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

reply to post by jude11


Okay, I have nine minutes before I must get in the shower, but I must put my two cents in here.

You are right sir and now there is a precedent, several, that show that we do in fact have this right.

However I must point out quickly that the US Supreme Court has ruled eight times against the US Federal Income Tax as it applies to wage and salaried employees, and yet when someone is hauled up in court many times this evidence has in fact been ruled inadmissible. Is this wrong? Of course it is, but except for appeal there is no recourse in the courtroom in which it is ruled.

Now let's look at our case. Killing a cop? My father was a cop, and I can tell you that were you to do something like this, you would probably actually never see the inside of the courtroom. We have seen it in the movies and it is true, when a cop killer is hunted, bringing him to court, in the minds of the pursuing officers is not nearly as important as bringing him to justice. Justice in this case being subjective in the mind of the involved police.

Unfortunately, the way things should work, the way they do work, and what the law says are three distinct and different realities.

Times up, off to the shower.

I dont know about all the legal talk but as far as the title goes you`re damn right i`ll shoot a cop trying to arrest or even detain me(or anyone else) without a justifyable cause. Jail or prison is not a place one wants to end up anywhere, and as long as i`m not hurting or endangering anyone "the law" shouldnt be concerned.

LOL. A bank robber aware of his rights trying to resist? Thats a rich one.

anyway.

The law is the law. Im not going to tell you in blanket fashion what you should do or not do.But if you have a brain, email the OP's entire first post to 10 friends and family.subject line, "IF I AM EVER ARRESTED FORWARD THIS TO MY LAWYER"



And the police had a reason to body plant and old man on a concrete floor.A 60 dollar game he stuffed into his pants to help his grandson in the mob. I would have helped the man.

reply to post by Bluesquid


this video has always confused me as, HE IS STILL IN WAL-MART...

do you not have to actually LEAVE THE STORE with the product to be STEALING it???

or was this "conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor"???

Agreed, this is where many german citizens went wrong durin the late 1930s. They allowed themselves be be detained which in turn lead to torture, rape and often death.

good thread...

there are lots of supreme court ruling that are ignored in law enforcement...

i read somewhere that the supreme court has ruled that if you are suppling drugs to someone with an ADDICTION then you are merely doing nothing more than helping a person with a disease...

i have no idea what case it was, but it too, had been sited again and again by the supreme court...

reply to post by jude11


I hate to say the truth, but the rights of the Constitution disintegrated many years ago. In today's society, whatever the federal government and state say, it pretty much goes. It is a good idea in practice, but we would get sent to a military prison in a heartbeat for trying to do something like this. I understand it is our right, but what sucks is that we lost this right a long long time ago.

reply to post by jude11


While I understand the premise of this thread, I feel obliged to point out the mass numbers of people willing to take full unlawful advantage of such a loophole. Sure, there will be times when the citizen has every right to resist, as per the decisions you have posted. But there will be many more who have no right to resist, but will resist on bull# grounds.

This is an opportunity to create chaos and further confusion on the streets, which is the last thing we need.

reply to post by jude11


Hey bro the only thing I can say about it OP is because they were scared, and they were justified. Then again a wise t-shirt also once said washington didnt use his right of freedom of speech to fight off the redcoats he shot them! (obvioulsy declaring independance from tyranny is not free as a matter of fact its the opposite obviouosly we are still paying for it with a little power and a narrow mind for the big worldly picture you get TAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Law enforcement) You may have also inspired me for a thread of my own regarding how you fight back.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by jude11

 

While I understand the premise of this thread, I feel obliged to point out the mass numbers of people willing to take full unlawful advantage of such a loophole. Sure, there will be times when the citizen has every right to resist, as per the decisions you have posted. But there will be many more who have no right to resist, but will resist on bull# grounds.

This is an opportunity to create chaos and further confusion on the streets, which is the last thing we need.

Quite correct!

While I do not want to see bloodshed in the streets for the sake of bloodshed, I do believe that people should start learning their rights as citizens.

When people have absolutely no idea what their rights are, they go willingly into submission and that also is the last thing we need.

I guess this is like any other law we have. Some will use it to stand and others will abuse it and fall. Unfortunately, those that fall will end up taking too many with them and will also put those rights at risk of being taken away yet again.

Slippery slope indeed.

Peace

You have every right to protect yourself, if you feel your life is being threatened. You have equal right to take action on behalf of your life. This kind of thing could happen to any cop who blindly enforce stupid laws, with guns and pepper spray.

