What is your definition of resisting arrest?

[jamesrage]

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.

If they can't remove individuals who are deliberately resisting arrest with two or three police officers then they should use either tear gas, pepper spray or Tazer to get those resisting arrest to submit and allow the police officers to remove them.

 

[Mason66]

What gets me about resisting arrest is whan an officer charges a person with resisting when there was no basis for the arrest inthe first place.

How can that stand?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What gets me about resisting arrest is whan an officer charges a person with resisting when there was no basis for the arrest inthe first place.

How can that stand?

It doesn't always stand - a considerable number of court cases center around charges - and people disputing those charges.

 

[Caine]

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.

That completely ignored my point........ while pushing your own.



What about the street lawyer who IS IN THE WRONG and assumes himself to be right and decides the supreme court has told him he can kill an officer who is acting unlawfully (yet the officer in this case isn't).....

THAT is why I disagree with the way this ruling was written.

 

[Caine]

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.

Wow.... so some drunken idiot perceives that he is not in fact driving while drunk and decides to murder the officer.... he is in the right? lest we become cattle?

What a crock of bull****.

 

[Caine]

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.

Alot of good that does an officer who is dead.

Is that what we are advocating here?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

That completely ignored my point........ while pushing your own.



What about the street lawyer who IS IN THE WRONG and assumes himself to be right and decides the supreme court has told him he can kill an officer who is acting unlawfully (yet the officer in this case isn't).....

THAT is why I disagree with the way this ruling was written.

Well then he WOULD BE JUDGED accordingly with due process of law like any other suspect of a murder (etc).

People enact vigilante justice all the time - doesn't permit them escape from the laws that bind them.

 

[Caine]

Well then he WOULD BE JUDGED accordingly with due process of law like any other suspect of a murder (etc).

People enact vigilante justice all the time - doesn't permit them escape from the laws that bind them.

Doesn't bring a dead law enforcer back to life either........

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Doesn't bring a dead law enforcer back to life either........

No - murder is quite permanent. I don't get your point on hanging over that - there are countless SC rulings that could potentially be taken the wrong way and someone might suffer the consequences. . . and then they will be dealt with accordingly.

 

[_Markum_]

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.

Seriously? You consider the relationship between psychology and law unimportant?:shock: Using a psych experiment to illustrate a point in a discussion of law does not constitute a discussion of psychology. Discussion is a reasoning process that develops conversationally. Clearly, our conceptions of "discussion" are not compatible. "You do not discuss. You jibber." So, now I know...

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Seriously? You consider the relationship between psychology and law unimportant?:shock: Using a psych experiment to illustrate a point in a discussion of law does not constitute a discussion of psychology. Discussion is a reasoning process that develops conversationally. Clearly, our conceptions of "discussion" are not compatible. "You do not discuss. You jibber." So, now I know...

I'm not saying it's not important. I just don't get what your trying to say with it by bringing that up in this way. . . if anything: the Stanford Experiment when applied to a situation would be used to understand the psychological aspect and possible thought process of the perpetrator and the enforcement. . . I think I missed your point because of my familiarity with the experiment, perhaps.

[video]http://www.prisonexp.org/[/video] dedicated to it might be cool for you to explore.

 

[_Markum_]

Wow.... so some drunken idiot perceives that he is not in fact driving while drunk and decides to murder the officer.... he is in the right? lest we become cattle?

What a crock of bull****.

Classic strawman logical fallacy. "Deciding to murder" is not "resisting". In your hypothetical, the drunken idiot is likely not considering the lawfulness of the arrest attempt in the light of his responsibility to assert his rights. But even if he is, and the officer is behaving properly, resistance has to escalate from a minimum to a maximum. Being an idiotic drunk, he would be subdued before his necessarily incompetent resistance escalated to a maximum.

I think you're deliberately missing the point--at least, I hope it's deliberate.

 

[_Markum_]

I'm not saying it's not important. I just don't get what your trying to say with it by bringing that up in this way. . . if anything: the Stanford Experiment when applied to a situation would be used to understand the psychological aspect and possible thought process of the perpetrator and the enforcement. . . I think I missed your point because of my familiarity with the experiment, perhaps.

