Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Tyler Cowen Pepper-Sprayed by Radical During “Citizen’s Arrest”
A good friend and brilliant scholar, Tyler Cowen, was teaching a class at George Mason University yesterday when a man in his twenties or thirties entered the class and announced that he was placing Cowen under arrest. The man pepper-sprayed Cowen and eventually tried to flee. A GMU student subdued the man, and the Arlington, Virginia police arrested him.
According to ArlNow.com, a white man in his 20s or 30s intruded on Cowen’s 3 p.m. class, declaring that he was placing the author under a citizen’s arrest. Cowen asked him to leave — and in the ensuing brouhaha, the man pepper-sprayed Cowen right in the face.
Paramedics treated Cowen and a dozen other students affected by the pepper spray. Soon afterward, Cowen tweeted, “Back to work! (as usual)…”
Published in General
More information:
“It seems Cowen was teaching a class on vigilante justice at the time of the incident, and some students assumed at first that the intruder was part of the lecture.”
LOL. Joke turned out to be on the jokester. Glad to hear Cowen is fine.
Another reason for concealed carry in the classroom.
No doubt the reason Russ Roberts left GMU was the constant nuisance of pepper spray attacks and citizen’s arrests.
deleted; accidental double-comment
Yes, because clearly the proper outcome here would be for Prof. Cowen to have a face full of pepper spray and for the idiot vigilante to be dead. Ugh. Ridiculous comment.
No…because what was stopping the same idiot from carrying in a lethal weapon? Nothing but a piece of paper (assuming GMU has weapons ban).
I don’t think Caesar’s point was that he wishes the student shot dead, but that conceal carry might act as a deterrent when it comes to attacks by individuals who currently know there will be no resistance. He has a valid point in that regard.
Cowen has appeared on Roberts’ Econ Talk; I look forward to his next appearance, where they will hopefully discuss this incident!
Yes that’s right. Concealed carry is not about the use, it’s about the deterrent. What would have prevented the mace-wielder to have had something more lethal at hand?
Apparently Mr. Koslin assumed differently and jumped into his conclusion head-first, landing on rocks…
Question for the lawyers out there, what are the laws with regard to making a citizen’s arrest? I thought at a minimum they required an implied (as opposed to explicit) deputation by a law officer for a particular perp and crime. I imagine they vary by jurisdiction. Is there a false arrest or illegal imprisonment liability? One can see the opportunity for lots of mischief.
Call me crazy, but if you’re going after a deterrent effect, shouldn’t the deterrent be visible? Anyone unhinged enough to barge into an economics classroom and attempt a citizens’ arrest with a can of pepperspray isn’t someone whose logical processes I want to rely upon when it comes to assessing risk. You might persuade me that open carry would be such a deterrent – and even then, I’m not comfortable with a professor having a visible holstered gun on him while teaching – but concealed carry? No way.
I assume he left for other reasons, but am not familiar.
Can you elaborate on his odyssey?
Where did he go and why?
I see it’s an emotional issue for you. You also appear to have an extremely short time horizon when looking at the matter. Take some time to learn how deterrence works. But the facts are the facts with regard to concealed carry, read this book by John Lott.
No, that defeats the purpose. If the lunatic can spot at a glance who might be a threat, it’s easier for him to neutralize that threat or plan around it.
And, of course, if the lunatic knows (because of the prevailing laws) that no one in the room is armed, he feels free to act.
On the other hand, if the lunatic knows that any person in the room might be armed, and there is no way to know which ones are, he’s much more likely to go somewhere else.
On the other hand, if the lunatic knows that any person in the room might be armed, and there is no way to know which ones are, he’s much more likely to go somewhere else.
————end quote——————
You’re making a lot of assumptions about a lunatic’s ability to reason. I’m not sure I would plant the flag of CCW advocay on this case. A mistaken reaction to this idiotic non-lethal assault with lethal force would do more harm than good. An accidental discharge in a classroom that killed an innocent student would be an unmitigated disaster.
As 2nd amendment advocates, I think we are sometimes too quick to point to firearms as an answer.
Personally, I’d have no problem with that outcome. If it happened a couple times, maybe we’d have fewer idiot vigilantes.
