Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest (you have the right to meet force with force)

Since these are quoting separate case law I'm not sure if the 4 paragraph rule applies. Let me know if I need to change it.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

“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).

I would not want to test this.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:popcorn:

get to Court ,live to fight another day.That was the answer a professor of Civil Rights and Human Liberties gave a class I took in 1976.

Be arrested!!! Go to court!!! Gain a forum for the movement and your beliefs.

Or I guess you can go the FreeRepublic, David Koresh route. At that point you've lost me and millions more.

there is no grey area here, violence is violence.

there are no exceptions.

Gandhi , King , Jesus all non-Violent protesters that made a difference.

Violent change causes a pendulum effect. We hit them, they hit us, we hit them, they hit us...... That's a rugby match, not a revolution.

???

within that jurisdiction. Sloppy application of precedent can do more harm then good as it can breed a reaction in the courts that produce decisions that you do not want. Further, in this climate, legislators can step in to write law that will be harmful.

Why re-make the wheel? We know peaceful, civil protest is effective and gains supporters where violence turns people away.

When the police turned violent on Oakland even the apathetic began to favor the demonstrators. Turn violent, turn them away.

If you want a story to tell people later, sure, fight with the cops. If you want to make change, use your head, practice peace.

Excellent quote. I might use it.

Of course, this does NOT mean that protestors should foolishly line up to be arrested when they are practicing their First Amendment rights. They should disperse and regroup. Unless they're defending the encampment and wish to pack the jails, which is a legitimate civil disobedience tactic.

"retreat when they advance, advance when they retreat."

Direct Action <=/=> Civil Disobedience <=/=> Voluntary Arrest which is a different form of civil disobedience.

might be resisted. How brainwashed are some of you that you think cops should be able to do anything they want to you and all you can do is complain about it later--if you survive.

There's an entire spectrum of nonviolent resistance against police brutality, you know.

...the dirty cop, the jurisdiction where the kidnapping and assault arrest took place, and the person or persons in charge. Better to resist passively and through legal channels than to fight fire with fire. At least, that was true in the past.

That's the whole point of trumping up charges that won't stick. They know it'll take them off the streets for a while, and the vast many of the victims won't have the financial resources to wage a lawsuit battle to gain recourse.

I'd LOVE to hear your opinions on the Black Bloc :eyes:

I'm going to stick to the path of non-violence and claim that folks advocating violence are or never were working in support of OWS.

???

Point that out to me please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2308093

"Wut? Little 'ole me?" routines usually work only in sitcoms or stage comedy. Pro tip just for you.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote that when you are in a situation where you are being illegally arrested, you not only have the right, but the DUTY to resist.

Fast forward to modern-day America (read, "I (Heart) The Police" Land), and resisting arrest, even when it's illegal, will get you a Rodney King-style beating. And a healthy portion of the American populace will cheer on the police as they do it. You'll get an ass-beating AND very little sympathy from anyone (including the Court).

So, according to the ideal advanced by our Founding Fathers, you SHOULD (nay, MUST) resist arrest. But in reality, you'll probably end up regretting it hardcore.

eighteenth century has to 2011 America and the premise of the OP, which is not what 'ole Tom had in mind in any event.

You're taking all of this very personally. What is your dog in the race here?

You're taking all of this very personally. What is your dog in the race here?

See there: two can play the game of "if you disagree with me, you must have some kind of personal problem." It's an old internet game; goes a'way back. Thanks to your handy template, I didn't even have to mock up some fresh phony outrage, but was able to just cut n' paste yours. :thumbsup:


Edit: typo.

..........your anger is evident, even palpable in your posts. There's practically steam coming off of them. You're clearly upset by the suggestions raised here. Your use of language is a dead giveaway. I never used phrases like, "I don't give a flip......", I never fired off a juvenile retort, and none of my posts carry the hostile tone yours do. There's no outrage in my tone. I'm not angry at all, but you very clearly are. It's the reason why you're failing to deny it and are instead playing some kind of 3rd grade playground, "I know you are but what am I" game (which, by the way, only works when the post you're copying and pasting contains angry rhetoric of its own--mine doesn't, andt that's why you didn't/couldn't cite any). Clearly, you take this issue personally enough to be angered by it. So again I ask, why is that?

Oh, and by the way, I don't even think I really disagreed with you (so much for your, "if you disagree with me you must have a personal agenda" theory). If you'd stop snapping at people long enough to actually read the posts, you'd see that.

so you fall back on the long-running gambit on anonymous internet discussion boards of attributing "anger" or other traits to your opposite number, rather than simply replying to their points. It is pseudo-analysis in lieu of substance.

Now, if you have something to offer of factual rebuttal to the original reply of mine, offer it. Otherwise, go find someone else to bug. Thanks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"When a poster decides he's a Raiders fan one week and a Chiefs fan the next, that tells me all I need to know about that person. You're here to do nothing more than stir up trouble (which is pretty much the VERY DEFINITION of a "troll"). What, you didn't get any negative attention with the Raider avatar, so you decided to switch over to the Raiders' biggest rivals and see if you can troll up a few angry replies that way?"

