Round 1: whatukno vs Budski: "Are The Police Out Of Control?", page 1

Opening Statement: "If you resist arrest, you deserve what you get. (The police are actually far too nice)"

Thank you Semperfortis for getting this round up, and thank you Budski for your participation in this subject.

The topic in question has several parts to it, together it seems simple on the surface, but when we examine the parts of the subject to this debate we come to the clear understanding that by resisting arrest, an individual subjects themselves to the use of force the police officer determines to be appropriate in expediting the suspects arrest. The second part of the topic suggests that the arresting officer in fact uses much restraint as possible in arresting the suspect as is warranted.

To understand this topic in detail we must of course clearly define the term Resisting Arrest. According to Wikipedia this is:

Resisting arrest is a term used to describe a criminal charge against an individual who has committed at least one of the following acts:
• Eluding a police officer who is attempting to arrest the individual
• Using or threatening to use force against an officer during an arrest
• Providing an officer with false identification (either verbally or by presentation of a false official document, i.e. a fake ID)

States clearly define this act in their individual statutes and codes. To resist arrest is usually a misdemeanor charge unless that individual causes great bodily harm to the arresting officer in which case that charge is usually upgraded to a felony.

My position on this subject is that the arresting officer typically uses appropriate force and restraint when arresting an individual and that the use of force is altogether light in comparison to the amount that the subject resists the officers attempts at arrest.

My opponent no doubt will try and paint our law enforcement officers as jack booted thugs and will most likely use references to individual cases where the officer in question probably went a little overboard in their use of force when apprehending a subject. These cases I will show are rare, and few and far between. Most arrests even those where the subject resists arrest use of force is usually limited to the amount of force required to stop a suspect and get them into custody and injuries sustained in the need for that force is the suspects own fault.

While I doubt that anyone can argue that the need for force is sometimes required by police officers in the apprehension of dangerous and violent offenders, even in these situations the arresting officers use as much restraint as possible when detaining the individual. Safety to the suspect as well as safety to the officer and surrounding civilians is always paramount on the officer’s mind when making an arrest. It is important for the officer to make the arrest in a way that does not cause the suspect injury if possible, as an injury can weaken any case against the suspect.

In cases where officers detain a suspect who is resisting arrest the goal of the officers is to reduce risk to themselves as quickly as possible and to get the situation under control. An officer can do this quickly by taking his gun out and killing the suspect, however that doesn’t help matters much as the officer will of course be the subject of an inquiry, not to mention the goal is only to arrest the suspect and not end the suspects life. The first alternative is the use of less than lethal force by means of tazer or pepper spray, rendering the suspect incapable of resisting and thereby lessening the risk to officers and civilians. The second alternative would be to body tackle the suspect; this increases the risk of injury to the suspect as well as the officer. This however when preformed correctly will allow an officer to arrest the resisting individual and get the situation under control.

A police officer has a difficult and dangerous job, these men and women risk their lives on a daily basis going into situations where great risk to them is a constant. These men and women have to use their judgment in milliseconds as to ascertain and quantify the situation to expedite the appropriate outcome. Typically this outcome is the uneventful arrest of a cooperative suspect. However when the suspect, under the influence of drugs or alcohol or otherwise hostile resists the arrest, an officer has no other alternative but to use force to apprehend the suspect and regain control of the situation. They use what force is deemed necessary in order to get control and then after control is achieved the officer will again use a professional and appropriate attitude towards the subject while transport to detention is expedited.

Ladies and Gentlemen: my opponent has shown you the limited nature of his understanding of what is resisting arrest. Peaceable protests to arrests do not constitute resisting arrest. However bludgeoning a LEO with a baseball bat would. Sitting on the ground and forcing the officer to drag you away does not constitute resisting arrest. However trying to run a LEO down with an 89 Chrysler LeBarron certainly does. Even running away from an officer sometimes does not qualify as resisting arrest. But pulling out an Uzi and spraying a police car does. (Well, probably that would get you attempted murder and a whole host of other charges along with a resisting arrest charge, but you get my point.)

At this point the person resisting arrest is subject to being arrested, the means by which the officer arrests the individual is then subject to how to stop the individual from whatever act they are doing at the time. Remember, “Arrest” literally means to stop. If an officer tells you to stop punching that kitten in the face or you will be under arrest, and you don’t comply, you will be placed under arrest. If you in turn start to punch the officer in the face, that officer has the right, the duty and the responsibility to defend himself and make sure you can no longer cause harm to the kitten and or the officer.

The officer will do what they feel they have to in order to make you comply with their demand. If you resist their attempt to place you under arrest, by attempting to spindle, mishandle, mangle, or damage the officer in any way shape or form. They have the authority and the right to do what is in their training and power to prevent you from mishandling them or put others in danger. Adequate force means they will use what force they deem necessary in order to apprehend you and arrest you. Thereby stopping you from doing whatever it is that you were doing.