[video]http://www.prisonexp.org/[/video] dedicated to it might be cool for you to explore.

Thanks for the link. Looking back:

You 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.

Here you seem to be saying, "Submit to authority and trust everything will be correctly sorted out later".

I 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.

Here is where the psychological factor first comes into play. Authorities are people, subject to the same imperfections of character as anyone else. Left to their own devices they will fail, at times, to behave lawfully, because of these imperfections. Maybe they had a tough day (stress); maybe they just like to act like big shots (ego); maybe they hate (anger, aggression). All of these parentheticals are psychological factors. By standing up for our rights, we can help them focus on the job at hand, and thereby regain the balanced state of mind that allows them to behave properly in the execution of their function.

I said: 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.

Here I attempt to illustrate the special variety of psychological factor that affects authorities by virtue of their exercising-power function, using the Stanford experiment. I wanted to make the point that his factor is very difficult to mitigate, having a compulsive, almost hypnotic, power to distort the sense of reality that forms the basis of personality and cognition, because this will affect the ability and willingness of authorities to behave properly, lawfully. I end by saying everyone is susceptible to this psychological dominance-submission factor.

My main point has been that protestors (and everyone) should be prepared to resist unlawful police behavior properly. Without such resistance there is little to nothing to check the baser instincts to which we all--authorities include--are heir. And without such resistance we tend naturally to fall into the "prisoner" role, suffering a reformation of personality into the submissive type. I hope it goes without saying that this would not be a good thing.

 

[Caine]

Classic strawman logical fallacy. "Deciding to murder" is not "resisting". In your hypothetical, the drunken idiot is likely not considering the lawfulness of the arrest attempt in the light of his responsibility to assert his rights. But even if he is, and the officer is behaving properly, resistance has to escalate from a minimum to a maximum. Being an idiotic drunk, he would be subdued before his necessarily incompetent resistance escalated to a maximum.

I think you're deliberately missing the point--at least, I hope it's deliberate.

You underestimate drunk people who feel they have been scorned......

But what do I know.... Im only a law enforcement officer... I don't have any experience with that.... :roll:

 

[MaggieD]

And I am heartened.

I don't know why...I think it's the worst Supreme Court commentary of all time...saying that it is the duty of Americans to resist arrest if they believe the arrest is unlawful. How ridiculous. In Auntie's example, someone legally carrying a concealed weapon resists arrest for illegally carrying a concealed weapon, you think it's appropriate to resist arrest...and if it escalates to violence and the copper is killed, that the detainee should get off scot-free. So. Let me get this straight. A guy could simply not resist the arrest and easily prove the cop was wrong in court...orrrrr he could blow the cop away on the streert and be vindicated.

You are heartened by that??

 

[_Markum_]

You underestimate drunk people who feel they have been scorned......

But what do I know.... Im only a law enforcement officer... I don't have any experience with that.... :roll:

Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. The short of my position is that people need to assert their rights in order to not lose them. The SC recently decided that, upon being read your rights, you must verbally--non-silently--invoke your right to remain silent, else you are considered to have surrendered that right. While I think this is a ridiculous ruling, the rationale seems generally applicable. This has nothing do with someone doing whatever they can to avoid being arrested.

The secondary point is that "resisting arrest" being a crime of its own serves only two purposes: intimidating people into not standing up for their rights; and giving cops an excuse to go ape-****, which further intimidates people into not standing up for their rights. Consider how often you, as a cop, are genuinely concerned for the the rights of suspects, not just covering your ass so that there's no undesired fallout from the arrest. If you'd say "always", congratulations, you're the model of how a peace officer should think, and, in my perception, a rarity.

