reply to post by airspoon
What happens if you don't agree with an officer and decide to nicely question him or oppose his reasoning, are you then resisting arrest without
It is mainly for situations where a drunk guy decides he doesn't want to go to jail and yanks free. It is for situations like that. It isn't for
situations where you ask a cop why you are being arrested. Now if you are beligerent and try jerking away from the cop, or walk away, then it is
resisting without violence.
It really isn't a great law, but it helps diferetiate in court. It helps a DA or judge know what kind of criminal they are dealing with. They are
much more likely to work with a non-violent resistor than a violent one. It is simply a way of classifying the nature of the crime.
What if he is beating you and you decide to cover your face because you want as little permanent damage as possible?
From a technical stand point it is. You are making it harder for the cops to cuff you. I disagree with using it in such a way though. I believe that
if police officers step across the line in to abuse, citizens have a right to self protection. I do not believe in going along and then suing or
filing a report. I believe if a police officer is going to far he has become a criminal. In that case you should have the same rights to stop his
criminal activity that you have to stop any other criminal.
With the tasers and pepper spray that cops have at their disposal a beating is never necessary. There is a proper use of force continuim. It starts
with physical presence, then goes to words, soft hands, hard hands, chemical (pepper spray), blunt object (flashlight, baton), then lethal force.
At no time is beating someone sensless acceptable. If presence and words don't work then use soft hands and restraining holds. If you must use "hard
hands" and strike some one it should only be two or three times. It should be a strike intended to soften the criminal to encourage compliance.
A strike should never be intended to break bones or cause permanent damage unless absolutely nesecary. If the criminal has you trapped where you can
not acces your pepper spray, taser, or gun, then a head but to the nose is understandable. As soon as feasible you should move on to pepper spray or
taser though. If at anytime you believe there is an imminent threat to your life or the threat of grave and serious bodily injury you can escelate to
the highest form of force you find necessary.
Hitting someone repeatedly in the face or head, to the point they feel the need to cover up for protection is not something any honest cop would
condone. If it is at the point where that may be necessary it is time for the taser or pepper spray.
If a person is resisting without violence things probably should not progress past soft hands, or a single strike, 90% of the time. I think this
charge shows that their actions were over the line. Judging solely by the proper use of force continuim.
If you don't want to be arrested, it should be your liberty to walk away and if the police feel that they have enough to arrest you, then they can
What will make you eventualy stop and consent to the arrest? Do they need to leave, present their findings to a judge, get a warrant, then hope they
can find you later?
I can see it now.
Well officer can you explain why you let the bank robber drive away?
Well, he said he didn't think he should be arrested. Since he was not violently resisting I had to let him drive away.
Can you imagine if they let the criminals decide when they should be arrested? How many people do you think would consent to being arrested? I don't
think a single crack dealer, bank robber, or murderer would just say, "okay I agree to go along." The police have to have the power to force
compliance on the spot. Other wise their authority equals up to a strong suggestion.
We should not be subject to the whim of police officers,
I agree completely and believe that in many places the police need a lot more oversight. However, I don't believe that people should be able to pick
and chose when they are subject to the law. Police should enforce the laws in as fair a manner as possible with as little violence as possible.
The police are supposed to serve the public,
I agree completely. That is why I am considerring taking the required courses to become a police officer. I think we need good people that believe in
freedom and serving their community to sign up. If the people complaining about cops become cops it will be easier to effect real change. It will be
much easier to make the police respectable again if respectable men sign up for the job.
"Resisting arrest without violence", should not be a viable and valid charge in a so-called free-country.
I disagree. A man can resist a valid arrest without becoming violent. This charge tells the difference between him and the guy that decided to fight
it out with six cops.
It has nothing to do with submitting to a police state. You can still question the officer. The DA can drop the charges, a judge can through out
charges. You still have the right to defend yourself in court. The cops are not excercising ultimate authority in any way.