However those that choose to resist arrest do so at their own peril. The officer will do what he feels is necessary in order to complete the arrest including taking a person down and or tazing them. If one does not wish to look like Tina Turner after a night with Ike then it is in ones best interest to comply with the officer’s command to cease and desist. If one decides however to confront the officer and resist being placed into police custody, the officer will in fact use appropriate force to make sure that you stop.

Appropriate force is the force that an officer deems necessary. This gives an officer a lot of leeway in negotiating an arrest. If you pull a weapon an officer may choose to neutralize the obvious threat you pose to him using the myriad of training and tools at their disposal. Also as police officers tend to work together you may find yourself at the wrong end of a group of pretty pissed off pigs. The officer may not know what your true intentions to them are and as such they will neutralize any threat they see in as quick an order as possible. Obviously they could determine that you are an eminent threat to their lives and pull their gun and drop you like a stone. Or they may choose to use less than lethal force, while obviously the second aspect may not feel good. It certainly does get the job done, and allows for the suspect to live and to see the inside of a court room, which is the intent of arresting someone.

In todays society, there is huge pressure and stress involved in being an officer of the law - and little in the way of training, re-training and support for those who do the job of policing our streets.

I disagree, from what I understand police officers are constantly trained, and re-trained in the latest tactics and information in order to keep them safe and allow them to do their jobs better.

In many instances, the police officer would like us to make his job easier, by doing exactly what they want us to do.

As opposed to having suspects sing loudly and off key Grateful Dead lyrics in the back of a squad car while being taken to a county jail. I did this once, amazingly the officer did not bludgeon me to submission, but I am sure that he wished he could. To the credit of the officer involved I was being rather annoying yet somehow for some reason I felt not once his boot in my neck or the sting of his PR-24 in my ribs. He however asked me to please “SHUT UP” repeatedly, which I replied, “I am waiving my right to remain silent” and continued to make this poor man’s life a living hell. Even after one point I brought my hands from behind my back to ease the discomfort I felt with them being there. Yet even then, the officer restrained himself, pulled over and simply re-cuffed me. This was an instance where I basically was begging for a beat down and yet somehow this officer managed to remain professional and I remained unharmed.

Everyone wants his or her job to go smoothly. The restraint we possess is a key element in our lives. People tend to make us angry sometimes and while you may wish to throttle them within an inch of their lives we for some reason more often than not resist that urge. Police officers do this on a daily basis. They do this with people that threaten them, or people that are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Socratic Question 1: If a police officer stopped you for no reason, and then arrested you for resisting arrest because you refused to answer questions, how would you feel?

I would feel fine, an arrest for resisting arrest does not equate to a conviction of the same. A police officer may in fact bring charges of resisting arrest against anyone. However that officer would have to prove in a court of law that I had indeed resisted arrest.

Point of fact: A police officer has the right to detain a person for questioning for a period of time for no reason whatsoever. It is my right to refuse to answer any question asked me. It is my right to have legal council present for any questions. This simply put is not resisting arrest. I may in fact completely clam up in front of the officer, I will be arrested, but any resisting arrest charges would not hold because refusing to answer a LEO’s questions does not constitute resisting arrest. In the above instance, the resisting arrest charge would be thrown out. Also the officer may in fact himself be charged with making an illegal arrest.

SQ 2: Do you think you have the right or the moral obligation to resist under certain circumstances?

No, if an officer is arresting you, you must comply with his order. You may make objections to the arrest at the time of the arrest; this does not constitute resisting arrest. You may also contest any charges in a court of law. But at the time of the arrest one must comply with the arresting officer’s demand.

SQ3: What do you deem to be acceptable force when arresting a passive person?

A passive person may be detained with restraints (handcuffs) and taken to a local precinct or county jail for possessing and interrogation. A passive and thus cooperative person does not pose a threat to a LEO and thus does not require force other than to place their hands behind their back and place handcuffs on them.

There generally is no single rule police have for making an arrest; the problem is every situation is unique.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that "…in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force." In dozens of studies of police use of force there is no single, accepted definition among the researchers, analysts, or the police. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in its study, Police Use of Force in America 2001, defined use of force as "The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject." The IACP also identified five components of force: physical, chemical, electronic, impact, and firearm. To some people, though, the mere presence of a police officer can be intimidating and seen as use of force.

Source: Use of Force

SQ4: Do you agree that all police officers are human, and as such are subject to the same emotional responses as the rest of us?

No, some are former marines, and as such, no longer qualify as human. Also assaulting a police dog carries with it the same charge as assaulting an officer. Police dogs do not qualify as human but do qualify as police officers.

SQ 5: Can it be said that resisting arrest may sometimes be a bogus charge that officers use as a way of getting back at someone who has rubbed them up the wrong way?

It might be, however the officer would also have to bring proof into court that you indeed resisted arrest. His testimony alone does not constitute adequate proof of resisting arrest.

