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

while i am no form of a legal expert but i think one crucial item has been over looked id quote it (but for the life of me i cant do the quote thingy) but supreme.justia.com... right at the top of the page says that it was a police man (3 from north dakota)vs police man(mr bad elk) and that aparently there was no warrent or cause to arrest him other then suspicion of a crime(firing into the air on tribal land which ironicly seems to have been legal at the time) and they were on tribal land(might effect things not sure)and tribal police officers so that might also be a factor and from my limited knowlege of such things it seems that his legal defence hinged on the fact he thought he was going be be killed either way by the police(they used improper force basicly) and thus fearing for his life shot the man dead and scared the others off and that the fact of lack of warrent or charges existing seemed to factor into it a bit so it seems cops can resist arrest at least officaly but i dunno about us non police and as i am unsure how tribal land is governed(aren't they separate countries technically or at least auttonomous regions?)so those factors also should not be ignored atleast thats what i got from it

edit to add it seems that section 7154 (near the bottom of above link give us our best hope) as it clarifys the terms a citizen can arrest some one as basically if they see a felony being committed and they have reasonable belife to think that that person is the one who committed said felony they can make an arrest (if they inform the person unless a crime is in the progress of happening) so that might look interesting in a court case where another cop assults another police officer and makes an arrest or a citizen catches a cop commiting a felony (and tapes it where legal for example) and then successfully makes an arrest (example the off duty cop who shot that guy in the bar say some one had arrested him other then a police officer)

Originally posted by maluminse
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.

Yes the 1900 law is the basis. So what are you actually atating?

First you state that because it's 1900, there is no basis. Now you claim that cases after the fact that use the 1900 ruling as precedence is still not valid.

I am now officially confused as to which rulings you are using to prove your point. And still without any proof I might add.

I will say again that I welcome your input and do not hold any preconceived notions towards you or your statements but please provide proof of your claims.

I searched, I discovered and I shared. I ask you to do the same.

Peace

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
while i am no form of a legal expert but i think one crucial item has been over looked id quote it (but for the life of me i cant do the quote thingy) but supreme.justia.com... right at the top of the page says that it was a police man (3 from north dakota)vs police man(mr bad elk) and that aparently there was no warrent or cause to arrest him other then suspicion of a crime and they were on tribal land(might effect things not sure)and tribal police officers so that might also be a factor and from my limited knowlege of such things it seems that his legal defence hinged on the fact he thought he was going be be killed either way by the police(they used improper force basicly) and thus fearing for his life shot the man dead and scared the others off and that the fact of lack of warrent or charges existing seemed to factor into it a bit so it seems cops can resist arrest at least officaly but i dunno about us non police and as i am unsure how tribal land is governed(aren't they separate countries technically or at least auttonomous regions?)so those factors also should not be ignored atleast thats what i got from it

You may be right in the tribal land claim although no mention is made.

Please view the many other cases here www.calltodecision.com... that do not have a case as such.

I also am not a legal expert but I know my rights when I see it and I also know which rights we all should be aware of.

Peace and thanks for your input.

In most states this law is overruled by statute. Howeever in Indiana it was overruled by their Supreme Court.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled 3–2 that there is no such right to resist unlawful police entry into the home. From the opinion:

"The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215. Craig Hemmens & Daniel Levin, “Not a Law at All”: A Call for the Return to the Common Law Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest, 29 Sw. U. L. Rev. 1, 9 (1999). The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 535 (1900): “If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.” The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) (“One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”).

In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 18. One scholar noted that the common-law right came from a time where “resistance to an arrest by a peace officer did not involve the serious dangers it does today.” Sam B. Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942). The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: “(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest.” Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23. In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s. Id. at 24–25. . .

We believe . . . that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest— as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (“But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s ̳measured‘ response may fast become excessive.”).

Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in “hot pursuit” of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ―hot pursuit‖); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (“Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.”). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984). In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."


indianacourts.us...

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...

You are incorrect.

What you are referring to is called jury nullification. It has no place in this discussion. Not that its not an important issue but because it does not involve the law being discussed.


Jury nullification is when a trial lawyer gets the jury to ignore the law and do what he wants. No jury has the RIGHT to ignore the law. Its their duty to apply the law.

Your argument is they can disregard the law. They can and often do but its not legal. A judge will try to stop a lawyer from getting the jury to ignore 'nullify' the law.

If its illegal to smoke pot its the juries duty to follow the law and not do whatever they want.

en.wikipedia.org...


The duty to resist unjust actions is not a legal one but a moral one.

Originally posted by maluminse
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)

The duty to resist unjust actions is not a legal one but a moral one.



That is THE POINT.

There is a course of action available to citizens to fight unjust laws. If a law is deemed morally wrong, a jury can let you go free, no matter your guilt of the law in question.

The entire POINT of this, was the knowledge that the government might pass unjust laws.

And as for your legal warrant less entry...

Not in my state. Just a few months ago two officers were killed in an illegal entry and the shooter was let go, no trial needed.

I am so glad I don't live in Chicago anymore with your draconian laws. And yes, I lived there for many years, know many lawyers personally, and I was personally involved in Dunn vs. Chicago.

Now, Stop... Giving.... False.... Info.

so no one seems to care that these were cops shooting each other and resisting arrest and not civilians and the whole reason the warrent in question wasent valid was that they were on tribal land and under tribal law shooting into the air for fun was not illegal and the main point i got from the v bad elk case was that the officer had used unlawfull level of force and had no legal cause to arrest the defendant in question there for when the officer shot the other officer it was then legal i dont think this case ruling in question applies to non police and it often refrences comman law which while going back to the magnacarta i dont think are still currently inforceable today but could be wrong on that so what i got from this is cops can shoot other cops to prevent wrongfull arrest or arrest with out cause but if we were to try it we better have a damn good lawyer and a bunch of illegal cop activities recorded to present at trial to TRY to save our butts

Never knew anything about this, probably a reason for that... on the other hand I don't think this would work anyway. The justice system isn't about the truth in what really happened, its all about who has the better arguments and tactics to beat the system. Some things I will never understand, for example if there is undeniable evidence such as a videotape of lets say a murder or something, it might get excluded for any number of reasons, but if the justice system is really about uncovering the truth why would this be?