James Holmes very specifically went to a movie theater that had a “no guns” policy instead of to several other movie theaters in the area that didn’t have the same policy. Holmes is mentally ill (a “lunatic” in the clinical sense), but he is not stupid.
I’ve read Lott’s book and I’ve read his critics. Neither particularly impress me as having the last word on the subject. I support the rights of Americans to own firearms, and I find that gun control regulations are quite usually a waste of everyone’s time and energy (see: Chicago, city of; Washington D.C., city of; Detroit, city of). However, I am very leery of arguments that posit guns as actively positive influences. I know enough about the history of weapons and the Code Duello to know that putting weapons in the hands of stupid people does not make them any wiser or more cautious.
I suggest you ask Barney Fife:
I agree that to use deadly force in response to pepper spray would be an overreaction, and (in my state, at least) it would be against the law. (Deadly force is legally justified only in cases where you fear death or grievous bodily injury, and pepper spray causes neither.)
Indeed, I would be hesitant even to draw my gun in such a situation. As a rule you shouldn’t point a gun at someone unless you’re willing to shoot them, and in this situation I don’t think that criterion is met.
But I never advocated shooting the guy. We don’t actually know whether he would have been deterred by the possibility of encountering deadly force. But he might have been. Banning guns serves no purpose except to ensure that deterrence won’t happen.
Ironically, Gomer got it wrong. There is no such thing as citizen’s arrest under North Carolina law.
Actually, Barney got it wrong since he told Gomer it was any citizens duty to stop a criminal. Since my wife and I got a Keurig coffee maker, we loudly say that the other is under “citizen’s a-ray-est” for various violations of the Keurig code, much to our children’s amusement.
Yeah.
I’ve never researched the issue, but I’ve always felt the citizen’s arrest is more of an urban myth than a reality now that we have police forces. Citizens often given assistance to law enforcement personnel, but the only people who can book someone into jail are cops (or perhaps in some cases, prosecutors). An action for false imprisonment, on the other hand, is very real and can cost some serious bucks.
The theater shooting is a much better event to use as justification of laws expanding CCW. This case involves an attacker with unclear motive and use of non-lethal force. I guess my ultimate points were as follows:
-It’s hard to prove a negative and therefore prove how many shootings CCW has prevented. Both sides of the argument are ultimately guessing. I agree in principle with the deterrent aspect of CCW, but I think its benefits may be overstated.
I can’t speak to every state, but many states require a handgun owner to be 21+, which means an attacker could effectively narrow the carrying population on a campus to educators and staff. I think most police officers are embarrassingly underqualified to carry a firearm. Imagine how bad many teachers would be. We are ultimately hoping that shooters aren’t willing to risk a very small chance of an armed and competent teacher.
The last thing any of us should want is people being shot and killed that don’t need to be. The idea that shooting and killing an idiot kid protestor is a good thing because it will teach society a lesson is both overly optimistic, and shows a disregard for the value of human life.
Why does every report of a violent incident on a college campus lead to an argument about the futility of gun free zones?
Can’t we as conservatives agree that gun free zones in general are at best useless, at worst counterproductive?
Can’t we also agree that conceal-carry is not cure-all for any an all criminal incidents?
I’m curious why you think people should be allowed to assault strangers because that’s effectively what you’re arguing for by removing an individual’s right to permanently stop an assault.
Compare the following equations:
(1) I get to assault X, but he or someone else is probably going to shoot me dead.
(2) I get to assault X at very little physical risk to myself and at very little risk of spending the rest of my life in jail.
Option 2 (what we have now) actually encourages people to assault the innocent by simulatenously lowering the cost of assault and even enlisting the help of the government to threaten the innocent into not protecting themselves!
Yeah, I was going to say… certainly “citizen’s arrest” is not a valid defense to assault (in this case) or kidnapping or false imprisonment. I’d hesitate to rely on it. Let’s say, though, that you see a guy running from a cop, and you tackle him. That’s probably a more realistic application.
The death penalty/life in jail are not appropriate penalties for all crimes. Do you really believe that they are? That is a draconian standard that very few would consider just.