thebaldguy
Member
A lawyer I know says it's not a good idea to resist. It's better and safer to use the court.
When did I say anything about lawlessness? Possessing the right to resist an unlawful use of force does not imply lawlessness.
There are two issues here: (1) what constitutes lawful or legitimate use of force by authority, and (2) is a particular instance where force is used legitimate?
The former category is defined by law, though again that law should be required to comport with fundamental rights and freedoms. Then, for the latter case it should be simple enough for an individual to recognize legitimate from illegitimate conduct.
Do you really believe that reinstating the right to resist an unlawful arrest is likely to change the behavior of criminals subject to a just arrest?
The founding fathers also organized and fought a rebellion against illegitimate authority. Subsequently, they provided for an unorganized militia, guaranteed the use of arms equal to anything available to the government of the day. On occasion they expressed admiration for the concept... the tree of liberty being refreshed by the blood of patriots, etc. I'm not advocating a revolution, I'm merely pointing out that the founders had a deep respect for the common-law right that you're arguing against here.
ETA: Am I the only one who finds it... strange... that the laws under discussion protect people (police) who engage in unlawful conduct?
Like I said, if you want that kind of freedom, then you have the right to move to where it's practiced. Somalia, Chad
What does it imply then? You just can't let everyone decide for himself what is legal and right and what isn't, if you do, you have anarchy. 300 million people acting under 300 million different sets of values. That is what you'd have if you let everyone decide for himself what was lawful and what wasn't.
To answer that, let me point out that a dozen or so states currently do allow the use of force to resist an unlawful arrest. This is from a Brown v. Virginia:At what point does the individual who recognizes illegitimate conduct have to stop his use of force? When he succeeds in escaping arrest or detention? Who reviews his use of force to make sure it remains legal and is not excessive. Under your system is it acceptable to kill an officer who is detaining you for running a red light that you know you didn't run? Or do you give the officer basic human rights and require a proportionate use of force?
“It has long been held in Virginia that where an officer attempts an unlawful arrest, the officer is an aggressor which gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense to resist so long as the force used is reasonable”
I'd argue that perhaps this indicates something deficient with the current system... AFAIK, traffic tickets don't generally justify an arrest. But this depends on details beyond my experience, and I don't want to jump to a conclusion.it's not exactly uncommon for someone to turn a traffic ticket into a felony record for resisting.
So? That just goes to show that hypocrisy can be found anywhere. Beyond that, to use this as an argument against my position, you have to presuppose that the use of force here was unlawful. (I have no knowledge either way).The founding fathers used force to put down a rebellion not too long after we became a nation. Those same founding fathers passed and enforced the Alien and Sedition Act which totally shut down free speech in this country. If they had such a deep respect for the common law right to resist unlawful force, why did they use force to put down Shay's Rebellion and why did they pass and enforce the Alien and Sedition Act? Those actions were carried out by the same people who organized and fought the rebellion against tyranny. It wasn't the next generation, it was the very same same men who organized and fought the revolution.
Just like anyone else? That's not what I see.The police who break the law can be and are charged, convicted (if guilty) and punished for breaking the law just like anyone else.
More like, for THEIR safety, not yours.
CATO website and the evening news, mostly. Google is your friend.where are you watching from?
Your argument not only suggests that only the government should determine what is right or wrong, but further it implies that individuals are not capable of knowing the difference.
To answer that, let me point out that a dozen or so states currently do allow the use of force to resist an unlawful arrest. This is from a Brown v. Virginia:
Quote:
“It has long been held in Virginia that where an officer attempts an unlawful arrest, the officer is an aggressor which gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense to resist so long as the force used is reasonable”
I'd argue that perhaps this indicates something deficient with the current system... AFAIK, traffic tickets don't generally justify an arrest. But this depends on details beyond my experience, and I don't want to jump to a conclusion.
