I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled

Re:I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled by ALittleLight on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @02:43AM (#27273613)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled by dragonwriter on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @02:48AM (#27273652)

> 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.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I Was Robbed in San Francisco While the Cameras Rolled by ALittleLight on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @03:25AM (#27273899)

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".

[ Parent | on HN ]