 

[_Markum_]

I don't know why...I think it's the worst Supreme Court commentary of all time...saying that it is the duty of Americans to resist arrest if they believe the arrest is unlawful. How ridiculous. In Auntie's example, someone legally carrying a concealed weapon resists arrest for illegally carrying a concealed weapon, you think it's appropriate to resist arrest...and if it escalates to violence and the copper is killed, that the detainee should get off scot-free. So. Let me get this straight. A guy could simply not resist the arrest and easily prove the cop was wrong in court...orrrrr he could blow the cop away on the streert and be vindicated.

This reasoning is as compelling as a train wreck in progress! If you really want to "get this straight", read for comprehension while holding your preconceptions in abeyance. It has been truly said that when the people fear their government they have tyranny, but when the government fears the people they have liberty. This ruling struck a blow for the rule of law, and true liberty, for when the government commands perfect obedience, tyranny obtains, and there are no "rights", only "privileges" granted at the government's whim.

But let me take a page from your book, and go all hot-button on ya. Let's say you're hiking in the woods, miles from anywhere, and you come upon a man raping a small child. You see him clearly as he finishes and slits her throat and begins to leave the scene, not having noticed you. Let's also say you could quickly raise your rifle and shoot the man. What do you do? The man is leaving and so poses no further threat. You don't know if the child is dead. Do you attempt a "citizens' arrest" at gunpoint, not knowing if the man is similarly armed? Or do you wait until the man has gone far away so as not to be noticed as you check the child's condition? Or do you shoot him? If so, do you shoot to kill, or to injure? So, what would you do?

The cop that says there no such thing as a citizens' arrest would probably say don't shoot him because that would be murder, since he poses no threat, and you have no authority to enforce the law. But by the time you can get out of the woods to report the incident, the man may be able to get away. I'd say the real law empowers you to shoot. But the corporate system of statutory legalities we generally think of as "law" does not. This ruling is a check on this system. It says the citizen DOES have authority. Your objection to this empowerment is duly noted.

Are there no patriots in this thread?

 

[roguenuke]

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.

I don't think we are because when you talk about protests that impede others, whether it is the ability for them to get to work or their right to use public spaces, or protests that cost every citizen excessive money and time for security/cleanup, it becomes an issue of one person's rights impeding on another person's rights. These things will allows have to be settled in court. It will be almost impossible to draw a definitive line on this for right and wrong. And one of the major reasons we have courts, especially federal courts, in the first place.

 

[Caine]

Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. The short of my position is that people need to assert their rights in order to not lose them. The SC recently decided that, upon being read your rights, you must verbally--non-silently--invoke your right to remain silent, else you are considered to have surrendered that right. While I think this is a ridiculous ruling, the rationale seems generally applicable. This has nothing do with someone doing whatever they can to avoid being arrested.

The secondary point is that "resisting arrest" being a crime of its own serves only two purposes: intimidating people into not standing up for their rights; and giving cops an excuse to go ape-****, which further intimidates people into not standing up for their rights. Consider how often you, as a cop, are genuinely concerned for the the rights of suspects, not just covering your ass so that there's no undesired fallout from the arrest. If you'd say "always", congratulations, you're the model of how a peace officer should think, and, in my perception, a rarity.

Interesting....

Ive still yet to find a basis in the requirement of law enforcement officers reading rights to an arrested subject anywhere in the constitution.

I think the Miranda warning requirement is one of the greatest examples of legislating from the bench I have ever seen.

As for your secondary point... we are trained to protect people's rights in every type of action we can possibly do. Its 2nd nature for regular police officers, despite the impression that fictional TV shows (which always contain crooked police officers) gives the general public.

Now, if you are going to ask if I always volunteer information I don't have to, for example, telling a subject that they have the right to refuse to comply or answer questions during an investigation pre-arrest... the answer is no. Im not going to tell them to make my job harder if I don't have to. However, if the suggestion comes from them in the form of a question, "Do I have to do this" or "Do I have to answer that" then of course I inform them they don't.

 

[MaggieD]

This reasoning is as compelling as a train wreck in progress! If you really want to "get this straight", read for comprehension while holding your preconceptions in abeyance. It has been truly said that when the people fear their government they have tyranny, but when the government fears the people they have liberty. This ruling struck a blow for the rule of law, and true liberty, for when the government commands perfect obedience, tyranny obtains, and there are no "rights", only "privileges" granted at the government's whim.

