What is your definition of resisting arrest?

[MaggieD]

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:

OMG. You mean the founders that condoned slavery? Or the ones that wouldn't allow women the vote? There is no perfection. "Not good enough" is noble. I have no fear of the police. None. They're free to search my car, my house, my storage locker...don't need a warrant. I'll answer any questions put to me because I have faith in our system of government and believe everything in our justice system is stacked in my favor...innocent until proven guilty. You, on the other hand, wouldn't let a copper search your car, etc., no matter if you were innocent as the driven snow, because "they need a warrant." Good for you. I'll facilitate the coppers to find the guilty party. You will choose not to. No problem. It's your right to do so.

Now how about responding to my "train wreck?" (Third request.)

 

[whysoserious]

As I have already showed, the courts do not consider holding onto each other as "active resisting". It may be considered resisting, but not active resisting, and it certainly does not authorize the use of pepper spray or tasers.

 

[_Markum_]

Not going to dissect your post as you did mine. Too much work. Ha!

:shock: Hmmm...Too busy logging an average of 20 vapid posts per day to actually contribute something substantial? Understood, and noted.

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.

"In general"? "Plenty"? Do the details get too messy for you? The inability or unwillingness to bear the responsibility of the full measure of empowerment that you exemplify is what got us into this mess! It's "use it or lose it", and so we've lost it.

Your dictionary quotation is a good illustration of intellectual dishonesty. I mean, you MUST have read the second definition:

"A person who regards himself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government."

This puts the lie to your following remarks. And then the ra-ra excuse that it's better than other countries--which is debatable.

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.

Do you actually practice missing the point, or does it just come naturally? :lol: Two styles of law were counterposed, remember? Nevermind.

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

This was the whole of it:

"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."

Only the bolded portion was yours. And, as I've already said numerous times, I found it nonsensical--incomprehensible might be a better term. It cannot be addressed more thoroughly than to say that.

 

[MaggieD]

:shock: Hmmm...Too busy logging an average of 20 vapid posts per day to actually contribute something substantial? Understood, and noted.



"In general"? "Plenty"? Do the details get too messy for you? The inability or unwillingness to bear the responsibility of the full measure of empowerment that you exemplify is what got us into this mess! It's "use it or lose it", and so we've lost it.

Your dictionary quotation is a good illustration of intellectual dishonesty. I mean, you MUST have read the second definition:

"A person who regards himself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government."

This puts the lie to your following remarks. And then the ra-ra excuse that it's better than other countries--which is debatable.



Do you actually practice missing the point, or does it just come naturally? :lol: Two styles of law were counterposed, remember? Nevermind.



This was the whole of it:

"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."

Only the bolded portion was yours. And, as I've already said numerous times, I found it nonsensical--incomprehensible might be a better term. It cannot be addressed more thoroughly than to say that.

Three times the charm, Markum. That and an insult buy ya' no response.

 

[_Markum_]

OMG. You mean the founders that condoned slavery? Or the ones that wouldn't allow women the vote? There is no perfection. "Not good enough" is noble. I have no fear of the police. None. They're free to search my car, my house, my storage locker...don't need a warrant. I'll answer any questions put to me because I have faith in our system of government and believe everything in our justice system is stacked in my favor...innocent until proven guilty. You, on the other hand, wouldn't let a copper search your car, etc., no matter if you were innocent as the driven snow, because "they need a warrant." Good for you. I'll facilitate the coppers to find the guilty party. You will choose not to. No problem. It's your right to do so.

Right out of the "good citizen" manual! Your naivete is about as useful as virginity. Good luck with that.

Now how about responding to my "train wreck?" (Third request.)

:rollone, yet again.

 

[_Markum_]

Three times the charm, Markum. That and an insult buy ya' no response.

Prove it. Where was the insult? I don't traffic in insults. If you found the truth embarrassing, or otherwise upsetting, that's good. And thank-you for not responding. The tedium was beginning to wear on my patience.

 

[Caine]

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.

Nevermind.... For some reason from the previous post you seemed like someone that might be interesting to debate with.

But from this post, I can tell you are some kind of conspiracy nut.

Asking someone a ****ing question is not a "trick"..... thats ignorant.

 

[_Markum_]

Nevermind.... For some reason from the previous post you seemed like someone that might be interesting to debate with.

But from this post, I can tell you are some kind of conspiracy nut.

Asking someone a ****ing question is not a "trick"..... thats ignorant.