Socratic Question 1: An armed assailant is coming at you with the expressed determination to cause you physical harm. Would you negotiate with the assailant or would you use the means at your disposal to neutralize the threat to your self?

SQ2: Would you agree that there are many more arrests made without incident than those where resistance is used?

SQ3: Would you treat a person under the influence of crack cocaine robbing a liquor store with a machete the same as you would treat grandma may who just stole a pair of pantyhose?

SQ4: Do you believe that officers more often than not use restraint to arrest people?

SQ5: What is the difference between adequate and unnecessary force?

Ladies and Gentlemen: my opponent has shown you the limited nature of his understanding of what is resisting arrest.

Woefull research by my opponent here - he clearly has little or no understanding of the law even in his own country.

If he had done even a little research he would know this:

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

[1]


My opponent should know that in the US there can be no case brought for resisting arrest if an officer has no probable cause for the original offense the subject was being arrested for, and is entitled under law to resist arrest.

Further to this my opponent should know that the Supreme Court has ruled that a citizen being wrongfully arrested has not only the right but the duty to resist as an illegal arrest is tantamount to a violent crime itself as though it were being committed by any other civilian, thereby making the right to self-defense applicable in such situations.

So from this you can see ladies and gentlemen, that my "esteemed" opponent is not only wrong about this, he is completely uninformed on the subject.

QED
Or in case my opponent is also ignorant in this regard, the translation is quod erat demonstrandum, which literally means "that which was to be demonstrated".

I have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that resisting arrest in the US (since my opponent seems intent on being provincial) is not only legal in certain circumstances, but is also the duty of every citizen.

This also holds true for other countries - why do people think the police get successfully sued as much as they do?

So, bearing that in mind, my opponent thinks that if a person is arrested unlawfully, he or she still "deserves what they get"

Now, what kind of bloodthirsty thinking is that?

It seems that my opponent advocates a return to brown shirts, jackboots and fancy insignia if he says that a person should NEVER resist an officer of the law.

Socratic Question 1: An armed assailant is coming at you with the expressed determination to cause you physical harm. Would you negotiate with the assailant or would you use the means at your disposal to neutralize the threat to your self?

I would run away and call the police - let them deal with it, it's their job.

SQ2: Would you agree that there are many more arrests made without incident than those where resistance is used?

No, I would only agree that you have provided no evidence of this.

SQ3: Would you treat a person under the influence of crack cocaine robbing a liquor store with a machete the same as you would treat grandma may who just stole a pair of pantyhose?

I wouldn't treat them any way - I am not a police officer.
Please refer to SQ1

SQ4: Do you believe that officers more often than not use restraint to arrest people?

What I believe is immaterial - if you are making a point, the burden of proof is on you.

SQ5: What is the difference between adequate and unnecessary force?

Adequate force would be using restraint in arresting a violent subject.
Unnecessary force examples can be found here

As an example:
A man is held by an officer in connection with a robbery.
Witnesses who have called the police, say that the man is not the perp.
The officer proceeds to search the man anyway, without probable cause.
The man resists - the police officer tasers him several times.

The supreme court has upheld that the man had the right to defend himself against an assault.

The officer and his department are sued by the man.

This is an example of unnecessary force and the consequences of it.

My opponent makes plenty of other mistakes as well.

In the UK, a citizen cannot be stopped by police unless there is an intention to arrest. Citizens have no duty to answer questions and police cannot arrest for refusal to answer questions and there is no legal duty to accompany police officers.

SQ1: Given what the supreme court says, do you still think that no citizen has the right to resist arrest?

SQ2: Why do you think there has been an increase in the number of complaints against police? stats

SQ3: If a person is resisting an unlawfull arrest, because that arrest by its nature becomes an assault, what would you expect a citizen to do, given that it is their duty to resist as stated by the supreme court?

SQ4: If a person does not resist an unlawfull arrest, would you think that they also "deserve what they get"?

SQ5: If a person resisting an unlawfull arrest is severely harmed in the process of resisting, does that mean they also "got what they deserved"?

Ah yes, certainly your blog reference must be complete truth.

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has shown you with great wisdom several cases where the rights of the citizenry to defend themselves are upheld in a court of law. Unlawful arrest is indeed an assault, I could not agree more with my opponent. If this debate had been titled "If you resist false arrest, you deserve what you get.” Then I would concede the issue here and now. But unfortunately for my opponent this debate is not about false arrest, but about arrest. Therefore we must assume that the attempted arrest is valid, and warranted.

My opponent also would like for you to believe that anything that police officers do in the fulfillment of their duty constitutes assault and therefore makes it quite legal for people to resist arrest, however given the definition I have provided in my opening statement on what is resisting arrest, the use of less than lethal force is justified.

New Jersey’s Attorney General Anne Milgram has implemented such guidelines.

