What is your definition of resisting arrest?

MaggieD said:

The reason for my posting this question is to clarify what resisting arrest means -- and ask posters to put this in context with the UC-Davis protesters who were pepper sprayed for refusing direct orders to leave and then resisting arrest by linking arms.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a better question would be what level of resisting arrest justifies this level of retaliation. I could be entirely wrong, but I was under the impression that the policy with pepper spray (at least in that area) is that it is prohibited unless it is being used to directly prevent harm. Meaning, in this situation, it was unjustified assault and/or use of excessive force.

In that sort of situation, when arrest is being resisted in a peaceful manner, some form of restraint seems necessary, such as simply arresting them individually. But that was probably too much work.

Aunt Spiker said:

Yeah sure - if the President of UC-Davis had the power to tell the police force what to do and if the police had adequate reason to use lethal force But that's not how things work.

Click to expand...

Here in Arizona, the university presidents have that kind of power. Students have the power to resist. It's a Mexican standoff. :lamo

jamesrage said:

If you are asking for one's personal opinion on what resisting arrest is then I list the following-

1.Trying to fight or physically struggle with the police officer so that he or she may not arrest you.

2.Running away/fleeing form the police officer.

3.Deliberately hanging onto someone or something so that the police officer can not physically remove you.

3.Refusing to get up in order to deliberately impair the police officer's ability to arrest you.

4.Giving false ID,which may include lying about your own ID or whereabouts.

5.Barricading yourself in order to prevent police officer form arresting you. This does not include your home, because anyone should be allowed to put bars on the outside of their home,reenforce their doors or even put a brace on the door so that thugs will not be able to kick the door down.

6.Making threats against the police officer.This includes trying to extort or black mail the police officer into not arresting you as well as trying to threaten the police officer's job.

7.Trying to bribe a police officer into not arresting you.

Click to expand...

When did we start talking about Cynthia McKinney? I need to catch up.

Risky Thicket said:

When did we start talking about Cynthia McKinney? I need to catch up.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong but didn't Cynthia McKinney the elected official get all bitchy because a guard asked her for ID? Which has nothing to do with the subject of resisting arrest.

TheBook said:

Perhaps a better question would be what level of resisting arrest justifies this level of retaliation. I could be entirely wrong, but I was under the impression that the policy with pepper spray (at least in that area) is that it is prohibited unless it is being used to directly prevent harm. Meaning, in this situation, it was unjustified assault and/or use of excessive force.

In that sort of situation, when arrest is being resisted in a peaceful manner, some form of restraint seems necessary, such as simply arresting them individually. But that was probably too much work.

Click to expand...

Two hundred people lie down on the Brooklyn Bridge and refuse to move when lawfullly ordered to do so. They are group-told that they are all under arrest for tresspass and refusing a lawful police order. They link arms and peacefully sit there, becoming dead weight when officers try to get them to stand and lead them away. Does it sound reasonable to you, come on...be honest, that each individual protester should have to be lifted and carried to the paddy wagon by officers at the scene? And what if they continue holding on to each other? Lift them in groups of ten? Get a crane? Padded snow plows?

Edit: Forgot. I agree with you that yours is the better question. I don't know what the continuum of force for UC-Davis calls for...but if it okays the use of pepper spray for resisting arrest, I think we have a non-issue as far as the officers' conduct. As to the guidelines for continuum of force? They might want to review them. But even then, what would you suggest officers do to clear an area with protesters resisting arrest in this manner?

I found this article relevant to the discussion:

Protesters Have the Right to Protest ... and to Resist Unlawful Police Actions

Exerpted, in part:

The Constitution supersedes local ordinances that are being used to OBSTRUCT 1st Amendment Rights. The camping ITSELF is in order to MAKE A STATEMENT – a First Amendment Right.

There is no such crime as “resisting arrest.” This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen’s right, but his duty! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen’s attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.

It used to be that a distinction was made by law enforcement between passive resistance and active resistance. It was expected that passive resistance would not elicit violent police response--the use of "excessive force" is unlawful. How have we come to the point where curling up into a ball under the blows of a billy club constitutes resisting arrest?