It can be if you mix in a lie or two, poisoning the well, as it were. Cannabis possession is decriminalized in New York, but there's a law prohibiting showing cannabis in public. So the cops stop someone and tell him to empty his pockets, without telling him, of course, that he doesn't have to. Now, if he had any cannabis in his pockets it's now "in public view", and the poor schmuck is now a criminal. That's a trick. Drug dogs can be made, by their handlers, to "alert". That's a trick. An education in dirty tricks awaits you in a study of the Ramparts scandal. There are so many more that I am surprised at even your ignorance of them.

Conspiracy nut? On what evidence do you base such dismissive disparagement? Did you find source citations in that article I linked to be erroneous? No? What then? Anything you can actually articulate, for the benefit of all? No? That's alright. Open minds are hard to come by these days. I keep expecting one to turn up in the least likely place. Nothing there this time. But I'll keep looking...wish me luck? :2wave:

 

[molten_dragon]

I would say if you struggle with the officer, threaten violence, or use violence to attempt to prevent the arrest, you are resisting arrest. I would not say that simply doing nothing, either to prevent the arrest or to facilitate it is resisting arrest.

As an example, let's say I'm sitting at a protest somewhere, and an officer tells me I'm under arrest, and orders me to stand up and put my hands behind my back so that he can cuff them. I would not consider ignoring him and staying right where I am resisting arrest. If he then tried to physically pull me to my feet and put my hands behind my back to cuff them and I tried to stop him, then I'd be resisting arrest.

 

[Goshin]

LEO says, "You're under arrest. Come with me."

After a LEO says that to you, at what point are you considered to be resisting arrest?

If you refuse to move, that is passive resistance. You may be grabbed and physically manipulated, or possibly Tazed or sprayed.

If the LEO tries to move you, and you grab on to something and cling tight or otherwise struggle, that is active resistance. This is usually the level at which you get charged with resisting. Ditto response above, but being tazed or sprayed is more likely.

If you put your hands on the LEO in a violent or controlling manner, that is fighting, and may result in charges of resisting arrest or assault on a Po-po, depending on various circumstances. Ditto above response, or you may be physically struck by the LEO.


This will vary depending on jurisdiction and department policy, and my information is over a decade out of date, so take with a grain of salt.

 

[Caine]

If you refuse to move, that is passive resistance. You may be grabbed and physically manipulated, or possibly Tazed or sprayed.

If the LEO tries to move you, and you grab on to something and cling tight or otherwise struggle, that is active resistance. This is usually the level at which you get charged with resisting. Ditto response above, but being tazed or sprayed is more likely.

If you put your hands on the LEO in a violent or controlling manner, that is fighting, and may result in charges of resisting arrest or assault on a Po-po, depending on various circumstances. Ditto above response, or you may be physically struck by the LEO.


This will vary depending on jurisdiction and department policy, and my information is over a decade out of date, so take with a grain of salt.

You pretty much nailed it...

Except I wouldn't put the taser up there as an option until the assaulting occurs.

Nor would I put the spraying until the active resistance occurs.

By the physical manipulation, totally in the right place, when coupled with loud verbal commands at ALL stages of the types of resistance. <--- Most important part of all.

 

[Goshin]

You pretty much nailed it...

Except I wouldn't put the taser up there as an option until the assaulting occurs.

Nor would I put the spraying until the active resistance occurs.

By the physical manipulation, totally in the right place, when coupled with loud verbal commands at ALL stages of the types of resistance. <--- Most important part of all.

Yeah, we didn't have the Tazers when I was in, and pepperspray wasn't as widely used either, so I was probably a bit off on those. Like I say though, different jurisdictions and different PDs mean a certain variation in laws and policy.

 

[MaggieD]

You pretty much nailed it...

Except I wouldn't put the taser up there as an option until the assaulting occurs.

Nor would I put the spraying until the active resistance occurs.

By the physical manipulation, totally in the right place, when coupled with loud verbal commands at ALL stages of the types of resistance. <--- Most important part of all.

Then, in your opinion, were the UC-Davis cops correct? Or did they cross the line? I noticed several cops tried to (half-heartedly) remove some of the sitters, but they quickly gave up.

 

[Jerry]

LEO says, "You're under arrest. Come with me."

After a LEO says that to you, at what point are you considered to be resisting arrest?

Uh if that's all he says then I'm not actually under arrest, so I wouldn't be resisting arrest, I would be resisting a crime.