The policy states that less-lethal ammunition may be directed against a person only when such force is reasonably necessary to prevent the person from causing death or serious bodily injury to himself or herself, a police officer, or any other person.

An example of a situation where the use of less-lethal ammunition might be authorized would be a circumstance in which a person is armed, or appears to be armed, with a potentially deadly weapon and refuses to comply with an officer's order to disarm, but the danger to the officer is not yet imminent.

A second example would be a person threatening or actively engaged in suicidal or other self-destructive behavior, and the use of less-lethal ammunition is necessary to prevent the person from causing death or serious injury to himself of herself.

The policy states that no police officer can use less-lethal ammunition unless the officer has completed a training course approved by the Police Training Commission.

Source: nj.com


However while my opponent is a proponent of mishandling and even killing law enforcement officers, who is the first person he would turn to if his own life were in danger?

Socratic Question 1: An armed assailant is coming at you with the expressed determination to cause you physical harm. Would you negotiate with the assailant or would you use the means at your disposal to neutralize the threat to your self?

I would run away and call the police - let them deal with it, it's their job.

But using my opponent’s logic, the armed assailant could resist the officer in arresting him for his “alleged attempted assault” of my opponent. Why? Because the assailant may “believe” that the arrest was illegal. After all, my opponent ran away to call the police, no assault was committed. Therefore no crime committed.

Unfortunately for my opponent, resisting a legal arrest is a crime, (even in the UK, if the police are determined to arrest you and you resist, they do not have to tell you, your under arrest until after they have subdued you.) depending on how the individual proceeds in resisting this lawful arrest they do deserve what they get as simply providing a fake ID is in fact resisting arrest, or eluding the police where the person knows that the police are going to arrest them is resisting arrest. Unfortunately for my opponent, assaulting an officer when they are attempting to place you under legal arrest is in fact resisting arrest, and a crime.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.28
Information to be given on arrest
28. - (1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest.
(2) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious.
(3) Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.
(4) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious.
(5) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed -
(a) that he is under arrest; or
(b) of the ground for the arrest,
if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given.

Source: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

And I would like to remind my opponent, when referring to Texas law; one has to remember this is also the state that you can be legally married by publicly introducing a person as your husband or wife 3 times.

Now my opponent wants to confuse you, my opponent wants to confuse the issue of illegal search and seizure with resisting arrest. Let us look once again at my opponent’s “example”

A man is held by an officer in connection with a robbery.

Note the man was not arrested, he was being held. Detaining an individual is acceptable for up to 72 hours in most places within the United States without cause

Witnesses who have called the police, say that the man is not the perp.

Good, eye witnesses to the fact, should have made the officer’s job much easier, here however is where my opponent is trying to confuse the issue of resisting arrest and resisting an illegal search and seizure

The officer proceeds to search the man anyway, without probable cause.

Illegal search and seizure, note that the man is not resisting the officer from detaining him at this point.

The man resists - the police officer tasers him several times.

Resisting an illegal search and seizure is not the premise of this debate; if this was the case then my opponent would have had a good example here. However this debate is about resisting arrest, not resisting search and seizure law.

SQ1: Given what the supreme court says, do you still think that no citizen has the right to resist arrest?

No citizen has the right to resist a legal arrest. It is a crime. Citizens however do have the right to defend themselves, and therefore, they have the right to defend themselves against an assault by an officer who has no cause to arrest them. But yes I still think that no citizen has the right to resist a legal arrest.

SQ2: Why do you think there has been an increase in the number of complaints against police?

Lawyers like to make money, win or lose, the lawyer makes money.

Complaints are not necessarily VALID complaints. Let us look at your link here, I’ll provide a bit of information you probably did not want us to see.

The overall rate of misconduct sanctions imposed on officers for England and Wales is 13 sanctions per 1,000 officers.

Doesn’t appear to be astounding now does it?

SQ3: If a person is resisting an unlawfull arrest, because that arrest by its nature becomes an assault, what would you expect a citizen to do, given that it is their duty to resist as stated by the supreme court?

Then by all means resist that unlawful arrest, it is your right, and duty to do so. You still then will be arrested under the charge of assaulting an officer, then a court will determine your guilt or innocence. But that is not the issue here, the issue here is resisting arrest.

SQ4: If a person does not resist an unlawfull arrest, would you think that they also "deserve what they get"?

The restitution by the state would be considerable; yes the person would defiantly “get what they deserved”. They would deserve a big fat paycheck.

SQ5: If a person resisting an unlawfull arrest is severely harmed in the process of resisting, does that mean they also "got what they deserved"?

Unlawful arrests aren't the issue here, resisting arrest is. Resisting and unlawful arrest is defending yourself. In the end you will still be arrested, however, you will be in the right by defending yourself. Every person has the right to defend themselves from being assaulted, this is absolutely true. If someone is unlawfully arrested, and due to the attempted defense of themselves they become severely harmed in the process, that person under the law would be due compensation for their injury. This compensation would most likely be considerable and so they would “get what they deserved”.

