thebaldguy
Member
A lawyer I know says it's not a good idea to resist. It's better and safer to use the court.
resisting detainment?
- Thread starter Harvster
- Start date
- Status
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.
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?
Nope, but it will increase the level of violence as people who are detained or arrested for violations that they think amount to an unlawful arrest or detention resist. I've seen plenty of people ruin their lives and ending up with felony resisting and aggravated battery charges for losing their cool over a minor violation. Since you say you've had little contact with the criminal justice system, let me tell you, it's not exactly uncommon for someone to turn a traffic ticket into a felony record for resisting.
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.
The police who break the law can be and are charged, convicted (if guilty) and punished for breaking the law just like anyone else. The laws that say you can't resist do nothing more then lower the level of violence and make certain that the discussion of fine points of law happen in the court room, not on the street.
Jeff
taprackbang
member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 411
It's not anarchy there. It is military dictatorship.
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.
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.
Ergosphere
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 227
In case you hadn't noticed, we already have 300 million individuals in this country already, each with their own beliefs and thoughts. 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. If an individual is unable to determine the difference between right and wrong, there's something seriously wrong with the individual. And if individuals are not able to reasonably determine what is illegal, then ignorance of the law should be an excuse; otherwise, that does not sound like a just or free society.
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:
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.
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).
Just like anyone else? That's not what I see.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
"Just like anyone else? That's not what I see."
where are you watching from?
where are you watching from?
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Except if you start over-reacting and acting in a violent manner and end up getting hurt or killed, it's on you for acting that way. With the scene and the people involved under control, there's less of a chance any force will be needed for anything.
Ergosphere
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 227
CATO website and the evening news, mostly.
Google is your friend.cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
nothin like balance in your perspective.
In case you've forgotten Freshman Civics, the government in this country is the people. The people use their vote to elect representatives who write the laws and an executive who either approves the proposed law and signs it into law or veto's it. The people determine what's right and what's wrong through their representatives and elected executives. You act like the government is some faceless entity when in fact it is us.
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. Everyone has their own notion of what's right and what's wrong. I would bet money that most members here at THR believe there is nothing wrong with the unrestricted possession of any type of firearm. But we have laws restricting them. They would say those laws are wrong and how many would break them if there were no consequences?
On the other side, there are many people who believe that firearms are evil things and should be removed from our society. And there are many laws, starting with the Second Amendment, all the state preemption laws that prohibit lessor units of government from making laws restricting them, through the FOPA to the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act that limit what those people can do. Do you think for a second that many urban areas wouldn't have severe DC or Chicago like restrictions on firearms if there weren't preemption laws prohibiting them from it? The people who are on this side are just as convinced they are right as we are.
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.
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 hate to tell you this, but in most states a traffic ticket is an arrest. It may be a petty offense, below a misdemeanor, but it's still an arrest. Many states allow you to sign the ticket promising that you will comply with the terms of the citation, post bond on the side of the road with the officer, post a bond card from an insurance company or some other procedure in lieu of bond so that you can be on your way. 44 states have entered into a compact that permits out of state drivers to sign a promise to comply and be on their way rather then be detained for court action in another state. But there is no doubt that in most of the country a traffic ticket is an arrest. If you don't believe me, just get a ticket and fail to pay or go to court and see what happens.
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?
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
Resisting is almost always a bad idea, and futile.
You probably won't get any satisfaction in court either, no matter how egregious the illegal action by the cop was. In most cases the best scenario after an illegal action by a cop is that after spending thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees and who knows how long in custody, the court will dismiss the charges.
You can file a complaint with the cop's employer, but it probably won't go anywhere either. The state will show no interest at all in prosecuting.
Learn to live with it. Avoid encounters with cops, especially in areas with a high percentage of "bad" cops. Most encounters with police can be avoided by obeying the laws, including traffic laws you may find inconvenient.
You probably won't get any satisfaction in court either, no matter how egregious the illegal action by the cop was. In most cases the best scenario after an illegal action by a cop is that after spending thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees and who knows how long in custody, the court will dismiss the charges.
You can file a complaint with the cop's employer, but it probably won't go anywhere either. The state will show no interest at all in prosecuting.
Learn to live with it. Avoid encounters with cops, especially in areas with a high percentage of "bad" cops. Most encounters with police can be avoided by obeying the laws, including traffic laws you may find inconvenient.
Thor Bloodax
Member
release on own recognizance
When I was a policemanc in Macon, Ga:
1. My academy instructor taught us the only reason to resist arrest was if you felt your life was in danger.
2. My academy instructor taught us that the policeman must always prevail; he must never lose, even if it means killing someone to prevail (rapid esculation).