 

[molten_dragon]

Then, in your opinion, were the UC-Davis cops correct? Or did they cross the line? I noticed several cops tried to (half-heartedly) remove some of the sitters, but they quickly gave up.

I realize this isn't directed at me, but I share Caine's opinions on this pretty closely. No, I don't think they were correct. The protesters were resisting passively, and the cops never made any real effort to actually arrest them before they used pepper spray. Had they really been trying to cuff them and haul them off and the protesters were resisting, then I would have wholeheartedly supported them using pepper spray. As it was, they were just being lazy.

 

[Jryan]

If you refuse to move, that is passive resistance. You may be grabbed and physically manipulated, or possibly Tazed or sprayed.

If the LEO tries to move you, and you grab on to something and cling tight or otherwise struggle, that is active resistance. This is usually the level at which you get charged with resisting. Ditto response above, but being tazed or sprayed is more likely.

If you put your hands on the LEO in a violent or controlling manner, that is fighting, and may result in charges of resisting arrest or assault on a Po-po, depending on various circumstances. Ditto above response, or you may be physically struck by the LEO.


This will vary depending on jurisdiction and department policy, and my information is over a decade out of date, so take with a grain of salt.

I had a question about this. In a lot of the videos they are using their billy clubs. Are the police allowed to thwack someone over their head, or are there certain areas you are allowed to hit people who are violently resisting?

 

[Caine]

Then, in your opinion, were the UC-Davis cops correct? Or did they cross the line? I noticed several cops tried to (half-heartedly) remove some of the sitters, but they quickly gave up.

I realize this isn't directed at me, but I share Caine's opinions on this pretty closely. No, I don't think they were correct. The protesters were resisting passively, and the cops never made any real effort to actually arrest them before they used pepper spray. Had they really been trying to cuff them and haul them off and the protesters were resisting, then I would have wholeheartedly supported them using pepper spray. As it was, they were just being lazy.

I haven't really studied the UC Davis incident, but from my understanding they were linking arms in an attempt to resist removal?

If that was the case, then that falls under defensive resistance, where OC/Pepper Spray is appropriately used.


If they were truly passive..... then any officer could have walked over and grabbed up a protester without applying force to get them to comply. Force in this case meaning, twisting their arm to remove it from being locked with another person's arm, having to forcibly control the protesters arms as the protester attempts to, via force, keep his hands from being cuffed.

Passive means you allow your body to be manipulated by police. Defensive means you physically prevent that.

 

[radcen]

I haven't really studied the UC Davis incident, but from my understanding they were linking arms in an attempt to resist removal?

If that was the case, then that falls under defensive resistance, where OC/Pepper Spray is appropriately used.


If they were truly passive..... then any officer could have walked over and grabbed up a protester without applying force to get them to comply. Force in this case meaning, twisting their arm to remove it from being locked with another person's arm, having to forcibly control the protesters arms as the protester attempts to, via force, keep his hands from being cuffed.

Passive means you allow your body to be manipulated by police. Defensive means you physically prevent that.

Is passive resistance still considered resisting arrest?

 

[Caine]

I had a question about this. In a lot of the videos they are using their billy clubs. Are the police allowed to thwack someone over their head, or are there certain areas you are allowed to hit people who are violently resisting?

You can't hit people in the head intentionally.

Police are trained on the location of several major muscle groups that can cause a "shock disabling affect" when struck with a baton. Like the upper arm (bicep area) the upper leg (thigh area) on the exterior side... stuff like that.

Now, of course, while in mid-swing..... the person you are swinging at is still obviously free to do whatever they want with their body, which can cause strikes to accidentally land it areas you didn't wish or intend, which then causes problems because sympathizers scream, "OMFG HE IS BEATING THAT GUY IN THE HEAD WITH HIS BATON" while failing to realize that the officer was swinging and the guy went to duck and got cracked in the head like an idiot.

 

[Caine]

Is passive resistance still considered resisting arrest?

For lack of a better answer.... Yes.

It depends on how it is done......

If a 90 pound crack whore just stands there when she is told she is under arrest and ordered to put her hands behind her back and she doesn't, so the officer just casually walks over and does it for her.... probably not.

If a 400 pound ice-cream thief refuses to get up off of the ground when ordered to do so, and the officer has to call over additional units to make the arrest....... He will probably get charged with resisting arrest.

Technically the 90 pound crack whore could probably be charged too........ but it is usually about how much extra work you caused your arrest to become....... because in the end.... the person who is deciding to charge you is the officer.