SQ1: Do you still claim that it is your right to injure or kill a police officer when he is performing a legal arrest, due simply to the fact that you feel that you are innocent?

SQ2: If a person injures or kills an officer in defense of his civil liberties do you think then that person should stand trial thereby allowing the state due process under the law?

SQ3: If a person injures or kills a police officer in the defense of his civil liberties, does then that person have the justification to injure or kill every other officer that attempts an arrest of that person for the death of the officer that has been injured or killed?

SQ4: Using your argument and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, are you saying that no arrests can be made by law enforcement officers and that everyone guilty or not has the duty to resist all arrests attempted because of this presumption of innocence?

SQ5: How would you propose that someone who resists an illegal arrest prove the assault?

Ah, ladies and gentlemen, note the obfuscation in my opponents last reply as he tries to cloud the issue.

The title of the debate let me remind my opponent is "If you resist arrest, you deserve what you get. (The police are actually far too nice)"

It says nothing about an arrest being lawfull or not - and certainly if an officer attempts to arrest someone then he or she MUST think it is lawfull, even if it is not.
The title also states police - but many organisations come under the title of "police"

At this point, I should thank my opponent for bringing to the debate the title LEO, or Law Enforcement Officer, which covers many more organisations than simple police departments.

My opponent would like us to "assume" that we are talking only about lawfull arrests (and we all know what assume does) in order that he might make a water tight case on ground of his choosing.

However, that only works if I am prepared to play his game.

I am not.

He would also have you believe, in his first link, that policy is law - but even the untrained mind can see there is a huge difference.

Resisting arrest may be a crime under the right circumstances, but as we have seen in recent years (in fact since 1987) sometimes a person who is suspected of a crime has not even been given the right to a trial.

Children have been held, as well as adults with no recourse in law because of legal advice given to President Bush.

This ties in how?
Well, in a memo dated 10/23/01 (page 8 of this PDF ) it was stated that the 4th amendment could be waived for armed forces inside the US.
This law could conceivably cover Police officers as part of the armed forces or security forces inside the US.

The homeland security act and the patriot act also tke away many rights, and have been abused on many occasions.
The patriot act updated existing laws but did not update any of the checks and balances needed. [1]
In fact two sections of the patriot act have been declared unconstitutional.

Because of this, people have been unlawfully detained - and it could happen to anyone.
Just ask those innocent people, on the no fly list

This is before we even get into abuses by individual police officers.

Any law enforcemenr officer has to abide by the rules laid down in law, just as citizens do - however, time and again we see abuses of power.

For the sake of simplicity, let me link to the simple search on ATS entitled police abuse

As you can see, these are not the "isolated incidents" my opponent would have you believe.
Dozens and dozens of threads in one single, simple search!

Of course he would have us believe that a few thousand cases are of no consequence in the greater scheme of things, but how would any one of us feel if we had been on the receiving end?

In fact, all over the world police abuse their power and innocent people suffer as a consequence.

In zimbabwe, china, darfur, iraq, america, uk, france, russia and just about every other country the police abuse their power to one extent or another.

When this happens, do we simply lie down and take it?

Or do we resist with whatever tools we have at our disposal.

SCOTUS was 100% right - we have a duty to resist if we are being treated unfairly.
We have a moral obligation to help those of our fellow humans who are caught up in abuses of power.
As citizens we owe it not just to ourselves, but also to those who originally wrote our laws, our constitutions and shaped our nations to make sure that we are protected in the manner they envisaged and laid down in law.

One rogue LEO is one too many - but according to my opponent (is that the sound of jackboots I hear? ) we should just lie down and take it, because someone thinks they are above the law.
I wonder how Rodney King feels about that?

SQ1: Do you still claim that it is your right to injure or kill a police officer when he is performing a legal arrest, due simply to the fact that you feel that you are innocent?

If you can actually point to where I personally have stated this, then I will answer.
In other words, this is a complete fabrication.

SQ2: If a person injures or kills an officer in defense of his civil liberties do you think then that person should stand trial thereby allowing the state due process under the law?

I think you should take this up with SCOTUS - this is not about all civil liberties as I think you know.
It is about ONE civil liberty - the right to due process by LEO's acting within the law.

SQ3: If a person injures or kills a police officer in the defense of his civil liberties, does then that person have the justification to injure or kill every other officer that attempts an arrest of that person for the death of the officer that has been injured or killed?

See my previous answer.

SQ4: Using your argument and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, are you saying that no arrests can be made by law enforcement officers and that everyone guilty or not has the duty to resist all arrests attempted because of this presumption of innocence?

Nope - again, please try reading what I have stated, not what you imagine I have.

SQ5: How would you propose that someone who resists an illegal arrest prove the assault?

That is not a matter for me to decide, it is a matter for the courts.