But let me take a page from your book, and go all hot-button on ya. Let's say you're hiking in the woods, miles from anywhere, and you come upon a man raping a small child. You see him clearly as he finishes and slits her throat and begins to leave the scene, not having noticed you. Let's also say you could quickly raise your rifle and shoot the man. What do you do? The man is leaving and so poses no further threat. You don't know if the child is dead. Do you attempt a "citizens' arrest" at gunpoint, not knowing if the man is similarly armed? Or do you wait until the man has gone far away so as not to be noticed as you check the child's condition? Or do you shoot him? If so, do you shoot to kill, or to injure? So, what would you do?

The cop that says there no such thing as a citizens' arrest would probably say don't shoot him because that would be murder, since he poses no threat, and you have no authority to enforce the law. But by the time you can get out of the woods to report the incident, the man may be able to get away. I'd say the real law empowers you to shoot. But the corporate system of statutory legalities we generally think of as "law" does not. This ruling is a check on this system. It says the citizen DOES have authority. Your objection to this empowerment is duly noted.

Are there no patriots in this thread?

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not a patriot. But, of course, you know that. Instead of giving me your scenerio, why not address mine? I can't answer your hypothetical about me...but I don't see it as the same thing. My whole discussion has been based upon resisting arrest.

 

[_Markum_]

Interesting....

Ive still yet to find a basis in the requirement of law enforcement officers reading rights to an arrested subject anywhere in the constitution.

I think the Miranda warning requirement is one of the greatest examples of legislating from the bench I have ever seen.

We live very far, now, from the vision of the founders. From the beginning, bit by bit, the power of the people has been usurped by government. It has been the function of the courts to molify this power grab so as not to rouse the ire of the people, who hardly sense the danger overtaking them. Miranda says "cool it! lest you give the game away". The study of the history of this power grab is fascinating, and intricately complex. Here's but a taste:

Bankruptcy Of The United States

As for your secondary point... we are trained to protect people's rights in every type of action we can possibly do. Its 2nd nature for regular police officers, despite the impression that fictional TV shows (which always contain crooked police officers) gives the general public.

Now, if you are going to ask if I always volunteer information I don't have to, for example, telling a subject that they have the right to refuse to comply or answer questions during an investigation pre-arrest... the answer is no. Im not going to tell them to make my job harder if I don't have to. However, if the suggestion comes from them in the form of a question, "Do I have to do this" or "Do I have to answer that" then of course I inform them they don't.

So, you're saying that, to make your job easier, you pursue an agenda contrary to the maximum protection of the rights of the individual citizen--which is precisely the point I was making in a recent post. The pre-arrest tricks you've been trained to use, for instance, are intended to sacrifice the individual's rights in favor of the corporate government's interests. Government should be interested, foremostly, in protecting the individual's rights. But that is not what the power grab has been about. It's about money, control, and privilege.

 

[MaggieD]

We live very far, now, from the vision of the founders. From the beginning, bit by bit, the power of the people has been usurped by government. It has been the function of the courts to molify this power grab so as not to rouse the ire of the people, who hardly sense the danger overtaking them. Miranda says "cool it! lest you give the game away". The study of the history of this power grab is fascinating, and intricately complex. Here's but a taste:

Bankruptcy Of The United States

So, you're saying that, to make your job easier, you pursue an agenda contrary to the maximum protection of the rights of the individual citizen--which is precisely the point I was making in a recent post. The pre-arrest tricks you've been trained to use, for instance, are intended to sacrifice the individual's rights in favor of the corporate government's interests. Government should be interested, foremostly, in protecting the individual's rights. But that is not what the power grab has been about. It's about money, control, and privilege.

