[dragonwriter]

In most states, citizens arrest is allowed, but in much more limited circumstances, much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest, and with much more civil and criminal liability risk then arrest by police.

A fairly typical rule is that citizens arrest is only for felonies that occur either in your presence or with a certain degree of justified belief but also that the arrested person must be factually guilty of the felony. (Some states also allow it for some misdemeanors, but are even more restrictive there.)

[jMyles]

> much stricter limits on use of force to effect an arrest

I have never heard of this. Can you show me such a law? Excessive force is illegal no matter whom is effecting the arrest.

[s73v3r_]

The definition of "excessive" changes based on whether you're a cop or not.

[jMyles]

Can you show me such a definition?

[dragonwriter]

California Penal Code Section 835a provides specific authorization for force and protections from liability for circumstances which exceed the normal bounds of self-defense in peace officer arrests, and Section 834a creates a legal duty of the person being arrested by a peace officer not to resist.

There is a similar but not identical protection to 835a for non-peace officer public employee arrests in Section 836.5(a)

Neither protection applied to peace officer arrests has a parallel protection for citizens arrests.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-ar...

[jMyles]

The statute does not provide for differences in force between these two; it requires that peace officers use only "reasonable" force.

Are you suggesting that the absence of similar language in 837 (I assume this is what you meant, not 836.5) means that other people can't use reasonable force?

Has a court ever held this?

[dragonwriter]

> The statute does not provide for differences in force between these two;

It authorized for one what it does not authorize for the other. That's how a law provided for a difference.

> it requires that peace officers use only "reasonable" force.

It authorizes police officers to “use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.” There is no “only” there, the reason you can add “only” and not be wrong is that use of force is otherwise prohibited by law.

It also specifically states that, for peace officers, certain actions in the course of arrest will not be held to make the aggressors or outside the bounds of self-defense, overriding general principles of criminal law regarding assault and homicide.

> Are you suggesting that the absence of similar language in 837 (I assume this is what you meant, not 836.5) means that other people can't use reasonable force?

First, the reference to 836.5(a) was to the presence (not absence) of similar language for arrest by public employees who are not peace officers.

Second, the absence of similar language means that citizens arrest does not benefit from the additional authorizations granted police or public employee arrests.

It does benefit from a narrower grant of reasonable restraint that applies to all arrests in Section 835: “The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.”