As you can plainly see from my opponents SQ's, he is so desperate to win that he will stop at nothing - even fabricating things I have supposedly said, despite the fact he knows full well I personally have not said them.

When looking at my SQ's. please bear in miind that my opponents introduced LEO's into the debate in the first paragraph of his first post:

However bludgeoning a LEO with a baseball bat would. Sitting on the ground and forcing the officer to drag you away does not constitute resisting arrest. However trying to run a LEO down with an 89 Chrysler LeBarron certainly does.

LEO covers ALL law enforcement agencies as the name implies.

SQ1: Do you think the inmates incarcerated in rendition camps were entitled to resist, given that the CIA falls under the category of LEO's?

SQ2: Would you think that you had a right to resist if you were told you could not board an aircraft by airport security given that they fall under the category of LEO's?

SQ3: Given the memo regarding the suspension of the 4th amendment for armed forces in the US, would you feel you had a right to resist if they attempted to search your house without a warrant?

SQ4: What would you classify as reasonable use of force when resisting an illegal search?

SQ5: If an off duty police officer attempted to break into your home whilst drunk, during the night, what would you consider reasonable force, and how would you react if his colleagues then targetted you?

My "esteemed" opponent would like to expand this debate to cover an enormous scope of eventualities irrelevant to the issue at hand. He is correct that I have encompassed police to include all LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) and so I will clearly define now what is included in the title LEO.

police officer, Military police (MPs), Federal Law Enforcement Agents

Some agents listed above such as police, military police and specific federal law enforcement agents have arrest powers, others such as a security guard do not. Depending on the specific LEO involved with the arrest the arrest could then be determined illegal or legal.

My opponent wants to argue the merits between illegal arrests versus a legal arrest instead of the issue at hand which is Resisting Arrest. This is his choice and he is welcome to it. For me however I will stick to the issue at hand which is Resisting Arrest.

One rogue LEO is one too many - but according to my opponent (is that the sound of jackboots I hear? ) we should just lie down and take it, because someone thinks they are above the law.

Achtung mein guter Freund, The law works both ways, this is why we have lawyers, you do have rights under the law, but justice is not automatic. One must fight for ones rights. The way you fight an injustice is through the proper channels and not through one’s own fists.

I wonder how Rodney King feels about that?

King was awarded $3.8 million in a civil case and used some of the proceeds to start a hip hop music label, Straight Alta-Pazz Recording Company.

Source: Wikipedia

I think he got what he deserved.

My opponent refused to answer my Socratic questions directly as he states that he never stated that self defense is applicable.

If you can actually point to where I personally have stated this, then I will answer.
In other words, this is a complete fabrication.

You didn’t? Oh my, I must have been mistaken when you pointed out these individual court rulings:

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

And then proceeded to state:

Further to this my opponent should know that the Supreme Court has ruled that a citizen being wrongfully arrested has not only the right but the duty to resist as an illegal arrest is tantamount to a violent crime itself as though it were being committed by any other civilian, thereby making the right to self-defense applicable in such situations.

So, my opponent in using this blog as a statement of fact, one that states that a person has the right to defend themselves against an illegal arrest, as it is defined as assault and battery. As in Runyan v. State, the court rules that “in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified” and also we see above that my opponent states that it is our duty to defend ourselves against assault and battery.

But the only way to prove that an arrest is legal or illegal is through due process under the law. So we must infer that the choice to defend oneself against an illegal arrest is merely a matter of perspective at the time of the arrest, due simply to the fact they feel they are innocent. A judgment call on the individual, to be latter justified or criminalized by a court of law.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent wants to paint our hard working and courageous police as a group of thugs that roam the streets armed to the teeth looking for their next victim to beat down. Even going so far as to paint our law enforcement agents and brave men and women in both our nations’ militaries with the same brush as the janaweed in Darfur.

Also my opponent wants to show Police Abuse to be widespread and the norm, sighting “a dozen or so” examples here on ATS alone. Of the 561,844 law enforcement agents in the US alone a few dozen rotten eggs are statistically bound to be in the mix. It’s an unfortunate generalization of our brave and overwhelmingly professional police forces in our two countries alone.

My opponent wants to tell you that violent criminals must be handled with the utmost care and consideration even though those very criminals won’t show our police force the same consideration. I suppose in my opponent’s view the police should beg the criminal to stop and perhaps disarm him by tickling him with feathers. The reality is unfortunately different. Police officers who are forced to confront violent and sometimes heavily armed criminals must use force and unfortunately sometimes deadly force to stop these criminals from doing harm. As we can see violent crime cases are quite numerous and police officers are considerably outnumbered on a daily basis. But my opponent wants you to ignore those statistics, wants instead to focus on the rare occasion where a few dozen or so officers of the half million officers on duty do abuse their power.

SQ1: Do you think the inmates incarcerated in rendition camps were entitled to resist, given that the CIA falls under the category of LEO's?

