Vigelantism
vigilantes[edit]
vig·i·lan·te (vĭj'ə-lăn'tē) pronunciation n.
#. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands. #. A member of a vigilance committee.
[Spanish, watchman, vigilante, from Latin vigilāns, vigilant-, present participle of vigilāre, to be watchful, from vigil, watchful.]
vigilante Origin: 1860
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," declared the antislavery orator Wendell Phillips in 1856. But the vigilantes of the Western states had something different in mind: not liberty, but keeping order in unruly towns. They enforced the law--or rather, they took the law into their own hands and enforced it as they chose, answering to no higher authority.
The story of the vigilantes begins not in the West but in the South. Vigilance committees were formed there, starting in the 1830s, to keep blacks and abolitionists in their place: that is, silent and obedient to the proslavery majority. In response, northerners founded their own vigilance committees to help fugitive slaves.
A different kind of vigilance was called for in the West of the Gold Rush days. On the waterfront of San Francisco, a "Barbary Coast" of disreputable service industries had sprung up, providing intoxicating beverages, games of chance and skill, houses of ill-repute, and generous opportunities for violence and mayhem. To bring the Barbary Coast under control, respectable citizens formed a Vigilance Committee in 1851. By 1860, members were being called by the Spanish name vigilantes.
Groups of vigilantes were organized in other Western cities too. In an 1865 account of a visit to Montana, we are told that "the power is vested in the 'Vigilantes,' a secret tribunal of citizens, organized before civil laws were framed."
Sometimes the motives of vigilantes were honorable, but sometimes they merely dispensed their own version of Lynch Law (1780), also an American invention. Citizen initiative in maintaining order, if not always law, has persisted to the present day, but now it usually takes the milder form of a neighborhood watch (1972).
(vĭjĭlăn'tēz) , members of a vigilance committee. Such committees were formed in U.S. frontier communities to enforce law and order before a regularly constituted government could be established or have real authority. They were most common in mining communities, but were also known in cow towns and in farming settlements. The extreme penalty inflicted by the vigilantes was lynching. Among the most famous of the vigilante groups were those formed in San Francisco in 1851 and reorganized in 1856 to bring order to the notorious Barbary Coast. Measures taken by vigilance committees were at best extralegal. When such committees were formed in a community with a well-constituted government and a police force, they were strictly illegal and usually were merely the expression of mob violence.
VIGILANTISM, VIGILANTE JUSTICE, AND VICTIM SELF-HELP
The word vigilante is of Spanish origin and means "watchman" or "guard" but its Latin root is vigil, which means "awake" or "observant." When it is said that someone is taking the law into their own hands, this usually means that they are engaging in vigilante activity, or vigilantism, although sometimes the phrase "taking the law into your own hands" is used to describe what some people call a "secret police" force. The phrase does not make for a good definition. Everyone seems to have an opinion about what vigilantism is, but few people have taken the trouble to define it (Johnston 1996). Worse yet, those of us who teach criminal justice and criminology often warn about the dangers of vigilantism without really understanding or explaining why, and the field of criminal justice is way too silent on this topic, gladly substituting state-by-state comparisons on gun ownership and self-defense for real research on the nature and dynamics of vigilantism.
For better understanding, it's important to obtain some theoretical perspective on vigilantism. From a legal perspective, lawyers sometimes call it extra-judicial self-help, and this perspective may or may not (depending upon your point of view) lend itself to promising new approaches in the sociology of law (Black 1983). Philosophers, like French (2001), frequently equate it with vengeance, and tie it into some sort of definition that sounds like it came from a treatise on ethics -- vigilantism being the righting of a criminal wrong by wrongful means. A recurring theme in philosophical treatises is that the sooner we recognize vengeance as an essential part of our inner human nature, the better. Sociologists are almost always silent on the topic, perhaps because the behavior is not mundane enough, as there seems to be an emerging convention in the last couple of decades where sociologists study the ordinary and criminologists study "rare events." Criminologists, like Zimring (2003), don't really study vigilantism per se. They only study it as a side issue whenever it seems convenient to tie in America's vigilante tradition to something else, like capital punishment. A review of the literature would indicate that there is a good deal of consensus on the fact that vigilantism and a vigilante tradition exist, but there also appears to be no adequate theoretical framework from which to analyze the phenomena in systematic fashion.