 

[radcen]

You can't hit people in the head intentionally.

Police are trained on the location of several major muscle groups that can cause a "shock disabling affect" when struck with a baton. Like the upper arm (bicep area) the upper leg (thigh area) on the exterior side... stuff like that.

Now, of course, while in mid-swing..... the person you are swinging at is still obviously free to do whatever they want with their body, which can cause strikes to accidentally land it areas you didn't wish or intend, which then causes problems because sympathizers scream, "OMFG HE IS BEATING THAT GUY IN THE HEAD WITH HIS BATON" while failing to realize that the officer was swinging and the guy went to duck and got cracked in the head like an idiot.

That's a fair point.

For lack of a better answer.... Yes.

It depends on how it is done......

If a 90 pound crack whore just stands there when she is told she is under arrest and ordered to put her hands behind her back and she doesn't, so the officer just casually walks over and does it for her.... probably not.

If a 400 pound ice-cream thief refuses to get up off of the ground when ordered to do so, and the officer has to call over additional units to make the arrest....... He will probably get charged with resisting arrest.

Technically the 90 pound crack whore could probably be charged too........ but it is usually about how much extra work you caused your arrest to become....... because in the end.... the person who is deciding to charge you is the officer.

I was thinking more in the terms of a protest where a person sits there like a sack of flour and allows themself to be physically carted off, which is similar to your ice cream thief example.

To me, it would still technically be resisting even if it's 100% passive. It's still intentional, and to me intent is a huge factor. The crack whore example wouldn't necessarily be intentional.

 

[Caine]

That's a fair point.



I was thinking more in the terms of a protest where a person sits there like a sack of flour and allows themself to be physically carted off, which is similar to your ice cream thief example.

To me, it would still technically be resisting even if it's 100% passive. It's still intentional, and to me intent is a huge factor. The crack whore example wouldn't necessarily be intentional.

Thats why I added in to say....

Regardless of what the statute says.... the bottom line is the officer is the one responsible for deciding to add that charge, or not bother with it.

If we had Robocops everywhere who did not have discretion, you would see alot more charges of resisting arrest (as well as about a billion other overlooked things). But, since we have humans, humans get to decide whether they thought it is worth the bother to even charge you... and usually..... that decision will come in the form of "How tired did I have to get arresting that person".

 

[molten_dragon]

I haven't really studied the UC Davis incident, but from my understanding they were linking arms in an attempt to resist removal?

If that was the case, then that falls under defensive resistance, where OC/Pepper Spray is appropriately used.

They did have their arms linked. Going strictly by what I saw in the video, it's almost impossible to tell how much they were clinging to each other, simply because none of the officers put any significant effort into trying to tug them apart. One officer was able to get ahold of one woman's arm, and tugged halfheartedly on it for a second or so, but it's difficult to tell whether she was fighting back or just sitting there and he didn't tug hard enough to get her off the ground. As I said before, I'd be behind the police a lot more on this one had I seen a more concerted effort to arrest them before pepper spray was used.

 

[Caine]

They did have their arms linked. Going strictly by what I saw in the video, it's almost impossible to tell how much they were clinging to each other, simply because none of the officers put any significant effort into trying to tug them apart. One officer was able to get ahold of one woman's arm, and tugged halfheartedly on it for a second or so, but it's difficult to tell whether she was fighting back or just sitting there and he didn't tug hard enough to get her off the ground. As I said before, I'd be behind the police a lot more on this one had I seen a more concerted effort to arrest them before pepper spray was used.

So, say the officer uses more force, and by the time four people are arrested, two of them have bones popped out of place and the officers are at muscle failure and people get pepper sprayed anyways.

Then you both have the pepper spray incident and... OMFG THEY ARE RIPPING THEIR ARMS OFF!!


OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!

 

[molten_dragon]

So, say the officer uses more force, and by the time four people are arrested, two of them have bones popped out of place and the officers are at muscle failure and people get pepper sprayed anyways.

Then you both have the pepper spray incident and... OMFG THEY ARE RIPPING THEIR ARMS OFF!!


OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!!!

I see no reason to go that far with it, but I'd like to see them put in at least a little effort. The impression that I got from the video that I saw was "you know what, I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to get all sweaty trying to haul these college kids around, let's just spray 'em". It smacks of laziness to me, pure and simple.

And the stupid thing is, they still ended up manhandling them after using the pepper spray, so what the hell was the point of it?