_Markum_ said:

I found this article relevant to the discussion:

Protesters Have the Right to Protest ... and to Resist Unlawful Police Actions

Exerpted, in part:

The Constitution supersedes local ordinances that are being used to OBSTRUCT 1st Amendment Rights. The camping ITSELF is in order to MAKE A STATEMENT – a First Amendment Right.

There is no such crime as “resisting arrest.” This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen’s right, but his duty! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen’s attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.

It used to be that a distinction was made by law enforcement between passive resistance and active resistance. It was expected that passive resistance would not elicit violent police response--the use of "excessive force" is unlawful. How have we come to the point where curling up into a ball under the blows of a billy club constitutes resisting arrest?

Click to expand...

You do realize this is a personal statement, right? Though if you really believe it, I would ask you to provide links to:

Resisting Arrrest is a fictitious crime.
That the Supreme Court ruled it is the duty of every American to resist false arrest.
That if a LEO is killed in the process of resisting what is later found to be false arrest, no crime has been committed.

I'll wait.

radcen said:

I have concerns because it seems to be being over-used to the point of being abused, of late.

Click to expand...

How often do you deal with law enforcement?

Just curious, since you said it something being over used as of late... You must deal with LEOs quite a lot to be able to quantify that statement....

Risky Thicket said:

"Purposely to cause trouble" is a in the California and/or Davis criminal code? I suspect Tigger and radcen are on shaky ground with purposely to cause trouble.

Click to expand...

Meaning... they are trespassing to cause problems, with the intent to cause problems...

From what I took from Radcen's post...... they aren't too keen on the whole "i was doing anything wrong!!!" complaint coming from OWS people when in fact they WERE doing something wrong, and doing it knowingly and willingly.

It seems this new brand of protesters think they have a right to violate laws and should have no consequences in doing so.

MaggieD said:

But even then, what would you suggest officers do to clear an area with protesters resisting arrest in this manner?

Click to expand...

Protest sympathizers are going to tell you that you must let them continue to protest........ Its their right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MaggieD said:

You do realize this is a personal statement, right? Though if you really believe it, I would ask you to provide links to:

Resisting Arrrest is a fictitious crime.
That the Supreme Court ruled it is the duty of every American to resist false arrest.
That if a LEO is killed in the process of resisting what is later found to be false arrest, no crime has been committed.

I'll wait.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that the article was brief enough for you to have read it. I guess I was wrong. The following excerpt from the same article is provided to save you what appears to be considerable difficulty:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

Take your time.

_Markum_ said:

I would have thought that the article was brief enough for you to have read it. I guess I was wrong. The following excerpt from the same article is provided to save you what appears to be considerable difficulty:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

Take your time.

Click to expand...

UNLAWFUL arrest being the key, there - unlawful or false. Not 'actually legitimate arrest'

Seems to me that the call on whether their pending arrest was lawful or unlawful would fall to the duty of a judge in the case(s).

Aunt Spiker said:

UNLAWFUL arrest being the key, there - unlawful or false. Not 'actually legitimate arrest'

Seems to me that the call on whether their pending arrest was lawful or unlawful would fall to the duty of a judge in the case(s).

Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why I find that ruling appalling.

If anything, it encourages "street lawyers" to murder police officers. Last I checked in today's society of people raised to believe everything is someone else's fault.... maybe 1 in 6 people at time of arrest can actually admit that they were wrong.

So, if they perceive themselves to being unlawfully arrested.... what is going to keep them from attempting to murder the police officer who is arresting them, even when the arrest is lawful?

_Markum_ said:

I would have thought that the article was brief enough for you to have read it. I guess I was wrong. The following excerpt from the same article is provided to save you what appears to be considerable difficulty:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

Take your time.

Click to expand...

No, what you posted is what I thought was germaine. Thank you for this. I'm gobsmacked.

Caine said:

Exactly, which is why I find that ruling appalling.

If anything, it encourages "street lawyers" to murder police officers. Last I checked in today's society of people raised to believe everything is someone else's fault.... maybe 1 in 6 people at time of arrest can actually admit that they were wrong.

So, if they perceive themselves to being unlawfully arrested.... what is going to keep them from attempting to murder the police officer who is arresting them, even when the arrest is lawful?