To be sure, the study of vigilantism involves some complexities. There are a vast number of controversial issues associated with vigilantism. To list some examples would include Good Samaritan laws, the Right to Resist Arrest, Self-Defense Doctrine, the Militia Clause of the Constitution, the Concealed Handgun Debate, Road Rage as a form of Vigilantism, and Digilantism (getting back at Internet deviants by "digital vigilantism"). On the Internet, there are vigilante groups who claim to be the "true" vigilantees getting back at the "false" vigilantees, and it can become quite confusing who is the real "vigilante." Not many of these complex issues will be discussed here, not because they are unimportant, but because new forms of vigilante behavior are constantly emerging, and it is of primary importance, beforehand, to obtain an adequate conceptualization of basic vigilantism.
DEFINING VIGILANTISM
Brown (1975) attempted to define vigilantism, saying it represented "morally sanctimonious" behavior aimed at rectifying or remedying a "structural flaw" in society, with the flaw usually being some place where the law was ineffective or not enforced. This is a complex socio-legal definition. It treats vigilantism as a societal reaction and not as a social movement. It also implies that the phenomenon of vigilantism will be short-lived since once a flaw is remedied, there is no reason to continue, and in any event, "sanctimonious" morality is unlikely to be sustainable. For criminological purposes, this definition treats the vigilante the same as the criminal. Both are victims of the same social forces, the same "structural flaw," and vigilantes are the victim of a flawed society in the same way a criminal can be considered a victim of society. The difference, of course, is that the criminal is an enemy of society while the vigilante acts as a friend of society. The notion that VIGILANTES ARE VICTIMS of society seems to be a dominant thrust in criminological thought on the subject.
Political scientists (Rosenbaum and Sedberg 1976) and psychologists (Marx and Archer 1976) have serious disagreements over the definition of vigilantism. Political scientists are much more likely to categorize it as a subtype of political violence (i.e. "establishment violence") and would treat hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan as vigilantes. Psychologists, as well as some criminologists (Johnson 1996), are much more likely to consider the vigilante's noble motive and premeditation toward curbing evil as important, making it the ultimate act of good citizenship (i.e. "autonomous citizenship"). Culberson (1990) also points out the importance of distinguishing between domestic terrorism -- which seeks to harm the social order; and vigilantism -- which seeks to help the social order (i.e. "popular sovereignty"). The notion of VIGILANTE AS GOOD CITIZEN appears to have some currency in the literature. Vigilante violence is the opposite of revolutionary violence as vigilantism always seeks to restore order or preserve the status quo. Sometimes, it is often said that vigilantism is always conservative.
HISTORY OF VIGILANTISM
American vigilantism arose in the Deep South and Old West during the 1700s when, in the absence of a formal criminal justice system, certain volunteer associations (called vigilance committees) got together to blacklist, harass, banish, "tar and feather," flog, mutilate, torture, or kill people who were perceived as threats to their communities, families, or privileges (Karmen 1968). By the late 1700s, these committees became known as lynch mobs because almost all the time, the punishment handed out was a summary execution by hanging. In some states, like South Carolina, these mobs had exotic names like the Regulators. During the 1800's, most American towns with seaports had vigilante groups that worked to identify and punish suspected thieves, alcoholics, and gamblers among recently arrived immigrants. The state of Montana, however, holds the record for the bloodiest vigilante movement from 1863 to 1865 when hundreds of suspected horse thieves were rounded up and killed in massive mob action. Texas, Montana, California, and the Deep South, especially the city of New Orleans, were hotbeds of vigilante activity in American history.
Vigilantism seemed to die down after 1909 in America, but was resurrected in what some experts (Brown 1975) call neo-vigilantism in the 1920s and pseudo-vigilantism in the 1970s. Neo-vigilantism includes the anti-abortionist movement, subway and neighborhood crime patrols, border security groups, and what might be best described as a variant of bounty hunting for criminal fugitives. The lynchings of Mexicans and African-Americans during the 1920s, as well as more recent vigilante activity against immigrants are a type of neo-vigilantism. Pseudo-vigilantism technically refers to controversial cases of self-defense, like the Bernhard Goetz incident, in which a citizen kills somebody in self-defense in anticipation of an attack. In the 1980s, and to some extent before then (Campbell & Brenner 2000), vigilantism arose in Third World countries in the form of "death squad" paramilitaries. In the 1990s, cyber-vigilantism emerged where so-called "ethical" or "white hat" hackers go after sexual predators, terrorists, spammers, auction frauds, and copyright infringers on the Internet. For example, some activist groups are involved in anti-terrorism, and other activist groups pose as "honeypot" targets for child molesters.
