IL: Man charged for failing to aid officer

St. Louis Post Dispatch ^ | 8/17/2005 | Leah Thorsen

[NuclearDruid]

"It's not what Peter Skinner did, but rather what he didn't do, that landed him in jail.

Skinner saw, but did not help, a Wood River police officer subdue a teen suspected of stealing a car.

And that is why Skinner, 41, is scheduled to appear in court Aug. 26 to face a misdemeanor charge of refusing to aid an officer. "Why I'm involved as anything but a witness is beyond me," he said Wednesday in an interview in his apartment in Wood River."

"Illinois law states that a person must help an officer who asks for help 'apprehending a person whom the officer is authorized to apprehend.'"

[linkinpunk]

[vvatcer]

I would have no problem pimp slapping the young punk but not if I had "pork steaks" in the oven!!
Yum!! Pork fat rules!!

[monday]

"Assuming he assists the officer, and is injured in some form or fashion, how much responsiblity will the city and police department assume in paying his medical bills, his lost income, etc?"

Apparently all. If the govt. can force him to help a police officer it would certainly be liable for any injuries he sustained during the encounter. Knowing the government, he would probably have to sue to get anything though.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Well placed sarcasm.

They're asking for the assistance of people untrained in the levels of reasonable force. This could easily lead to "brutality" when a civilian freaks and pushes the "destroy the danger" button.

So what protects the citizen from criminal and civil suit?

This, by the way, is a form of slavery. Even jurists get paid for the "compulsory volunteerism," albeit a pittance.

[T.Smith]

I don't think not running to tackle a guy in an altercation with a cop makes one a "pu$$y". You have to consider the issue by degrees and only act if the situation is black and white. If there is any room for doubt, don't act. As others have pointed out, the risks to yourself are too great. In the heat of the moment the officer could easily consider you an additional threat and cause you great bodily harm. That would be my take on the situation.

[sandydipper]

The cop wouldn't need to ask me - I'd jump right in - especially if I thought the cop was getting the short end of the stick.

[monday]

"The man should NOT have been charged with a crime for not helping the police, but on the same token, he SHOULD have helped to his utmost ability."

Did you read the article? He said that not only did the cop never ask for help but that it appeared to him that the cop never needed help, that he had the situation well under control.

Are you telling us that you would have jumped in to subdue a criminal under those circumstances? What if the cop had charged you with interfering with a law enforcement officer, or worse, with assault on the prisoner?

Tell you what, if they pass a law that police officers must help me do my job whenever I call them for assistance, then I will gladly help them do theirs when they need help. Until then, forget it.

[jwpjr]

My concern would be that officers arriving as backup would mistake me for the original perp and unload on me, either with nightsticks or firearms. As my Mom used to say, "no good deed goes unpunished!"

[NuclearDruid]

I understand the physical geography, but I was refering to the political geography. I referenced the classical "city-state" form of sovereignty where the political control of the city extends into the surrounding hinterlands. If one were to draw a circle with a radius of, say, 45 miles centered on the Sears Tower you would find that it encompassed all or part of at least 50% of the House AND Senate districts. Thus, while some may call it the State of Illinois, given the influence of the Daley family those outside that circle can equally refer to it as the City-State of Chicago.

[Itzlzha]

That is what I hear on this board - The man should NOT have been charged with a crime for not helping the police, but on the same token, he SHOULD have helped to his utmost ability.

Really? Why?

See, the LEO's are "trained" to handle these situations (isn't that what they say?)...and citizens are denied their lawful rights under the 2nd Ammendment under the fig-leaf that they are not "trained or safe" enough to posess a weapon for self-defense.

Couple that with the Black Robed Nazgul Supremes ruling that says that citizens are NOT GUARANTEED PROTECTION from the police....and then remember the poor IL.(Chicago?) woman who called 9/11 because she was being MURDERED by a man she had a restraining order on, and the cops STOPPED AT A DRIVE-THRU before responding (they took 30 minutes if I remember correctly)...now we have Kelo decision, and this crap where ILLEGALS got to sue the guy they were trespassing against, and they were GIVEN HIS RANCH!

Nope...if I am a serf...I will NOT risk my life...MY PROPERTY...and LAWSUITS that would bankrupt me and take everything away from my family.. for ANY LEO/Politician/Judge until we are returned our RIGHTS as citizens! I will do EVERYTHING to protect me and mine though...B.I.T.S. is coming.