LOL! And when all a poster has to offer in way of rebuttal is a commentary on my "avatars" - including an assertion that changing them is somehow an attempt to "troll up a few angry replies" - it does, indeed, tell me all I need to know about that poster. Namely, that little they offer in way of reply to any given post of mine is to be taken seriously.

Fun stuff.

Deserve all the scorn they get from the public, right... I guess.

(Doesn't make unprovoked violence OK at all.)

in discussion on an internet board with those same fellow DU'ers.

Get back to me when you want to interact honestly & civilly, and sans the false attributions and phony opening premises. Thank you.

"I don't care what Jefferson thought about" (issues involving liberty and rights and so forth).

Well it raises my eyebrows.

I will note that most Americans DON'T believe in pacifism,
they merely believe the state should have a monopoly on use of force.

But they DO advocate violence against protestors...!

My response: an accurate understanding of history would recognize that Thomas Jefferson would have been the first to rally the Virginia Militia to arms against any movement such as OWS that might possibly have sprung up in 1778 Virginia - or 1808 United States of America.

Jefferson's belief in "Revolution" was - despite his brief rhetorical flirtation with the French Revolution - focused on the Revolution the thirteen English colonies located on the eastern seaboard of North America conducted against the Crown circa 1773-1783.

The American Revolution was actually an English Civil War: to Jefferson, all the colonists were doing was reasserting the ancient rights of Englishmen, rights that, in his philosophical mind, stretched back to Runnymede, and the Magna Carta.

Jefferson was a property owner - writ large.

Jefferson was a slave owner - write large.

Jefferson was a capitalist of a stripe so completely unfettered by any legal restraints, rules, or government regulations during his time to such an extent that Ron Paul, placed side by side with him today in comparison & contrast, would look like an Stalinist-Leninist bolshevik in the offering.

Which brings us back to my original point: in 2011 America, concerning OWS, Thomas Jefferson, "founder" or no, has nothing, really, to tell us about any of it. Our times, our societies, our cultures are so completely different, that they cannot even begin to shake hands in any meaningful sense when it comes to matters we grapple with in the present.

Thomas Jefferson is an important historical figure, whose contributions should always be historically respected - when considered within the context of his times.

In 2011 America, if you wish to extrapolate old Tom from here to now, however, the reality is this: a miraculously resurrected Jefferson would be swinging batons with the police - indeed, he'd probably be leading the charge - in Zuccotti Park.

In that sense, just as I stated in the reply that has led to this sub-thread, an historically aware analysis of the situation holds that any informed person doesn't really care what Jefferson would have thought about OWS, or much else, in 2011 America. It really is that simple.


Edit: typo.

I think you should be correct but not in this day and age, you have to deal with many decades of police state enabling precedent that are bound to have you playing a nice game of fugitive wanted dead or alive.

Why such a backlash against a post informing people of their rights?

if you decide to act on this advice.

Yes, the points are technically valid.

However, you take a great risk to presume to know with certainty that an officer is acting with illegal force when you counter that force in supposed self-defense.

Even if you are right, you are likely to get an unpleasant beat down and a long legal process to prove you were right. But, go for it, you might win the lottery.

If you are wrong, you get the beat down and a long jail term for your assault on an officer.

Most cool legal heads would advise that you comply with the directives of a law enforcement officer. If you feel the actions were illegal, you lawyer up and go to court.

When morale improves?

:rofl:










:smoke:

I see the Tim McVeigh Brigade is out in full force.



At best, per this truncated quote, you do a dime for involuntary manslaughter. If, however, the PD has a lawful warrant then its felony homicide against a police officer which will net you the death penalty.



Trespassing on private property is not "without fault".



The courts ruled OWS cannot camp ergo resisting because the PD enforces the no camping rule does not constitute lawful resistance. The NYSE nd banks are private property. If the owners call the cops the cops are acting legally to remove trespassers.

Idiotic threads like this will get people hurt.

Enough of this Tim McVeigh wanna-be crap already.

When you're involved in a movement, you don't just want to prove your own actions right. Your actions are representative of the group and their idea. Make sure that your actions can't be portrayed in a bad light and reflect badly on others. Of course sometimes you have no choice but to meet violence with violence when deadly force is applied by an out-of-control police force. Even then, it's better to retreat if you can than to stand your ground and fight and die.

I'm convinced that even Martin Luther King would have been all in favor of violence had he lived in the mid 1800s south, where sit-ins and demonstrations by slaves would have been met by immediate death or physical torture. Violence was needed to eradicate slavery. I'm convinced that Gandhi would have supported violence had he lived in France during their revolution. Although divided along religious lines, Indians were united in wanting the British out. And Britain was operating far from home, in a foreign culture. In France, there was a civil war where there were many supporters of the King. The nobility was a long-standing institution supported by the church. And France was also invaded by the armies of foreign monarchs anxious to quell the uprising. French revolutionaries were fighting an internal civil war and an external war against invaders. Immediate violent action was inevitable. But violence, in my opinion should always be the farthest action from your mind and one should resort to it only when there is no other way out. Even Gandhi and King I think would have backed violence in certain VERY limited circumstances. It should be used when life itself is at stake and not in any other circumstances. And I assume you are talking about active physical violent resistance to unlawful arrest (slapping hands away from the body, pushing a police officer backwards, grabbing their pepper spray) as opposed to passive resistance.