The "crime" of vigilantism is not expressly prohibited by law. What constitutes the "crime" in vigilante activity is the underlying crime that is committed in conjunction with vigilante activities. In charging the vigilante, the federal government and most states attempt to make a distinction between whether the underlying crime is a felony or misdemeanor. The most common sentence if the underlying crime is a misdemeanor is probation. Reduced charges, such as third-degree murder or manslaughter, are common when the underlying crime is a felony, the most common sentence being ten years in prison.
THE VIGILANTE PROFILE
There is no definitive demographic profile of the typical vigilante, other than middle class status, which is the usual socio-economic characteristic. A number of different age groups, genders, or ethnicity are likely to be engaged in vigilantism. It is an extremely common phenomenon in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In America, there is a tendency for middle-aged white males to be involved in it, but this characterization is only based on the history of lynching, which is probably the most studied form of vigilantism. Newer forms of vigilantism, such as cyber-vigilantism, for example, suggest a younger profile, but there hasn't been any real research. The most common aspect behind all types of vigilante activity is that it may be a male or masculine phenomena. While it is possible that some vigilantes have the same cop "wanabe" mindset as serial killers (Ressler & Burgess 1985), it is more likely that the psychological mindset of a vigilante develops from engaging in behavioral experiments with it. It is significant that one of the first things that a vigilante does is stake out their target, stalk their victim, and engage is a whole lot of brooding and premeditation. This is what separates vigilantism from self-defense. Vigilante behavior is premeditated, while self-defense is spontaneous. The Bernhard Goetz subway shooting incident in 1984 was not a case of vigilantism for this reason. The planned intent to do harm is what makes vigilantism criminal behavior since the vigilante's very reason for being is to do serious bodily harm or kill (which is conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, murder, or other felonies).
There are two main types of vigilantes: the lone wolf; and the instigator. The lone wolf is commonly portrayed in the media, but the more common and classical type is the instigator. A lone wolf is likely to be disorganized, and easily caught or killed. Sometimes, a lone wolf is seeking martyrdom or "suicide by cop." However, the vast majority of lone wolves abandon their plans and channel their energies into some other type of self-protection, such as arming themselves with guns or taking up some activist cause. On the other hand, an instigator is the kind of person who is not only well-organized themselves in their preparations, but they involve others (a significant other, a small group, or sometimes a mob) in their plans. This is the classic vigilante profile -- one who instigates a posse, gang, crew, or mob into action. Vigilantism as a group activity is much more common than vigilantism as a solitary activity.
The organization of vigilante activity is quite often sporadic. Certainly, some organized training exercises are usually held, and despite the vigilante leadership's best efforts, membership always seems hard to maintain. A vigilante group frequently lacks support, and all that usually remain are "hard-core" members who typically refer to themselves as "death squads," the "inner elite," or something like that. Vigilante groups are not hate groups. Hatred is not what binds the membership together. What keep them united is their common interest in the (sometimes) necessary use of force (or extreme measures) in the hands of private citizens. Some members are interested in joining the vigilante group only because they are interested in military or law enforcement work, and/or plan to become soldiers or law enforcement officers. When they do become soldiers or officers, this is ideal for the vigilante group because such members are receiving training from the government. Most such members, however, withdraw or abandon their vigilante connection soon after the influence of government service presents them with ethical and professional conflicts.