Judge/Lawyer/Politicain...Rope...Tree*!

(*some assembly required)

[Drammach]

This cop needed help subduing a 14-year-old boy who couldn't even change a freaking tire? Good grief. The man should be fired. What a doofus.

As someone with some time in corrections, I would suggest the following to you:

Get a pair of handcuffs.. and a 14-year-old..
Tell the 14-year-old they are to "resist" being handcuffed to the best of their ability, without actually hitting you.. twist, turn, trip, run, crawl, etc.... anything goes..

You, on the other hand, are prohibited from using anything other than "necessary force" to restrain him/her...

Now, from a "standing start", let's see you handcuff that 14-year-old..
Good Luck..

I and three (3) other adult males, when in my mid 20's, and in probably the best condition of my life, attempted to restrain and cuff one (1) man in his 20's as a training exercise...
He was a friend, and a fellow officer, so we did our best to "overpower" him and force him to cooperate..
We were not "easy" on him, nor were we overy zealous or brutal...
Even outnumbered 4 to 1, he managed to resist for quite a while.. possibly as much as 5 minutes..

One on One is practically impossible unless you have a major physical or psychological advantage over the subject..

[AmericanChef]

And in other news...citizens' arrest of illegal "entrants" are strictly forbidden.

[Drammach]

Does anyone know if Chicago PD squad cars record all stops on video?

If so, then there should be an AV recording of this incident, the audio portion being sufficient to determine if the officer actually called for help from a citizen...

( 9 times out of 10, the judge is going to take the cop's word for what happened unless tape evidence or similar is available to contradict their statements..)

[Kevin OMalley]

Well said. Read later bump.

[from occupied ga]

. You cannot take work from a citizen without just compensation;

not true - they can and do

Taxes (current example)

Draft (former example)

[Fabozz]

"Assuming he assists the officer, and is injured in some form or fashion, how much responsiblity will the city and police department assume in paying his medical bills, his lost income, etc?"

Forget about that. Assuming he assists the officer, and the perp is injured in some form or fashion, who do you think loses his house in the subsequent lawsuit? Not the cop or the mayor, that's for damn sure.

[Smokin' Joe]

First, the police officer asked the guy for help.

There are situations in which certain physcal limitations open a person up to great risk of injury, and to decline, say if you had a fresh surgical wound, would be prudent.

For the able bodied to not help the officer when asked to help becuase they might get hurt, leaves the officer to a near certainty of getting injured. That "oh I might break a nail" attitude to me is the hallmark of a pu$$y. I guess this is what happens when people are raised on "conflict resolution" instead of good old-fashioned knuckle dusters on the playground.

Had the officer not requested his assistance, I would agree that he might have been considered a threat by the officer had he just jumped in, and it would be better not to. THAT could get someone shot.

I guess there are two types of people in a pinch. Those who run toward trouble to lend a hand, and those who run away and do not even look back.

As for risk, if I waited for everything to be sure and safe, I would never get in my car.

[hombre_sincero]

"Nope... I am a serf..."

You described a high percentage of FR these days.

---

One man says to a second man: "Do you believe in the First Amendment freedom of speech?"

The second man says: "Of course I do."

The first man then asks: "Do you believe in the Second Amendment freedom to bear arms?"

The second man replies: "No, I don't."

The first man insists: "Then shut up!"

The moral of the story is: you can have your rights, but you have to protect and defend them, too.

---

And from the man that politicians, lawyers, judges, and cowards would love to forget (or re-write):

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Ronald Reagan

[T.Smith]

"First, the police officer asked the guy for help."

I didn't see that part. That changes the whooooooole thing.

[TheFrog]

Texas has the same law on the books.

Art. 2.14. [38] [45] [46] May summon aid

Whenever a peace officer meets with resistance in discharging any duty imposed upon him by law, he shall summon a sufficient number of citizens of his county to overcome the resistance; and all persons summoned are bound to obey. Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.

Art. 2.15. [39] [46] [47] Person refusing to aid

The peace officer who has summoned any person to assist him in performing any duty shall report such person, if he refuse to obey, to the proper district or county attorney, in order that he may be prosecuted for the offense.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.