“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life"

After viewing so many videos and reading more reports of police brutality than I care to count, this serves as a reminder of the rights that every citizen has and what lines police should be following and not crossing.

When I see people beaten down for no reason, protesters falsely arrested and detained, victims shot while unarmed, tazed for simply talking back...I don't understand how it has come to this.

You do have the right to resist and you have the right to use force if necessary. I don't see this as a right simply because it's in writing but rather as an individual with freedom at stake. My freedom and yours. We are not owned by any one or any thing just because they say we are and that we must adhere to all the laws put in place to beat us into submission.

So read on. Many will know this but I would guess that so many more don't realize that they in fact have a right to resist under certain circumstances.

And before being asked, I truly didn't know this existed either. I knew that we have a day in court to prove innocence but this...No

And then after watching so many unlawful actions by police at the "Occupy" events, I wonder how much of a different outcome some of the clashes might have had.

www.constitution.org...

“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.” “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away.

lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. “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). “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910). “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority.

Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court. As for grounds for arrest:

“The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

well, I see the argument being made, and disagree.

while robbing a bank you can´t say resisting arrest is for political reasons and so unlawful in a robin hood style steal and give way because you are nice like that. In the end the community decides. Not like your local town hall, or PTA, but common sense.

If the cop from the movie training day lived in my "barrio" I would not think twice if he tried to kill me or someone else for like drugs or money. But he isn't a cop in that case. He is a jerk. and a criminal jerk at that.

If it´s a cop patrolling and saw a gang member selling drugs and tried to take those drugs away, and in doing so got shot, I might try and stop that citizen who just shot one of my communities cops. We all might. Because he could have NOT sold something illegal. Shooting people is generally bad too

Protesters, ok, you can't kill people because you are sad, mad, glad, or my dad..
You need to respect the law if that is what you wish to change. If you advocate anarchy then go ahead and destroy all things civilized in favor of the new "blah" matrix.

You can't kill people because YOU think you have a right to. Unless you are being killed, you can't say self defense. period.

Originally posted by casenately
well, I see the argument being made, and disagree.

You need to respect the law if that is what you wish to change.

But it is the law. That's the point of the OP.

You basically have the right to resist unlawful arrest and you have the right to defend yourself and use force if necessary.

At no point in the OP did I mention advocating anarchy btw.

Peace

reply to post by jude11


And who in such a situation has a clear mind to determine if they're being unlawfully arrested or not?

You then have to run the gauntlet with the courts who will ultimately decide your fate.

I'll take it up with my lawyer and then a judge..

US citizens can not resist arrest by
a police officer in any fashion..

The police say it is a lawful arrest
you say its unlawful let your lawyer
do the dirty work.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by jude11

 

And who in such a situation has a clear mind to determine if they're being unlawfully arrested or not?

You then have to run the gauntlet with the courts who will ultimately decide your fate.

And there lies the problem.

I'm guessing that if you know for a fact that you are being unlawfully detained or if you are being beaten while NOT resisting arrest, you are in the right.

But to prove it is an entirely different thing isn't it? Hopefully there are a few witnesses to the incident and it's not you against a few cops because you will lose. No doubt about that.

Peace

It may be a lawful, but it's much different in "practice." Basically it wouldn't fly in a billion years no matter what.

no I see that, but it leaves a huge gap for interpretation. and no you did not mention anarchy, but someone might under those pretenses which is what I am trying to say.

it makes you judge and jury of what law you choose applies according to your own personal view of right and wrong.

we need social order and that takes the form of law. Law enforcement needs the liberty to detain and release if not guilty, all of coarse within due process. When the law creates a vacuum of that process then you need to change the legal code, not law enforcment.

IMO
1

Thank you OP, I'm going to make copies of this and deliver them to the local police, sheriff departments and the troop headquarters of the highway patrol, with a cover letter so all department will know the law and fully understand the ramifications of their actions, I suggest everyone who reads this follow suite, it might just save some LEOS life

Originally posted by sweetnlow
Thank you OP, I'm going to make copies of this and deliver them to the local police, sheriff departments and the troop headquarters of the highway patrol, with a cover letter so all department will know the law and fully understand the ramifications of their actions, I suggest everyone who reads this follow suite, it might just save some LEOS life

Thats not going to work very well.

Let us know how it turns out.

reply to post by popsmayhem

I know they are unaware of the law, and this is one major reason they do what they do without thinking because they feel they are above the law. this will be an eye opener to them and hopefully change their perspective on whats admissible and whats not, it might deter them from being stupid

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
It may be a lawful, but it's much different in "practice." Basically it wouldn't fly in a billion years no matter what.

Well, you're right that it's different in practice. But it did fly...in less than a million years. That's the point of the OP.

John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529
supreme.justia.com...

plummer vs. the state of indiana & john bad elk vs. the united states.*

it might be wise to be able to cite these by memory.

it's on the books, we can use this knowledge as an intellectual defense against the NWO's corrupt policies, i.e. the recent NDAA.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

That's a military matter that is out of the realm of the supreme court, that why it was implemented, but we can go to war with them if they decide to come gettem some

Originally posted by casenately
no I see that, but it leaves a huge gap for interpretation. and no you did not mention anarchy, but someone might under those pretenses which is what I am trying to say.

it makes you judge and jury of what law you choose applies according to your own personal view of right and wrong.

we need social order and that takes the form of law. Law enforcement needs the liberty to detain and release if not guilty, all of coarse within due process. When the law creates a vacuum of that process then you need to change the legal code, not law enforcment.

IMO
1

It certainly does leave interpretation open to misuse. That will always be the case. But a personal view is many times correct IMO.

There are times when people just want to make up a law on the spot. As some police have been known to do when confronting a person who clearly does not know their rights.

And then there are the cases when a person knows their rights more than the police officer does.

Slippery slope but if you know you are in the right...should you just go willingly? I don't understand that. Many know that they are in the right but will just allow themselves to be arrested, cuffed and detained out of fear.

That isn't right in any case.

Cover Letter
"Attention ALL Law Enforcement Agencies"
KNOW THE LAW
It might save your life

Be careful here. Don't generlize such a statement. The John Bad Elk (1900) case was the only U.S. Supreme Court case. The other cases were state cases with maybe one or two appellate cases. I no longer have Lexus to Shepardize the cases but in our state, you do not resist for any reason. It is a separate charge from the probable cause for arrest. You will go to jail and you will get prison time if you resist with violence, even if the arrest was unlawful.

reply to post by jude11

they expect everyone to submit to their authority because they've been trained this way without knowing the law, now if both sides knew the score, we would all look at each other in a new light and have greater respect for one another

you would hope...OK CORAL

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Be careful here. Don't generlize such a statement. The John Bad Elk (1900) case was the only U.S. Supreme Court case. The other cases were state cases with maybe one or two appellate cases. I no longer have Lexus to Shepardize the cases but in our state, you do not resist for any reason. It is a separate charge from the probable cause for arrest. You will go to jail and you will get prison time if you resist with violence, even if the arrest was unlawful.

If it was federal law then it is the law of the land, until the supreme court changes it, state law is irrelevant

If you know you are right, then use that. Become the example they wish you to be, and by your truth it shall flip on them. expose the BS by your sacrifice. dont go silently, but go. Prove there is a flaw in the system in that case by showing an innocent man was detained.

If it's a case where detainment means certain death, then get the F out of there. but then you would have to be smarter, you wouldn't start a picket line in like North Korea.

You have to be smart but ultimately, you can't impose sacrifice on others, take it upon yourself. let them call you anti-everything, let them ruin your name, whatever. But do it with purpose. Keep your eye on the prize.