Another typical pattern of vigilante group activity is the quest for recognition of legitimate status. Vigilantes will often try to incorporate themselves as a private security firm or a non-profit organization. They will try to be recognized by the local sheriff so they can march in local parades or have a booth at the county or state fair. They will try to be recognized by the Chamber of Commerce. They will try to be recognized a part of the state militia, or the militia movement nationwide. Others will avoid any association with the militia movement because they consider them domestic terrorists or "terrorists next door." In any event, an organized vigilante group will frequently have a website, and it will eventually try to do fund-raising through that website. The vigilante quest for legitimacy can lead to some unusual allies and bedfellows, but the more rational vigilante groups will avoid extremists and fanatics, and the even more rational groups, such as the well-known Guardian Angels, will have extensive rules of engagement where non-lethal force is used (even though their charter permits deadly force). Legitimacy can sometimes be achieved by appearing to be better than the government. The story of the Guardian Angels is instructive in this regard. Formed in February 1979 by a young night manager of a Mcdonald's restaurant in the Bronx named Curtis Sliwa, an unauthorized anti-crime patrol, first calling themselves "The Magnificent Thirteen Subway Safety Patrol," became known as the Guardian Angels. Sporting red berets, they stepped into subway cars and took up positions near the door. Newspapers and television stations carried frequent reports on them, and the fact that the police so obviously resented the Angels' presence only added to their glamour and respectability.
Established vigilante groups will usually be one of two kinds: crime control vigilantes; or social control vigilantes. This is a distinction made by Johnston (1996) based on Brown's (1975) typology of classic and neo-vigilantes, and the two kinds of groups are by no means mutually exclusive. The crime control vigilante group seeks to punish those whom they believe are factually guilty of criminal wrongs (e.g. thieves, outlaws, fugitives from justice), and in this sense are simply playing the role of bounty hunter except that the bounty hunter is concerned for legal guilt, not factual guilt. The social control vigilante group seeks to repair some transgression in the social order that threatens to affect the communal quality of life, values, or sense of honor (e.g. illegal immigrants taking jobs away from average workers, ethnic males who threaten to seduce wives and daughters away, anything that makes one's children run away). In Islamic societies, the practice of "honor killing" when a female member of the household shames the family name is a quite widely-tolerated vigilante activity. Vigilante groups that go after drug dealers would be an example of a mixed type, since they are probably equally concerned about the crime of drug dealing as they are about their children getting hooked on drugs. The social control group is probably the most dangerous type because they might contemplate assassination of a political leader in the name of social order. The crime control group is usually caught up in a retaliation cycle at the local level whenever they perceive an act of injustice to occur.
THE VIGILANTE MINDSET
Vigilantes regard the criminals and people they target as living outside the social bonds and communal ties that hold our society together. It's not so much that they dehumanize their target, but that the target represents an alien enemy that must be defended against. The target must also be punished, and punished outside the law. Any and all legal matters on the subject are seen as unnecessary intrusions on the basic freedom that all communities enjoy to protect themselves. Zimring (2004) says that the vigilante mindset is the opposite of the due process mindset. Vigilante thinking is precisely the opposite of any notion of fairness, fair play, or a chance for acquittal. Vigilantes do not care to wait for the police to finish their investigation, and they care less about any court's determination of proof. What they do care about is justice -- quick, final, cost-effective justice. To a vigilante, punishment should be inflicted upon those deserving of it at the first opportunity -- no waiting, and the more severe the punishment, the better. These are all romantic notions that feed an appetite for punishment more than an appetite for vengeance.
Punishment is the foundational matter of justice, and those who deserve punishment also deserve to pay (lex salica) or receive some kind of harm equal to the harm they have done (lex talionis). Unfortunately, lex talionis cannot be uniformly applied to every human harm committed. That is the reason we have a system of laws and courts -- to sort out the particulars and differences between a criminal who deliberately commits a crime and one who accidentally commits a crime. Also, lex talionis cannot possibly deal with extreme types of crime, such as the genocide of thousands of people. What would the vigilante do in this case? Kill the deserving party thousands of times over? Nor is vengeance satisfying. Almost anyone who's ever thought about it knows than vengeance is an un-tempered emotion like fear, lust, and anger. Justice and punishment should NOT be guided by banal, primitive, un-tempered emotions. Instead, we normally try to moderate or temper our feelings when thinking about how to punish somebody.
