What? We are only legally obligated to follow legal, lawful, and requests that they actual have authority to make. The presence of a gun is not relevant to this point.
I've had cops tell me I had to let them in my house, I tell them drop dead & I would stop their entry with whatever means was needed; cops tell me to stop recording public meetings ~ I tell them to drop dead there too
You see, cops can LIE to people to get them to do what they want...so is an order to do something based on a lie or not? That's something for a court to figure out if needed.
I have disobeyed more orders than I have complied with ~ and look, I am a freeman ... so, about 80% of orders that cops give they have no right to give, from my experience. And when a freeman says no and is correct in the assessment that they have no authority to issue such an "order" .. they either yell at you that they are giving you a break or just slither away.
Point a gun and make an unlawful request? That's assault with a deadly weapon in my book.
If I wanted to obey orders I would have stayed in the military ...
actually you are wrong
First of all, in many jurisdictions, you are obligated to submit (such as to an arrest) even if it's NOT valid. Iow, if you resist, that can be criminally charged EVEN THOUGH the arrest later turned out to be bogus. That's the case in many, if not most jurisdictions. You are free to verbally protest it and hope to convince the officer he's messing up, but you CANNOT legally resist (in most jurisdictions).
The second issue, that you completely gloss over is that YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES A COP ISSUES YOU AN ORDER (such as telling you to put your hands up or whatever) that it IS or ISN'T a lawful legal demand (or request).
The example I gave was the armed robbery example, but let me give you another.
Assume you are driving below the speed limit, etc. and have committed no traffic infractions whatsoever. If a cop turns on his blue lights etc. behind you DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO STOP?
Yes.
It doesn't matter that you (think) you have committed no infraction and thus the order to stop (and the flashing blue lights etc. ARE an order to yield to the right and stop) is an "unlawful" request (actually demand)
You have no way of knowing WHY the cop is blue lighting you. It may be , like in my example, that he has RAS of some crime you have no knowledge of.
If you don't stop, you are committing a crime. Groovy
In SOME states, you do have the right to resist an unlawful arrest, but the burden is entirely on you to be sure it's an ulawful arrest. I don't know what state you live in. Check your state case law. In states where it IS legal to resist an unlawful arrest, it's usually from the common law fwiw.
As for the "unlawful" order... in 20+ yrs of police work, it's been very very very rare that somebody refuses a lawful order (I don't issue unlawful orders) that I have given. Usually, if they initially refuse, I give them the reason WHY I am issuing the order and the consequences of their repeated refusal. And with a little verbal judo, they ALMOST always comply.
One example was we were investigating a possible DV incident (neighbor called when he heard woman crying "help me" from inside the house, etc.) and the male 1/2 was standing in the kitchen immediately next to one of those knife blocks (wooden block that holds a bunch of knives). Basic officer safety and common sense tell me that I am going to ask the guy to step from the kitchen and talk to me here in the living room, where he is not within lunge distance of multiple deadly weapons. We *are* justified in issuing orders like that in cases like that, and I have continually seen courts uphold obstructing etc. arrests when people refuse to comply with same. Anyway, the guy went into a long rant about how it was HIS house and I couldn't tell him where to stand in HIS house bla bla bla. Actually, I can. And I'm not issuing the order to be capricious or a power hungry jerk. I am issuing the order because I have the right to use ReASONABLE means to "make the scene safe" and courts have upheld this time and time again. I explained to him that I was just wanting to move so that he was not within lunge distance of multiple weapons (we all know the reaction time etc. rules for somebody armed with a knife and your gun is in a holster) and that if he refused he was subjecting himself to arrest/charges whereas if he complied we could likely get on with our threshold inquiry and be out of his hair in a few minutes and then he could stand next to his knives to his heart's content.
He complied.
I've had numerous instances that occur in homes where I have the legal right to enter w/o a warrant (under various doctrines, to include community caretaking doctrine, exigency, etc. etc) and the VAST majority of the time I gain voluntary compliance. On maybe 1/100 such incidents I get a refusal and a door being shut on me, and I end up having to make an arrest. And yes, the arrests have always held up. The example I gave recently was where a guy was passed out/dead etc. on the couch, surrounded by beer can and hard liquor , appeared to be underage, etc. and I requested the party at the door, the homeowner, wake him up so I could see if he was ok. Homeowner refused. I told him either he do it, or I do it, but one way or the other, I needed to talk to that kid and I was perfectl y willing to stand outside his house while HE woke the guy up, but if he refused, I would have to make entry t do so and he would be subject to arrest. He refused and tried to shut the door on me. I forced entry and made contact with the kid on the couch. Turns out he had a BAC level that was near the LD50 (iow potentially fatal), I found out later and my getting him prompt medical attention was the right thing to do. His parents thanked me effusively. the homeowner got arrested for obstructing and a liquor violation, and yes THAT held up in court, too. He may have thought it to be an unlawful order (To allow me entry). He was wrong. - community caretaking doctrine, as well as a side order of in loco parentis!
I know my case law and I know my oath (to protect and serve as in the above example... it was about protecting somebody's health and safety and I take that oath very seriously) and I am not about issuing UNlawful orders.
There will always be that small percentage of people who will refuse to comply, and who will even do so after I use my considerable verbal judo skillz (I almost always get compliance. Communication skillz are very important and you learn a lot in 20 yrs about how to gain voluntary compliance and I also learned a lot of psychology in grad school which helps too) and that's their choice/ if they want to obstruct themselves into an arrest, more power to 'em
I've never been sued, I've never had an arrest of that type that didn't hold up, and I will continue to protect people's persons and safety and I will issue orders when necessary to further that goal, orders that are entirely lawful
And there will always be that tiny minority (usually either very drunk or very high ime) who will refuse to comply and they have nobody to blame but themselves for earning a criminal citation or a trip to jail.
If somebody told you to stop recording a public meeting, that was of course an illegal order (it's in the very definition - PUBLIC meeting).
I'm talkin' lawful orders. And again, whether an order is lawful or not is tangential to whether you PERCEIVE it as lawful. In some cases, it may be obvious (a la the recording scenario) but in most cases it is not
If you are bebopping down the sidewalk, doing nothing wrong, and a cop stops you at gunpoint and orders you to raise your hands above your head, do you comply? You may ASSUME it's some moron cop unlawfully overereacting to your OCing, but you don't KNOW that. You may be a criminal suspect in a robbery or whatnot. Don't assume.
Regardless of your bogus statistics, I know that in my case, my orders ARE lawful, I know that the overwhelming majority of people comply with same, I know that when they don't comply that every time I have taken enforcement action pursuant to that refusal - theresult was a criminal conviction, and I know that if I issue an order there is a damn good reason for me to do so. I don't lie . I don't issue unlawful orders. I don't throw my authoritah around - I only issue orders when damn well justified, and I expect and get compliance almost every time
I would WAY rather get compliance than make an arrest. Making an arrest takes me out of my district and leaves the districts even MORE undestaffed than we are already. It's not done to prove a point. It's done in the course of justice. Good cops would WAY rather use their mouth than their pen, and would way rather use their pen than their handcuffs. Sometimes, I get lucky and can go a week without an arrest. Groovy.
I've actually got my dept. laptop out right now and am looking through the case reports I have filed and arrests for "obstruction" are very very rare. Thank god the overwhelming majority of the public are good people, that they listen to reason, that they comply with police, and that they view us as honest and professional. It makes the job rewarding.
Feel free to resist lawful orders, and feel free to spend the night in jail if you do.