Quote:
The founding fathers used force to put down a rebellion not too long after we became a nation. Those same founding fathers passed and enforced the Alien and Sedition Act which totally shut down free speech in this country. If they had such a deep respect for the common law right to resist unlawful force, why did they use force to put down Shay's Rebellion and why did they pass and enforce the Alien and Sedition Act? Those actions were carried out by the same people who organized and fought the rebellion against tyranny. It wasn't the next generation, it was the very same same men who organized and fought the revolution.
So? That just goes to show that hypocrisy can be found anywhere. Beyond that, to use this as an argument against my position, you have to presuppose that the use of force here was unlawful. (I have no knowledge either way).
Quote:
The police who break the law can be and are charged, convicted (if guilty) and punished for breaking the law just like anyone else.
Just like anyone else? That's not what I see.
Jeff White said:You'll find all kinds of stories where police officers who violate the law are prosecuted and sent to prison. A google search should bring you all kinds of examples.
I haven't forgotten... but remember there are supposed to be limits on the powers of the government, while individuals are supposed to have unalienable rights. Self-defense, even against unlawful arrest, was included among those rights at one time.In case you've forgotten Freshman Civics, the government in this country is the people.
I disagree with your premise. Just because people break laws doesn't mean they are incapable of knowing right from wrong, or legal from illegal. Clearly some people (notably, criminals) simply don't care. Yes there are sociopaths who may lack a moral conscience but that's not the point... they're unusual, while most people know the fundamentals of right and wrong. To cite your example, even gun-control advocates understand (on some level) that it is not fundamentally wrong to carry a gun... otherwise they'd want to disarm the police as well.And no people aren't capable of knowing the difference. If they were, there would be no need for laws, there would be no need to have courts to review disputes, everyone would know what was right and wrong.
This doesn't address whether or not an individual is able to determine if an arrest is unlawful. I never suggested that the laws should be determined by an individual (or on the spot).So no, people can't come to a consensus about what's right and what's wrong on this or most other issues. That's why we have legislatures, an executive and courts, to give the citizens a means to decide collectively what's right and what's wrong.
While I don't have all the answers, I can probably guess these well enough... what is reasonable force is likely determined by a prosecutor, or a jury if it goes to trial. And no, it's only lawful in VA to use force to resist an arrest which is actually unlawful.So what constitutes reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest in Virginia? What has the court decided? Is it an affirmative defense to resisting arrest that the suspect thought the arrest was unlawful?
I meant the use of force by the government to put down the rebellion. The rebels would not have had the right to use force unless the government was, in fact, acting illegally... and then, a legitimate use of force would presumably be exercised with restraint if possible (analogous to the requirement that force be reasonable under the Virginia case cited earlier).What use of force are you talking about? Shay's rebellion? If the founding fathers were so anxious to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, why did they put down Shay's rebellion? Could it be that they didn't think they were tyrants? Didn't the rebels have a common law right to use force against what they thought was the unlawful use of force by the government?
I've seen some, though the sentences (e.g. for the botched raid that led to Kathryn Johnston's death) seemed light at ~5 years. But I also see police refusing to apologize for shooting Cheye Calvo's dogs, medals given to officers involved in a wrong-address raid/shootout a while back... and no criminal prosecutions for those cases, which seems to be a fairly common theme. I also don't see many successful civil suits.Yes, just like anyone else. Look harder. You'll find all kinds of stories where police officers who violate the law are prosecuted and sent to prison. A google search should bring you all kinds of examples.
Jeff White:
So no, people can't come to a consensus about what's right and what's wrong on this or most other issues. That's why we have legislatures, an executive and courts, to give the citizens a means to decide collectively what's right and what's wrong.
Isn't "resisting with out violence" just running away from the police but not physically attacking them? That’s how I would translate it.I've seen lots of news reports of people charged with resisting arrest but never resisting detainment.
Happens all the time down here in FL - they have a special name (and crime) for it - "Resisting Arrest Without Violence". Translation, if you even tell the cop he shouldn't arrest you, it's a crime, even if the arrest was unlawful or unwarranted
Voicing your opinion is NOT a crime. Comon.