Its financial exploitation and subjugation at best, Police are being used to subjugate people and rule them with fear and the threat of violence, all while demanding respect, obedience and money. It's coming to it's logical conclusion.

Remember the video of that little kid who was being bullied at school? Remember what he did to that bully? Even if you disagreed with him, were you surprised it happened? I wasn't. It's bound to....

Originally posted by jude11

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

NO ITS NOT THE LAW AND THE OP SHOULD DELETE HIS THREAD.

COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE WHEN YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Every state differs. The case cited is from 1900 and yes IT USED TO BE THE LAW but it is NOT the law now.

reply to post by jude11


This is NOT THE LAW. You are encouraging people to commit crimes which they will suffer the punishment for taking your horrid legal advice.

To the reader if you take legal advice from an Internet forum from a random stranger you deserve the consequences.

The case cited is from 1900.

reply to post by baphomet420


Also not true.

Here is my second year law question:

Wife is dying. Shes in a hospital bed. She begs her husband to pull the plug. He does.

Hes charged with murder.

He says no i wasnt taking her out of her misery.

Law school question:
In two lines tell what the prosecutors response is.

My answer:

"A valiant man you are, but your argument will not go far. Your actions must now do you treason for they are not intent but motive or simply reasons."



Law school example: News crew transfers gun through airport. They get charged they say hey we were just doing a story. Result?

Guilty. The law is you cant transport guns through. Your motive is irrelevant.

Likewise giving drugs to help your friend is a nice motive. But your intent was to transfer drugs to another person. Period.

Originally posted by maluminse

Originally posted by jude11

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

NO ITS NOT THE LAW AND THE OP SHOULD DELETE HIS THREAD.

COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE WHEN YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Every state differs. The case cited is from 1900 and yes IT USED TO BE THE LAW but it is NOT the law now.

Please do your homework:

So many cases of precedence after 1900 that a link should be sufficient:

www.calltodecision.com...

"The United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past deciding upon the matter, has recognized that "at common Law", a person had the right to "resist the illegal attempt to arrest him." John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1899) 1. State v. Robinson, 145 Me 77, 72 Alt. 2d 260, 262 (1950) 2. State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105 3. State v. Rouseau, 40 Wash. 2d. 92, 241, 242 P.2d 447, 449 (1952) 4. State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 446, 83 S.E., 2d 100, 102 (1954) 5. Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711 6. Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 SE 305 7. Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 523 8. Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex Crim 228, 202 S.W. 513 9. Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 SE 2d 91 (1943) 10. Owen v. State, 58 Tex Crim 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910) 11. Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903) 12. Graham v. State, 143 Ga. 440 85 S.E. 328, 331 13. City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058) 14. Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904) 15. Robertson v. State, 198 S. W2d 633, 635-36 Tenn. (1947) 16. Roberts v. Dean, 187 So. 571, 575 Fla. 1939 17. The State of Connecticut against Leach, 7 Conn, Rep. 452 (1829) 18. Housh v. The People, 75 ILL Rep. 487, 491 (1874) 19. Plummer v. The State, 135 Ind. 308, 313, 334 N.E. 968 (1893) 20. John Bad Elk v. U.S. 177 U.S. 529 (1899) 21. People v. Hevern, 127 Misc. Rep. 141, 215 NY Supp 412 22. U.S. v. Cerciello, 86 NJL 309, 90 Atl.1112, (1914) 23. U.S. v. Kelly, 51 Fed 2d 263 (1931) 24. Bednarik v. Bednarik, 16 A 2d, 80, 90, 18 NJ Misc. 633 (1948) 25. State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91 NW 935 26. People v. Corder, 244 Mich. 274, 221 NW 309 27. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 28. State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo 54 119 SW 405 29. Town of Blacksburg v. Bean, 104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916) 30. Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11(Wis 1924) 31. Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904) Green v.Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871) 32. Hicks v. Matthews, 266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954) 33. Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905) 34. Mullins v. State,196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943) 35. Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)

And so much more...

www.calltodecision.com...

Also, if you really did read the OP, it is a statement of rights and NOT a call to anarchy.

Peace

reply to post by jude11


Statement of WRONG RIGHTS. I dont care if its calling for anarchy or rights its wrong.

As for homework..Ive read the laws in this area a thousand times and NOT on the internet.

It is NOT the law.

Reader beware.

In Illinois the legislature has codified this law.