The vigilante knows it is not vengeance they seek, nor even some lending of respectability to the spirit of vengeance. The vigilante is no avenger. The vigilante simply wants punishment, or just deserts, and they want it swift and sure. The only problem is that vigilante justice is sometimes too swift and too sure. Vicious beatings and on-the-spot executions do not fit the crime. The only purpose that vigilantism serves is to turn the tables on those criminals who make victims out of people. Vigilantes desperately want to avoid thinking of themselves as victims, so they become victimizers themselves. Vigilantes ultimately become criminals, and they also must rationalize their criminal behavior in the strongest terms possible -- self-defense, social defense, lex talionis, natural law, patriotism, religion, honor --- all the time claiming that they are engaging in the most law-abiding behavior or duty there is -- the duty to preserve the sacred right to protect one's self. It is a frontier ethic of survival and self-responsibility. If no one else will do anything, especially the legal system, then it is the red-blooded duty of any honest patriot to act, to kill-or-be-killed, to take a stand and do one's part. It takes a certain kind of over-zealousness to commit illegal acts in the name of do-it-yourself justice, and until more ethnographic research is done (as many experts have called for), we will not know exactly how the vigilante mindset develops. Vigilantism represents a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law. It is deserving of more study.
the first Super Hero , set up a non profit corporation. This corporation handled his affairs. It managed the money he received from donations, rewards, and toy licensing deals. It provided him a legal defense fund and most importantly health and liability insurance. He was actually payed by the corporation, listed as a paranormal consultant. The main function of Guardian Inc is to support heroes with legal and financial aide that would normally compromise any pretense of secret identity. The legal identity of the organization is used for all the Hero's transactions. This plus health insurance (because in the real world, heroes can get badly hurt in a fight) is their main function.
The Guardian's lawyers work with the ALCU to support Meta-Human and Para-Human rights, works with the Federal Government to institute meta-human equality laws (disallowing paranormals from being discriminated or treated as non humans), working on liberalizing various identity and vigilante laws around the country, and with various governmental agencies to deal with paranormal offenders. They also defend Guardians (Heroes) from various lawsuits and many fraudulent criminal charges (often this is contracted out to several higher profile law firms). Guardian Inc also hold the property rights for several "Super Hero Teams" buildings and vehicles.
It is a little known fact that merchandising of toys, t-shirts, and books, is their main source of revenue.
The Organization allows heroes to function in the world of laws.
lynch law n.
The punishment of persons suspected of crime without due process of law.
[After William Lynch (1742–1820).]
WORD HISTORY In the late 18th century, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, was troubled by criminals who could not be dealt with by the courts, which were too distant. This led to an agreement to punish such criminals without due process of law. Both the practice and the punishment came to be called lynch law after Captain William Lynch, who drew up a compact on September 22, 1780, with a group of his neighbors. Arguing that Pittsylvania had “sustained great and intolerable losses by a set of lawless men … that … have hitherto escaped the civil power with impunity,” they agreed to respond to reports of criminality in their neighborhood by “repair[ing] immediately to the person or persons suspected … and if they will not desist from their evil practices, we will inflict such corporeal punishment on him or them, as to us shall seem adequate to the crime committed or the damage sustained.” Although lynch law and lynching are mainly associated with hanging, other, less severe punishments were used. William Lynch died in 1820, and the inscription on his grave notes that “he followed virtue as his truest guide.” But the good captain, who had tried to justify vigilante justice, was sentenced to the disgrace of having given his name to the terrible practice of lynching.lynch law Origin: 1780
If we Americans think "the courts are slow, uncertain, and unduly sympathetic with the rights of the accused," as one author wrote in 1905, what do we do about it? Nowadays we petition our legislators for stricter laws and our courts and police for stricter law enforcement. Until recently, however, our nation was notorious for quite a different solution to the problem, one that avoided the law entirely.
Lynch's law, lynch law, or just plain lynching, as it is now known, had its birth on the Virginia frontier in the 1780s during the American Revolution. It was named either after Captain William Lynch of Pittsylvania County or after Colonel Charles Lynch of Bedford County. It could well have been named for both, because both men independently organized their neighbors to defend their property against outlaws and disgruntled pro-British Tories. Both Lynch organizations not only captured suspicious characters but gave them fair trials and punished them if convicted. The punishment at Charles's court was usually thirty-nine lashes.