Click to expand...

I imagine it would be applied like this:

Person has rights (say - right to conceal carry) . . . officer sees one with a holstered weapon (does this sound familiar?) and presumes an attempted robbery with no prodding evidence that it's happening and confronts the person with the concealed-carry. The person with the concealed carry knows he's defending his rights and tries to explain that he is permitted but the officer is so on edge he's not listening . . . and it climaxes.

It could end well - take him to jail, officer looks ****ing stupid when he's proven wrong.

Or it could end badly - officer fires armed presumed assailant - assailant fires back in self defense - assailant being a better shot gets the officer . . . officer dies.

That would then lead to charges, arrest - but at the suspect's hearing if it's proven by investigation and presentation of evidence that the officer was initially wrong and the suspect was initially right and should never have been arrested (they could cite the SC ruling) - then that would be likely ruled in the suspect's favor. If it's not - that sets up grounds for appeal.

Due process of law applies - always. Suspect might be found innocent but only after a trial.

Aunt Spiker said:

UNLAWFUL arrest being the key, there - unlawful or false. Not 'actually legitimate arrest'

Seems to me that the call on whether their pending arrest was lawful or unlawful would fall to the duty of a judge in the case(s).

Click to expand...

We are presumed in a court of law to know the law (i.e. "ignorance of the law is no excuse"). This presumption operates outside the courtroom, as well, since there is no rationale for a person's knowledge to evaporate upon exiting any given room. So the individual is entitled to decide whether an arrest, for instance, is lawful. Abdicating this responsibility, we become cattle, or sheep.

MaggieD said:

No, what you posted is what I thought was germaine. Thank you for this. I'm gobsmacked.

Click to expand...

And I am heartened.

_Markum_ said:

We are presumed in a court of law to know the law (i.e. "ignorance of the law is no excuse"). This presumption operates outside the courtroom, as well, since there is no rationale for a person's knowledge to evaporate upon exiting any given room. So the individual is entitled to decide whether an arrest, for instance, is lawful. Abdicating this responsibility, we become cattle, or sheep.

Click to expand...

When there's a clash of rights and how people feel their rights exist or are violated (etc) it's left up to a judge to make the final call.

Who knows - maybe after examining all the facts they find the 'suspect' was wrong - and the officer was right . . . or vise versa.

Caine said:

Meaning... they are trespassing to cause problems, with the intent to cause problems...

From what I took from Radcen's post...... they aren't too keen on the whole "i was doing anything wrong!!!" complaint coming from OWS people when in fact they WERE doing something wrong, and doing it knowingly and willingly.

It seems this new brand of protesters think they have a right to violate laws and should have no consequences in doing so.

Click to expand...

No smack talk for a minute. I do believe that we are in the process of defining social disobedience for the foreseeable future. Whatever answers you or I have, agree or disagree, I don't know that they will be congruent with the present or the foreseeable future. Our opinions matter, our opinions count, as - hopefully - the public will influence future court decisions. The right and the left are expressing extreme dissatisfaction with the status quo. I understand that, but the interpretation of the law, the enforcement of the law will have to be equitable or there will be further social unrest. Of that there should be no doubt.

MaggieD said:

radcen said:

In THIS case, I would consider it resisting arrest, also, but... I would also classify it as civil disobedience, so any complaints are hypocritical. You're doing what you're doing purposely to make a point. Points often have consequences. Deal with it.

Click to expand...

WTF does that mean??

Click to expand...

It refers to the *why* a person is resisting. If they simply don't want to get arrested, like you often see on Cops, that's one thing. If they are protesters, and are asked to leave or be arrested, and they choose to stay and be arrested, then they morally forfeit their legitimacy to complain when cited with 'resisting arrest' when they just sit there to be carted off (or whatever). It becomes civil disobedience at that point, a voluntary reaction, a conscious choice, and the motivations behind your actions change... thus if you are a protester, you chose your course of action, so just suck it up and deal with it. I have no respect for people who claim civil disobedience then cry afterward that the consequences weren't fair. Makes me question their integrity. Part of the whole idea behind civil disobedience is that you are willing to make a personal sacrifice to draw attention to your cause and affect long-term change.

