific latitude in using deadly force to protect others, but not merely to effect an arrest (again, at least that I know of).

Also, it's important to note that to the degree these are common-law distinctions, common-law is much, much older than professional policing, which is fairly new in the western political experience. As it was emerging, of course, the western tradition came to base the professional police role largely on the Peelian principles, one of which is

> To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

...so if indeed the common-law tradition is that police are "members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen" then it's hard to understand how that's compatible with wildly different arrest powers.

[Retric]

It's largely a question of qualified immunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

The law get's really specific. For example there are plenty of laws relating to police chases which cause 300 and 400 deaths per year.

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court held in Scott v. Harris (550 U.S. 372) that a "police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_chase

[jMyles]

The goalposts are jumping all over the field here.

First, the claim was that "It's also not legal for a random citizen to execute or arrest people."

Then, when challenged, the claim became that the amount of lawful force when effecting arrest varies between police and other citizens on a state-by-state basis.

Now you've given a SCOTUS decision (binding across the US obviously, not state-by-state) about qualified immunity (not statutory authority) in the legal context of protecting bystanders (ie, not naked arrest power).

If this is the best argument, then I think that I'm correct in my assertion that police do not have any additional authority to use force in different states to effect an arrest than anyone else.

[Retric]

Qualified immunity is what allows members of the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal for regular people. It's directly the mechanism and law you are asking for. Police officers are given qualified immunity when using force as part of their duties including acts such as arresting people. But, one of the limits is what local procedures are, so doing a 120 MPH care chase is not universally ok.

Police chases are directly part of the arrest process and use of force. In this case it's mostly one of discretion, where police are allowed to both make the call and actually act.

More specifically, in most states only police are allowed to use blue lights on top of their cars with a few state specific exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_vehicle_lighting#Uni... Further, trying to escape after those lights are on is illegal, so again they are given access to tools and techniques including use of force that are not available to regular people.

I am not sure what specifically you want, and suspect the issue is you don't really understand how our legal system works in practice.

[outworlder]

They are not necessarily 'authorized' by the letter of the law. But if they are not prosecuted to the same extent as citizens are, then they are authorized de facto.

[rhacker]

Not sure why you're getting downvoted - it seems that many people fall to the fallacy of what they think is true, must be so.

[s73v3r_]

They're getting downvoted for being deliberately obtuse.

[jMyles]

I'm not being obtuse. I'm asking for documentation of a specific, unambiguous claim in the form of a link to a statute in a particular state which provides for different levels of lawful force in effecting an arrest for police in contrast to other citizens. Provide such a link and I'll acknowledge that I was incorrect.

[s73v3r_]

Yes, you're being obtuse. You're asking for something you know is not codified, but is very real in practice.

[jMyles]

Come on now. I'm asking for something that was purported to exist. If it doesn't, fine, but don't change the discussion to something else.