This depends on the situation of the arrest. If we are talking about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, The rights and responsibilities of the detainees and the officers in charge of their care respectively fall under the articles outlined in the Geneva conventions. Of course this is again another debate entirely and not the subject here.

SQ2: Would you think that you had a right to resist if you were told you could not board an aircraft by airport security given that they fall under the category of LEO's?

This falls under refusal to enter, not arrest. Also as aircraft are operated and maintained by private organizations they are under the law given the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. To be turned away is not arrest; it’s not even being detained.

SQ3: Given the memo regarding the suspension of the 4th amendment for armed forces in the US, would you feel you had a right to resist if they attempted to search your house without a warrant?

This debate is about resisting arrest not resisting a warrantless search.

SQ4: What would you classify as reasonable use of force when resisting an illegal search?

This debate is about resisting arrest, not resisting an illegal search and seizure.

SQ5: If an off duty police officer attempted to break into your home whilst drunk, during the night, what would you consider reasonable force, and how would you react if his colleagues then targetted you?

In the scenario above, it would depend on the place you lived in and the laws of that jurisdiction. In some areas the Castle Doctrine would apply, and reasonable force would include creating large holes in the trespassing citizen with large caliber weapons.

In the second instance of how I would react towards his colleagues if they were to attempt to retaliate for the use of reasonable (deadly) force applied to a trespassing citizen would be to contact both the office of internal affairs and the state attorney general. Both of which would probably already be involved because the incident in question involved an officer. However, the officer in this scenario was off duty and thus a private citizen.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you can see, one way or annother, if one resists arrest, one will certanly get what they deserve. Just ask Rodney King.

Oh dear.

First my opponent tries to say that the words written in a source are mine, then neglects to mention that the piece quoted actually has the case details which are very easy to look up, and as such, are not a blog but a statement of fact.

Speaking of sources - just how many does my opponent want to use? I counted 10 in his last post, including one not sourced in contravention of the forum rules desperation is a terrible thing.

Once again, he is attempting to set the terms of the debate by backtracking on the definition of a LEO.

Well, that was his own error - let him live with it.

I also doubt that Rodney King would agree with him.....

Which bring me to my next point - in a predominantly white country, with predominantly white LEO's there is a much higher chance of arrest, stop and search and if convicted of a crime a much higher chance of recieving a jail term if a person is of non white ethnicity.

The sad fact is that white people commit a larger proportion of crime, but make up a smaller proportion of the prison population source

Whilst in the UK the met police were some years ago, called institutionally racist, the problem has not gone away, with the new mayor of london call for another investigation source

So, what does this have to do with resisting arrest?

Well, from the information posted above, it seems that the system is heavily weighted against those of non white ethnicity, and if this is the case, and a non white person has more chance of being arrested, beaten, sentenced to jail where a white person would not be, does it not seem natural that people of non white ethnicity would have a deep mistrust of LEO's?

And if they have a deep mistrust of LEO's, does it not follow that they would be more likely to resist (rightly or wrongly) and then be the victim of a savage beating such as that delivered to Rodney King?

In order for more people to stop resisting arrest, surely it is up to LEO's and the organisations they belong to, to build some bridges, gain some trust and stop beating the crap out of people.
Remember, it only takes a few bad apples for all LEO's to be tarnished in the eyes of society.
It only takes a few bad apples such as those allegedly involved in the TuPac murder to tarnish the reputation of an entire organisation.

Since the murder of a young man called Stephen Lawrence, the Metropolitan police has suffered from accusations of racism (although there is nothing to suggest they were involved in the murder)
This is a charge which haunts them to this day, and which affects how people percieve them when tey are stopping or arresting someone.

If a person thinks they are going to get a good kicking back at the police station, just because of their ethnicity, surely they are going to resist, even though they shouldn't.

I submit that over zealous LEO's have made a rod for their own back as regards people resisting arrest - the actions of the few have made the job harder for the many.

No LEO should be above the law - to use an analogy, the US portrays itself as the "worlds police" and yet breaks one international law after another, and then wonders why other nations do not trust them.

LEO's should be held to a higher moral and ethical standard than the criminals they are arresting - and for the most part they fulfill this standard.
BUT, as stated, a few bad apples spoil it for all, and that is one of the major reasons why people resist.

SQ1: Do you think there is a degree of racism inherent in law enforcement agencies?

SQ2: Do you think LEO's should be held to a higher moral and ethical code than criminals or ordinary citizens?

SQ3: Why is a person of non white ethnicity more likely to be sent to prison than a white person convicted of the same crime?

SQ4: Why is the prison population in the US so heavily populated by people of non white ethnicity, when per capita crime is spread evenly amongst ethnic groups?

SQ5: If you were fearfull of being seriously harmed in the event of an arrest, would you resist, remembering that resisting arrest includes fleeing from LEO's?