Oh, for heaven's sake. More than any other country on the face of the planet earth we protect our citizen's rights. You, with your Utopian vision of the world, would have coppers completely and purposefully hog-tie themselves so that investigation of a crime would be neigh unto impossible. "We'd like to ask you a few questions. Oh, by the way, you don't have to talk to us." "Can you tell me where you were last night? Oh, by the way, you don't have to tell me." We have courts and attorneys galore to protect individual rights. I want criminals caught. You are more interested in protecting their rights than getting the guilty guy. Glad you're not in charge.

 

[_Markum_]

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not a patriot. But, of course, you know that.

True, but irrelevant. Firstly, I did not say you were not a patriot. Secondly, by your admission, you object to the empowerment of the individual citizen. Don't you find that objection inconsistent with patriotic principles?

Instead of giving me your scenerio, why not address mine?

:doh I did. It was a logical "train wreck", remember? It's hard to say much more about nonsense than that it's nonsense. I found it ridiculous, and not at all deserving of being called a "scenario", it was so insubstantial.

I can't answer your hypothetical about me...but I don't see it as the same thing.

And why does it have to be the "same thing"? It illustrates the point about citizen empowerment, which is also central to the matter of protestation and resisting arrest. What more do you want? Why didn't you respond to it? I mean, why do you say you "can't answer"?

My whole discussion has been based upon resisting arrest.

So, how do you plan to advance that discussion when you refuse to engage issues that bear upon it? Or is the mere appearance of "discussion" sufficient to accomplish your purpose in participating?

 

[MaggieD]

True, but irrelevant. Firstly, I did not say you were not a patriot. Secondly, by your admission, you object to the empowerment of the individual citizen. Don't you find that objection inconsistent with patriotic principles?

:doh I did. It was a logical "train wreck", remember? It's hard to say much more about nonsense than that it's nonsense. I found it ridiculous, and not at all deserving of being called a "scenario", it was so insubstantial.

And why does it have to be the "same thing"? It illustrates the point about citizen empowerment, which is also central to the matter of protestation and resisting arrest. What more do you want? Why didn't you respond to it? I mean, why do you say you "can't answer"?

So, how do you plan to advance that discussion when you refuse to engage issues that bear upon it? Or is the mere appearance of "discussion" sufficient to accomplish your purpose in participating?

Not going to dissect your post as you did mine. Too much work. Ha! However, in general, I don't object to the empowerment of the individual citizen. As individuals, we have plenty of power. As to this definition, I don't find my views inconsistent with patriotic principles at all: "One who loves, supports and defends one's country." You're definition would exclude our government from that definition...making it an "us-against-them" scenerio. I just don't see it that way. I support our government. It's not perfect, by any means; but I think we're doing better than most other countries in the world.

Okay, as to your scenerio, I'll answer it. I'd probably shoot the bastard (assuming I had those skills) -- confident that the legal system wouldn't punish me for doing so...even though we have laws against doing just exactly that.

Okay, now. How about instead of calling my scenerio a "train wreck," you actually (gasp!) address it??

 

[_Markum_]

Oh, for heaven's sake. More than any other country on the face of the planet earth we protect our citizen's rights. You, with your Utopian vision of the world, would have coppers completely and purposefully hog-tie themselves so that investigation of a crime would be neigh unto impossible. "We'd like to ask you a few questions. Oh, by the way, you don't have to talk to us." "Can you tell me where you were last night? Oh, by the way, you don't have to tell me." We have courts and attorneys galore to protect individual rights. I want criminals caught. You are more interested in protecting their rights than getting the guilty guy. Glad you're not in charge.

More than any other country? Irrelevant--and not good enough. It's not my vision; it's the vision of the founders. And the notion that advising a person they don't have to answer would make inverstigation "neigh unto impossible" is absurd!:lamo You respect EVERYBODY'S rights because that's the only way the innocent bystander/witness will feel comfortable about cooperating with the investigation; the only way they'll believe their rights will be respected. If you'll abuse the rights of a suspect, who's innocent until proven guilty, then why wouldn't you abuse anybody's rights? The only thing to be gained by playing favorites is suspicion--and that's hardly a "gain".

A couple hours with a rubber hose in the interrogation room will get you all the "guilty guys" you want.:roll: