Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

I really wanted to put this in Posse Comitatus, but there is no button to add new content.

I happened across this gem today: www.constitution.org...

This article discusses unlawful arrest and when it is okay to not only resist, but to take the officer's life in the process of resisting an unlawful arrest (numerous court decisions; including the SCOTUS are cited in the article). Now, I am not in any way advocating that people go out and intentional resist arrest; nor am I advocating killing officers. I am merely posting this because, despite popular belief, it is legal to resist in some instances.

I'll provide a short snippet, but encourage everyone to read the full article; as it is always important to know exactly what rights you have when encountering LEO.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

The more you know...

Enjoy!

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

So if you rightfully kill an officer because you are innocent, that would mean you would also have to kill each officer that responds right? Because they are there also to get you "illegally". Hmmm, not sure that would work out to well.

Literally just done watching a video of LEO's securing an arrest warrant - in which they downright harass the "perp," but here's the kicker - they had the wrong dude!

So what happened to the dude - who had no warrant - who was wrongly identified by ignorant and uneducated LEO's, you may ask?

He was tazed.
He was charged with obstruction.
If dude is found guilty, he will be kicked out of his community college in which he's attempting to gain an associates degree.

And, as always, cop apologists have already ensured that the police had done nothing wrong.

I'm using one example, but this # is allllll too common.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Ah but the proof is the burden of the accuser, you have to prove the arrest was unlawful. Otherwise your just a cop killer and soon to meet your maker. Best to just wear the steel bracelets and take your story to court. You live longer that way.

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Literally just done watching a video of LEO's securing an arrest warrant - in which they downright harass the "perp," but here's the kicker - they had the wrong dude!

So what happened to the dude - who had no warrant - who was wrongly identified by ignorant and uneducated LEO's, you may ask?

He was tazed.
He was charged with obstruction.
If dude is found guilty, he will be kicked out of his community college in which he's attempting to gain an associates degree.

And, as always, cop apologists have already ensured that the police had done nothing wrong.

I'm using one example, but this # is allllll too common.

If I were in the guy's shoes, I would say you got the wrong guy, but I would still follow commands and take it up with the courts. Play your cards right and not only does everyone come out unharmed, but you now have a nice settlement coming.

If the police truly felt they had the wrong guy, it does you no good to fight them on the side of the road, house, etc because you will lose every time.

Good luck. Where should we send flowers?

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

You should probably do some serious vetting before offering "education" on something like this.

Not all states recognize the right to resist what you believe to be an unlawful arrest. And of those that do, the application of force to do so is not 100% guaranteed to be legal, either. And of those that DO allow for a person to use force, the force used to resist must still be an objectively reasonable level of force.

One would be extraordinarily well served to learn one's state laws on this issue instead of accepting the blanket notion that you can resist arrest if you don't think you should be arrested. It is far, far too complex a legal issue to be explained away that easily.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Not all states recognize the right to resist

So, some states do not recognize the precedent set by the prior SCOTUS decisions? Since when does state law trump the constitution?

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

When your source uses erroneous and outright fabricated quotations to support its premise.

excoplawstudent.wordpress.com...

ETA - I feel like I should say this: you have the right to believe as you will and act accordingly. The caution I urge is for those who wish to deny ignorance. If you're okay with using that website because it tells you that you can do something you think you should be able to do, by all means. Knock yourself out. But the issue is not as cut and dry as either you or your source material make it out to be.

*minorities, please disregard the OP at all costs!!! please. just comply and hopefully lawyer up.!*

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
This article discusses unlawful arrest and when it is okay to not only resist, but to take the officer's life in the process of resisting an unlawful arrest (numerous court decisions; including the SCOTUS are cited in the article).

How about you actually read the court case you quote, instead of just posting crap you read on the internet?

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306

How about you show us where that "quote" actually appears in that court case!

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
a reply to: Shamrock6

Not all states recognize the right to resist

So, some states do not recognize the precedent set by the prior SCOTUS decisions? Since when does state law trump the constitution?

State law never trumps the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the cited case was interpreting South Dakota state law and found that the judge in the trial court had, under South Dakota law, made a mistake in instructing the jury on state law. The right to resist is not based on Constitutional law. It depends on the particulars of each sttate's law. And to correct an inference in a prior post by someone, the fact that you are innocent does not mean an arrest is false. And, BTW, I am a lawyer.

a reply to: F4guy

But wait, the source has "constitution" right there in its web address! It can't possibly be giving bad and outright false information!

Zomg!!1!1!1!

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Literally just done watching a video of LEO's securing an arrest warrant - in which they downright harass the "perp," but here's the kicker - they had the wrong dude!

So what happened to the dude - who had no warrant - who was wrongly identified by ignorant and uneducated LEO's, you may ask?

He was tazed.
He was charged with obstruction.
If dude is found guilty, he will be kicked out of his community college in which he's attempting to gain an associates degree.

And, as always, cop apologists have already ensured that the police had done nothing wrong.

I'm using one example, but this # is allllll too common.

I just saw that video. I wonder if anyone's going to share in on here. The guy literally couldn't even ask questions or explain that he's the wrong guy before they escalated it and acted crazy, shouting accusations and pretending he was suddenly some kind of threat. It was pretty sad to watch.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

If you get a chance to watch the video, the guy did try all that ... it was the officer that started roughing up the guy and then it all went downhill. Even the guy barley resisted at all except kind of curl up into a ball. I guess trying to shy away is some kind of "threatening" behavior?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

But...in the context of the OP, what do you suppose the outcome would've been had he done what the OP suggests?

Not excusing the actions of the officer, as it sounds like they were wrong all the way down the line.

Cop's Goverment given right to kill You!

a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't know. The guy in the video did what the officer said, but the officer didn't like the answers. He said his name was Patrick, but the officer didn't believe him. They were looking for some other guy, and had a warrant. The guy kept telling the police officer his name and to call his parole officer. Then the police officer got frustrated and started grabbing and rough housing the guy, he retreated/sat down on the seat of his car with the door open -- then they tazzed him and drug him out of the car.

Afterwards the bodycam shows the cop trying to cover his own behind. They're looking at his ID and the guy is clearly not the one they want. The officer says at least 5 times, "I asked him for his ID...I asked him for his ID" ... yet the officer never once asked for the guys ID. He asked for the guy's NAME, and the man gave it. Several times.

I guess we all better start just melting into a puddle when approached.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Don't even bother, dude has gone nutty

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Shamrock6

Don't even bother, dude has gone nutty

If you're referring to me, I've always been nuttier than a jar of peanut butter.

I like the smooth kind, not the crunchy though.