The "you" was a generic you, not you specifically.

As far as whether or not the 'resisting arrest' charge was legitimate, that should be decided by a court at a later date... though I do believe that it is sometimes used as an intimidation strategy and a "throw some **** on a wall and see if it sticks" tactic more often than it would be admitted.

Risky Thicket said:

"Purposely to cause trouble" is a in the California and/or Davis criminal code? I suspect Tigger and radcen are on shaky ground with purposely to cause trouble.

Click to expand...

Please point where I said "purposely to cause trouble". G'head, point it out. Oh, that's right... you can't. I said "purposely to make a point", which references the motivation behind a protest, which is not automatically a bad thing as you seem to imply. The word 'trouble' was introduced by someone else.

Caine said:

Exactly, which is why I find that ruling appalling.

If anything, it encourages "street lawyers" to murder police officers. Last I checked in today's society of people raised to believe everything is someone else's fault.... maybe 1 in 6 people at time of arrest can actually admit that they were wrong.

So, if they perceive themselves to being unlawfully arrested.... what is going to keep them from attempting to murder the police officer who is arresting them, even when the arrest is lawful?

Click to expand...

Agreed. Didn't read the case in being cited. But suspect the circumstances of the court's ruling are very narrow to a particular situation.

For any "street lawyers" with an attitude out there who are inclined to try to exploit that case ruling, probably be a good idea to think it through first. Unless there is a rogue cop involved explicitly threatening your life, you are probable going to fry if you ever kill a police officer. (which is a good thing....)

Aunt Spiker said:

When there's a clash of rights and how people feel their rights exist or are violated (etc) it's left up to a judge to make the final call.

Who knows - maybe after examining all the facts they find the 'suspect' was wrong - and the officer was right . . . or vise versa.

Click to expand...

The point of knowing your rights and standing up for them is to resist tyranny, by giving authorities pause to consider the lawfulness of the actions they might contemplate out of impatience, ego, or any one of a number of such human frailties. The corrupting influence of power is widely recognized. An interesting experiment was conducted about 50 years ago, I think (I don't remember the name of it at the moment), wherein college students role-played as "guards" and "prisoners". The prisoners became submissive and guards became overbearing. It had to be terminated after just a week or two because of attempted prisoner suicides and brutality by the guards, despite the knowledge that they could exit the experiment, individually, at any time by just saying so! The same psychological principles are generally operative, dominance and submission.

_Markum_ said:

The point of knowing your rights and standing up for them is to resist tyranny, by giving authorities pause to consider the lawfulness of the actions they might contemplate out of impatience, ego, or any one of a number of such human frailties. The corrupting influence of power is widely recognized. An interesting experiment was conducted about 50 years ago, I think (I don't remember the name of it at the moment), wherein college students role-played as "guards" and "prisoners". The prisoners became submissive and guards became overbearing. It had to be terminated after just a week or two because of attempted prisoner suicides and brutality by the guards, despite the knowledge that they could exit the experiment, individually, at any time by just saying so! The same psychological principles are generally operative, dominance and submission.

Click to expand...

That would be the Stanford Prison Experiment - 5 students did quit the project before it was ended on the 6th day.

And it in no way explains your point you tried to make with it. All that experiment did was prove that people could easily be sucked into the roll they were assigned to play and take it too seriously and forget reality - it was a disaster.

Aunt Spiker said:

That would be the Stanford Prison Experiment - 5 students did quit the project before it was ended on the 6th day.

And it in no way explains your point you tried to make with it. All that experiment did was prove that people could easily be sucked into the roll they were assigned to play and take it too seriously and forget reality - it was a disaster.

Click to expand...

"No way", eh? What point do you think I was trying to make? I thought I was making the very point you say the experiment proved!

_Markum_ said:

"No way", eh? What point do you think I was trying to make? I thought I was making the very point you say the experiment proved!

Click to expand...

We're discussing real people being able or unable to determine if their rights are being violated or if they're violating the rights of others . . . and you bring up a psych experiment.

I'm discussing law and you're discussing psychology - it seems as if we're not on the same page and I'm not hopping over because I don't need to.