3. My academy instructor taught us that a person may be arrested for any crime and that included any for which a person would usually be given a "ticket", which is in reality a release from arrest on your own recognizance,
that is, your promise to appear in court or to settle up any fine before court. I have seen people who got a bad attitude and got real mouthy to the policeman go to jail for a loud muffler rather than get a summons to appear
(a "ticket"). Policeman's call on that. The "ticket"s a courtesy only.
Failure to appear would result in an arrest warrent for contempt of court in addition to the original charge.
When I was a policemanc in Macon, Ga:
1. My academy instructor taught us the only reason to resist arrest was if you felt your life was in danger.
2. My academy instructor taught us that the policeman must always prevail; he must never lose, even if it means killing someone to prevail (rapid esculation).
3. My academy instructor taught us that a person may be arrested for any crime and that included any for which a person would usually be given a "ticket", which is in reality a release from arrest on your own recognizance,
that is, your promise to appear in court or to settle up any fine before court. I have seen people who got a bad attitude and got real mouthy to the policeman go to jail for a loud muffler rather than get a summons to appear
(a "ticket"). Policeman's call on that. The "ticket"s a courtesy only.
Failure to appear would result in an arrest warrent for contempt of court in addition to the original charge.
Car Knocker
Member
Jeff White said:
Yup. Page after page.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
http://www.officer.com/article/index.jsp?siteSection=5
like this site oddly enough its, (gasp!) a part of a cop website
like this site oddly enough its, (gasp!) a part of a cop website
Ergosphere
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 227
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.
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.
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).
I will say that I believe some laws are unjust. I endeavor to follow them anyway, for fear of the consequences. I did not advocate that people should break laws, or that there should be no consequence for breaking laws. The breaking of unjust laws is the premise of civil disobedience, which has done some good in the world... and it involves accepting the consequences. But that's not really relevant here.
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.
Also, it appears to be legal to resist excessive force pretty much everywhere... so if you're going to use the argument that an individual can't know if an arrest is illegal, consider this... can an individual know if force is excessive?
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).
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.
I really don't want to turn this into a police-bashing thread, that's not my intent; and maybe I shouldn't even have brought up those examples. Let me just say that I'm not confident that the justice system adequately addresses these situations. Even if it does a good job most of the time, when I see a failure of justice, I can't help but think "that could've been me..."
Anyway, the main thrust of my argument is a simple analogy to the way the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect against an abusive government. If we surrender the right to use force in resisting injustice on a personal level, we must also forfeit that right collectively.
Ergosphere
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 227
Ok guys, fine... perhaps I'm wrong. I'll bow out here. Thanks to Mr. White for the discussion.
evan price
Member
That's why the Justice system is called that- it is JUST, not necessarily FAIR, which is why it is not the Fairness System.
All of our laws and regulations are a compromise. It is literally impossible to get 6 million people to agree on ANY law being correct and valid even the most basic and simple ones like Murder. (Witness how many murderers there are). Thus the need for the jury system- which means that in the end a jury of your peers decides what the law really means.
So basically, unless we're talking about kristallnacht where people are being obviously dragged out of their houses for no reason than brutality, any attempt to resist legally appointed authority will get nothing except grief. The bst thing to do is submit to arrest quietly and be a model prisoner. It makes your case in court later look that much better.
Not a bright idea.
Legal concerns aside, in today's world, I would say that any serious attempt of resisting arrest will get you eyes full of pepper spray and a couple of TASER dart scars. Perhaps even a trip to the ER with a lead overdose. Better let your lawyer duke it out with the cops.
Legal concerns aside, in today's world, I would say that any serious attempt of resisting arrest will get you eyes full of pepper spray and a couple of TASER dart scars. Perhaps even a trip to the ER with a lead overdose. Better let your lawyer duke it out with the cops.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
"The breaking of unjust laws is the premise of civil disobedience, "
i think you are confused the word changing should go where you have breaking or maybe you meant it your way i woulda thought that way once upon a time
i think you are confused the word changing should go where you have breaking or maybe you meant it your way i woulda thought that way once upon a time
If you change the OPs question to the real world result of such an action the answer becomes obvious.
*** Is it OK to get into a physical fight with the police in order to avoid getting cuffed?? ***
HUH....no.
BTW bubba1
*** Is it OK to get into a physical fight with the police in order to avoid getting cuffed?? ***
HUH....no.
BTW bubba1
Isn't "resisting with out violence" just running away from the police but not physically attacking them? That’s how I would translate it.
Y'know, there's nothing gun related to this in the first place.
Closed.
Closed.
- Status
