💕
Criminal Law • Justification
CRIMLAW#016
Legal Definition
Police and private citizens may use deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of a dangerous felony or to apprehend or arrest a dangerous felon. A private citizen is not entitled to make a reasonable mistake—the defendant must have actually committed a felony.
Plain English Explanation
There are five so-called "dangerous felonies" (which we will discuss in their own separate cards). They are: (1) burglary, (2) arson, (3) rape, (4) robbery, and (5) kidnapping. They are uniquely dangerous because they are the types of felonies that inherently involve an action that places substantial risk on harming—or even killing—a victim. As a result of this risk, if someone is committing—or about to commit—one of these dangerous felonies, the law is okay with people using a level of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to try to stop the perpetrator of the dangerous felony.
Note that generally speaking, police and private citizens have an equal right to use force against perpetrators of dangerous felonies. The exception is that a private citizen can be held liable for their actions if they are mistaken in their belief that someone has committed a dangerous felony. In other words, there is no "imperfect defense"-like equivalent available to the private citizen.
Note that generally speaking, police and private citizens have an equal right to use force against perpetrators of dangerous felonies. The exception is that a private citizen can be held liable for their actions if they are mistaken in their belief that someone has committed a dangerous felony. In other words, there is no "imperfect defense"-like equivalent available to the private citizen.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam, a private citizen, is sipping his morning coffee on his porch. He notices that his neighbor's young daughter is standing by the street when suddenly a car pulls up. A large man who Sam has never seen before gets out of the car, grabs the young girl, and begins shoving her into the car while she appears to resist. Sam pull out a shotgun, points it at the man, and demands that he stops. Result: Whether or not Sam has done anything wrong depends on whether or not the large man is doing something wrong. If the large man is attempting to kidnap the young girl, then Sam's use of deadly force (note that "deadly force" does not require someone to actually die or be harmed; pulling out a gun is deadly force, even if it isn't discharged) is justified and lawful because he is preventing one of the five dangerous felonies.
However, if the large man is actually the young girl's Uncle that Sam has never met, and he was lawfully picking up his niece, then Sam's mistake is not justified, even if it is arguably reasonable. This means Sam would be held liable for his actions.
In contrast, if Sam were a police officer, then his actions would be protected in either situation, whether the large man was actually committing a crime, or if Sam were reasonably mistaken. This may seem unfair, but the law is more forgiving to trained professional law enforcement personnel who make mistakes than everyday normal private citizens because it doesn't want to encourage vigilantism. In other words, if you're a private citizen and you see something super obviously dangerous and illegal, the law is okay with you stepping in. But if you're not 100% sure, then the law would prefer if you called police instead of figuring it out yourself.
However, if the large man is actually the young girl's Uncle that Sam has never met, and he was lawfully picking up his niece, then Sam's mistake is not justified, even if it is arguably reasonable. This means Sam would be held liable for his actions.
In contrast, if Sam were a police officer, then his actions would be protected in either situation, whether the large man was actually committing a crime, or if Sam were reasonably mistaken. This may seem unfair, but the law is more forgiving to trained professional law enforcement personnel who make mistakes than everyday normal private citizens because it doesn't want to encourage vigilantism. In other words, if you're a private citizen and you see something super obviously dangerous and illegal, the law is okay with you stepping in. But if you're not 100% sure, then the law would prefer if you called police instead of figuring it out yourself.
Related Concepts
In most states, is deadly force permissible in the defense of property?
What type of force may be used to defend a dwelling?
When may an aggressor use self-defense against their victim?
When may a person use deadly force in self-defense?
When using deadly force in self-defense, when does a person have a duty to retreat?