As the frontier moved westward over the course of the next century, lynch law moved with it. At first, lynching sometimes meant bringing together the citizens of a community to hear a case and mete out punishment, and the punishment was rarely capital. But in the later nineteenth century, lynching usually meant mob action and death by hanging or even burning. And it was not confined to the frontier; lynchings took place in every part of the country except New England. While members of all races were lynched, lynching was particularly hard on blacks in the South, who had little recourse to the law; some three thousand were lynched between 1880 and 1960. Only then, with the success of the civil rights movement, did the practice finally die out.
Citizen Arrest[edit]
A citizen's arrest is an arrest performed by a person acting as a civilian, as opposed to a sworn police officer|law enforcement officer. The practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, when sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizen|citizens to help apprehend law breakers.
Legal possibility[edit]
In the United States, all states permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. In California, for example, there is no requirement that a lawful arrest be executed by a citizen (as opposed to an alien (law)|alien or illegal immigrant), and the citizen's arrest is referred to as a "private person arrest." Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another.
Other countries, such as Canada and Sweden allow citizen's arrests under certain circumstances. General provisions tend to be that the crime has to be serious and the arrestee has to be caught in flagrante delicto (in the act of committing the crime). As an example, France allows any person to arrest a person having committed in flagrante delicto a crime punishable by a jail or prison term, and to conduct that person before the nearest officer of judiciary police – in practice, nowadays, one would rather call the police in after performing the arrest (Code of penal procedure, L73).
In New Zealand, citizen's arrests can be made if the crime is being committed at night, is punishable by three or more years of imprisonment, and the person is attempting to escape from the person making the arrest. The person making the arrest must also inform the suspect the reason he or she is being arrested and take him or her to the nearest police officer.
In the Australian state of South Australia any person may arrest a person guilty of a breach of the Criminal Law Consolidated Act. They must make it clear they are arresting the person by words or actions.
In Germany, citizen's arrests can be made under §127 StPO (code of penal procedures) if the arrestee is caught List of Latin phrases#I|in flagrante delicto and the identity of the person cannot be (otherwise) established immediately. The person making the arrest is allowed to hold the arrestee solely for the purpose of turning him over to a proper legal authority such as the police. German law does not establish that the crime has to be serious, nor that the person making the arrest has to actually be a citizen of Germany.
In England and Wales, a citizen's arrest is allowed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for an arrestable offence in two circumstances: Firstly, any person who knows that an arrestable offence has been committed may arrest a person who they have reasonable grounds for suspecting committed that offence; and secondly, any person who has reasonable grounds for suspecting that another person is in the process of committing an arrestable offence may arrest that person. The first of these powers is rather risky to use, since it relies upon the person carrying out the arrest knowing that an arrestable offence has been committed — if, for example, the person they arrest is later acquitted in court, then no offence has been committed, and so the arrest was false arrest|unlawful. In addition to the above, a private person may be authorised to execute an arrest warrant, if the court issuing the warrant has given them the authority to do so, and any person may arrest someone who is "unlawfully at large" (for example, an escaped prisoner).[1]
Despite the title, the arresting person does not necessarily have to be a citizen of the country where he/she is acting.
Dangers[edit]
Most law enforcement officials discourage anyone from performing a citizen's arrest, especially where physical force is involved. See Weber's theory of the state|Monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Doing so can subject a person to legal action, including charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest, especially if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated.
The level of responsibility that a person performing a citizen's arrest may bear depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, in France and Germany, a person stopping a criminal from committing a crime, including crimes against belongings, is not criminally responsible as long as the means employed are in proportion to the threat (note, however, that at least in Germany this results from a different legal norm: "self-defence" and "aid to others in immediate danger" - which are concerned with prevention not prosecution of crimes).
The act of making an arrest may be dangerous in several senses. First and foremost is the likelihood that the arrest will be resisted, possibly with force or even a weapon. Further, the typical private person is not trained or equipped to carry out an arrest safely – even most security guards who are familiar with citizen's arrests lack sufficient training. Last but not least, many legal jurisdictions consider the citizen's arrest to be a special case where any mistake by the arresting party may result in civil or criminal liability. Excessive force may result in criminal charges against the arresting party.
In areas where police services are available, anyone witnessing a serious crime is strongly advised for their own safety to notify the police rather than attempting direct intervention. Even if intervention is attempted, the safest objective may be to scare off the assailant or criminal rather than to attempt to take them into custody.
In rural or other settings, a general call for help may be more appropriate.
