I know my photographic rights; I was in public on public property photographing someone else on public property, which is legal in the US [1]. The only illegal happening here was theft on the part of the thief. I realize that you’re probably not based here if you think otherwise.

I’m a photographer and a distance runner and I’m good enough at both to have made money off of them. Both reactions were instinctive.

[1] https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-...

> I know my photographic rights

Taking the photos was probably not illegal.

Citizen’s arrest in California is legal for a misdemeanor (e.g., shoplifting as in your case) only when the arrestee is both factually guilty and committed the crime in the arresting person’s presence; whether or not the first part is true, by your description the second is not and you committed both battery and false imprisonment, possibly felony (by violence or menace) in the latter case.

Thankfully, it sounds like the officers involved didn't apply such unusual laws in order to irreversibly damage someone's life when they were stopping a thief. Punishing people for trying to do good things while ignoring thieves and vandalizers would be a fantastic way to cause a breakdown in civil society and a dissolution of trust in the law and government.

There were no officers involved, the guy just left while taunting the victims that he’d come back to their store another day.

> grabbed him by his hoodie collar, and pinned him down

I was referring to the battery.

> I’m a photographer and a distance runner and I’m good enough at both to have made money off of them. Both reactions were instinctive.

The experiences and training you have had post-birth have no bearing on your innate human instinctual responses, which are shared in common with all members of your species, including the ones that aren't runners or photographers. It is likely you meant "subconscious" or perhaps "automatic".

Citizen’s arrest is not illegal in CA: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/837/ Considering the guy was almost a foot taller than me, I was pinning him down with only a fraction of his body weight.

My usage of instinct, something that I did subconsciously and without thinking, is covered under several dictionary definitions and examples [1-3].

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/insti... [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct [3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/instinct

Citizens in California are allowed to make a citizen's arrest including use of reasonable force.

1 - https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/837/#3.1

> Citizens in California are allowed to make a citizen's arrest including use of reasonable force.

For a misdemeanor (as the shoplifting described in this case appears to be), only if the arrested party actually committed the offense and it occurred in the arresting party’s presence (for a felony, the terms are somewhat looser.)

As the description clearly indicates that the offense did not occur in the poster’s presence and he wasn’t even aware of the offense until after using force to restrain his victim, he committed both battery and false imprisonment by violence, the latter of which is a felony offense, and the former is at a minimum a violent misdemeanor.

I judged the given probability P(crime | guy being chased in the streets & SF) as much higher than chance, which is what led me to yield to instinct.

I realize that I was over my head considering the guy was much bigger than me and I had no way of knowing if he was armed or not, but I sleep better at night knowing I did what I could to act as a decent human being.

Because I was raised to do what I can to help people in need, who was very obviously not the guy running away, smiling, from two people who looked very distraught.

> manufactured using slave labor.

You’re grasping here. Nice bait.

Check out this analysis of American action movies. It may change the way you see Batman and other characters that may have influenced your thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOMiAeRwpPA

What do the courts mean by "in the presence?" Although they have not had occasion to elaborate much, they have said that the crime must have been "apparent to the senses," but that this requirement should be interpreted "liberally." Thus, it will be satisfied if the citizen was aware of circumstances from which he could reasonably infer that a crime was occurring in his presence

- https://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CITIZENSARREST.pdf

I think this would qualify as committing the crime "in the presence" of the above commenter. Running away is part of the theft and that was done in the presence of the commenter.

> What do the courts mean by "in the presence?"

Even the most liberal definition doesn’t include the arrestor being only aware of the crime after the arrest (even the looser felony citizen arrest rules require both knowledge of the offense and reasonable belief that the arrestee committed it, as well as, as in the misdemeanor case, actual guilt.)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think it is perfectly obvious that if you witness theft taking place then the crime is taking place "in your presence".

"I was referring to the battery."

Fuck off.

Home (or storefront) invasion is a violent act. Theft is a violent act. We (all of us) have a duty to respond - with violence if necessary.

We need more good people like (psychomugs) in San Francisco and he deserves our thanks.

Petty theft is not violence; violence is crime against a person's body. The only violence that happened here was the guy attacking the thief.

In almost all cases, escalating a relatively minor crime into physical violence against a human being is the wrong move, and needlessly increases the risk in a situation.

Grab the wrong person by accident? In a lot of states that might endanger your own life if the person decides to defend themselves.

Escalating to violence over simple objects (property) is to have priorities out of whack.

PS: be nice. I will not fuck off.

Play armchair critic with your hypothetical scenarios all you want, but the objective outcome of this ordeal was preventing a bad actor from getting away with a legally and morally unjust act. The only thing violated was his pride by getting caught by someone a full head shorter and probably >50lbs lighter than him.

Instinct has more meanings than just the strict biological one that you are referencing. Perhaps you need a grammar class and not just biology classes?