Closing Argument

Ladies and Gentlemen, I came to this debate to prove one thing, and one thing only. "If you resist arrest, you deserve what you get. (The police are actually far too nice)"

I have shown exactly what is resisting arrest, and what is not. Protesting an arrest in itself is not resisting arrest. Running away from police if one can show they did not know they were about to be arrested is not resisting arrest. But running from a law enforcement officer who is going to arrest you is. Showing a fake id to a cop is resisting arrest. And assaulting an officer when they are going to arrest you is of course (everyone say it with me) RESISTING ARREST.

Depending on the nature of your resistance will come the order of magnitude of the officer’s force in arresting you. If you run, you may be tackled, if you show a fake ID you will be cuffed and stuffed and go sit in a cell until your true identity can be reviled. If you use force against an officer of the law then you will be subdued. It really depends on the situation as each encounter as any LEO will tell you is unique.

My opponent wants to paint the entire police force with a huge nasty brush. He uses, one brush, for the more than a half a million law enforcement officers in the US alone. Portraying them as jack booted, neo Nazi racists, and no better than uniformed gang members or mafia agents.

It’s simply not true.

My opponent wants also to bring to this debate to cover a larger scope rather than the topic at hand. Apparently he no longer wants to discuss the topic at hand, which is resisting arrest, but other issues not directly relevant to this debate. More power to him, but my friends this debate isn’t about any of those external issues, this has to do with resisting arrest and resisting arrest only.

If you resist arrest the police have the authority to use the means at their disposal to stop that resistance. If the resistance is non violent, the police will use non violent means to placate the resistance and thus commence with the arrest. If however the suspect becomes violent with officers or violently resists being taken into custody the police must preserve their own safety and thus use disabling techniques in order to bring the person into custody.

My opponent did through this debate bring up an interesting argument. If one is completely innocent of the crime committed it is his duty to resist what he feels is an illegal arrest. However this is done through proper channels and not with fisticuffs. Injuring or killing a police officer or other law enforcement agent is a bad thing. This brings with it several new charges on top of whatever charge the officer was intending to bring on the suspect to begin with. Again you will be arrested, whether or not the original arrest or attempt at an arrest is valid is a matter for the courts and not up to the individual to decide.

In all eventualities, people who resist arrest whether that arrest was legal or illegal do deserve what they get. If the arrest was illegal they can sue for damages and sue for false arrest as shown by my opponent…

This also holds true for other countries - why do people think the police get successfully sued as much as they do?

The people successfully sue the police are getting what they deserve. If the police commit crimes in the performance of their duty then yes absolutely people should resist and sue for the damages they receive at the hands of law enforcement officers that go outside of the bounds of the law. They deserve compensation and they get what they deserve.

My opponent wants to once again throw the “king” (Pardon the pun) of all resisting arrest/police brutality cases in our collective faces once again Rodney King

Yea, my dear Mr. King is such an innocent man.

Police officers have to put up with a lot of punishment on a daily basis. It’s a hard job that few respect. Being a police officer is not a job that is done easily. One who wishes to uphold the law and do what is right is in for a tough row to hoe.

But those who on one hand spit in the direction of an officer, when they get into trouble who are the first people they call?

The cop you screamed out yesterday may be the same cop that today saves your life.

In my opponent’s last post he wants to know why there are disproportionally more black people in prison than whites. I submit to you that this is not a problem with police but rather a larger problem with our criminal justice system as a whole. Remember ladies and gentlemen, the police don’t convict you of crimes, judges and juries do.

SQ1: Do you think there is a degree of racism inherent in law enforcement agencies?

No, I am not saying there aren’t any racists among the police forces around the world. But in general LEOs are typically professionals and perform their duty to the best of their ability and training.

SQ2: Do you think LEO's should be held to a higher moral and ethical code than criminals or ordinary citizens?

Yes.

SQ3: Why is a person of non white ethnicity more likely to be sent to prison than a white person convicted of the same crime?

Larger problem with the legal system as a whole, and better lawyers, and not cops themselves.

SQ4: Why is the prison population in the US so heavily populated by people of non white ethnicity, when per capita crime is spread evenly amongst ethnic groups?

Larger problem with the legal system as a whole, and not cops alone.

SQ5: If you were fearfull of being seriously harmed in the event of an arrest, would you resist, remembering that resisting arrest includes fleeing from LEO's?

Flight or fight response to apprehension to physical harm is a normal reaction. When I was a young kid at parties and the police showed up I would always run into the mountains. The reason was that no cop in his right mind would dare follow me. (Probably was a good idea on their part) But if you run from an officer when he is trying to perform his duty you will get what you deserve. In my case above, instead of following me into the mountains, they would simply wait till I came home and talk to me then. I would get what I deserved.

Ladies and Gentlemen I rest my case, thank you Semperfortis for setting up this debate, and thank you budski for this challenging match. It has been my pleasure.