720 ILCS 5/31‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑1)
Sec. 31‑1. Resisting or obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee.
(a) A person who knowingly resists or obstructs the performance by one known to the person to be a peace officer, firefighter, or correctional institution employee of any authorized act within his official capacity commits a Class A misdemeanor.

There are cases interpreting this act. Generally the officers mistakes are corrected after the fact.

If you wrongfully arrested you can sue. But you cant resist in the first instance.

Why? The alternative is that a cop and arrestee could end up dead. (see op)

This way the worst that happens is a citizen is wrongfully arrested which you can sue for.

The old law left people injured and dead.

String citing cases that cite an old law is meaningless. The 1900 case is still its basis.

Originally posted by maluminse
reply to post by jude11

 

Statement of WRONG RIGHTS. I dont care if its calling for anarchy or rights its wrong.

As for homework..Ive read the laws in this area a thousand times and NOT on the internet.

It is NOT the law.

Reader beware.

edit on 15-1-2012 by maluminse because: (no reason given)

I do respect your stance even if you don't respect mine so in order to carry it further, please cite precedence and at least a link, document, case etc to back your claim.

I welcome your input and would appreciate your knowledge on the topic but please don't just say something is fact without proof. "Deny Ignorance" being the rule we try to follow.

Peace

Originally posted by maluminse
reply to post by jude11

 

Statement of WRONG RIGHTS. I dont care if its calling for anarchy or rights its wrong.

As for homework..Ive read the laws in this area a thousand times and NOT on the internet.

It is NOT the law.

Reader beware.

edit on 15-1-2012 by maluminse because: (no reason given)

Maluminse:

While I appreciate your attempt at making sure people don't take the OP the wrong way...

You are still Very, VERY incorrect.

The law tells you that you are SUPPOSED to resist unjust arrests and to IGNORE and FIGHT unjust laws.

That is what jury trials are for. It is not only to prosecute you, it's for the jury to decide the "fairness" of the law being used.

Here is a topic for your law school...

Man walks into a police station. Looks up at the camera, pulls out his wallet, and shows his ID to the camera. There is no mistaking it is him.

He then reaches in his pocket, pulls out a joint, and fires it up in the police station. He then asks a cop if they want to buy some pot.

Does the jury have to convict him because it is proven beyond all doubt that it was him and that he broke a law?

Nope.

A jury is there to fight an unjust law as a last line of defense from bad laws being passed by the government. If those twelve people decide the law you "broke" shouldn't have been a law in the first place...

You go free. No matter WHAT the law said.

As per your lawsuit vs resist argument...

To file suit you have to be able to prove damages...

If the officer had to cause damage for the suit to be valid, then you had every right to resist the arrest that damaged you in the first place. NO WHERE in the law does it say you have to agree to an unjust arrest.

N O W H E R E.

Cite it or stop arguing your incorrect opinions...

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by maluminse
reply to post by jude11

 

Statement of WRONG RIGHTS. I dont care if its calling for anarchy or rights its wrong.

As for homework..Ive read the laws in this area a thousand times and NOT on the internet.

It is NOT the law.

Reader beware.

edit on 15-1-2012 by maluminse because: (no reason given)

Maluminse:

While I appreciate your attempt at making sure people don't take the OP the wrong way...

You are still Very, VERY incorrect.

The law tells you that you are SUPPOSED to resist unjust arrests and to IGNORE and FIGHT unjust laws.

That is what jury trials are for. It is not only to prosecute you, it's for the jury to decide the "fairness" of the law being used.

Here is a topic for your law school...

Man walks into a police station. Looks up at the camera, pulls out his wallet, and shows his ID to the camera. There is no mistaking it is him.

He then reaches in his pocket, pulls out a joint, and fires it up in the police station. He then asks a cop if they want to buy some pot.

Does the jury have to convict him because it is proven beyond all doubt that it was him and that he broke a law?

Nope.

A jury is there to fight an unjust law as a last line of defense from bad laws being passed by the government. If those twelve people decide the law you "broke" shouldn't have been a law in the first place...

You go free. No matter WHAT the law said.

As per your lawsuit vs resist argument...

To file suit you have to be able to prove damages...

If the officer had to cause damage for the suit to be valid, then you had every right to resist the arrest that damaged you in the first place. NO WHERE in the law does it say you have to agree to an unjust arrest.

N O W H E R E.

Cite it or stop arguing your incorrect opinions...

Thank you and still waiting for maluminse to reply.

You are absolutely correct that we have the right to resist an unjust arrest or even detainment.

I hope that many more will see this as THEIR right as well.

Peace