Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Huge case decision regarding stops --- IMO it is ...

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Huge case decision regarding stops --- IMO it is ...

    http://fourthamendment.com/?p=12315#more-12315

    IN: The resisting law enforcement statute has to be construed to require the order to stop be lawful and be based on RS or PC

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    LOL....just what many have been saying to the apologist, it isn't just up to the judges to decide RAS or PC.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Cops will always err on the side of letting a judge, or prosecutor, sorting it out. All a cop needs to "articulate" is "well, I thought this or that..."

    "Oh, OK, well, you were wrong, so let the citizen go and we'll take are chances in a civil action, a judge will sort it out for us."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Of course they will and they will continue to. Yet their faulty logic that they are not doing anything wrong or illegal or unconstitutional because its up to a judge is shown to be false by this ruling.

    It also strengthens the case against them when a civilian who resists an unlawful arrest is arrested or charged anyway.

    It also shows those who say we don't have the right to resist unlawful arrests/detainment to be out right wrong.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Huge for Indiana. I wish it were case law for the rest of us.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Yard Sale View Post
    Huge for Indiana. I wish it were case law for the rest of us.
    Just carry some dirt from Indiana ... (that works, right?)


    The decision is spot on IMO.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    You guys are kidding right?

    No s*** the arrest or stop has to be legit in order for the charge if resisting said arrest is legit.....

    Pretty sure dudes on this forum have won lawsuits (rightfully so) for bogus stops.

    If you resist at the time you will be subdued.. But if charged it will be tossed if if the stop was bogus.... Wow.... Big news here...

    Its how it SHOULD be and is...

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    You guys are kidding right?

    No s*** the arrest or stop has to be legit in order for the charge if resisting said arrest is legit.....

    Pretty sure dudes on this forum have won lawsuits (rightfully so) for bogus stops.

    If you resist at the time you will be subdued.. But if charged it will be tossed if if the stop was bogus.... Wow.... Big news here...

    Its how it SHOULD be and is...

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    First, I can't parse the second sentence.

    Second, you might be delusional. You can resist in Indiana (or soon will be able to). They added that for a reason. You're suggesting a 'stop 'em all, arrest what you can, let God sort it out' mentality. How do you 'resist' a stop for a taillight out when you can't get out of the car to check? You can't. It's carte blanche for a stop 'em all plan.

    So, since all bogus charges are tossed, it's all ok in Cop Town (a mythical place where Sly Stallone lives).

    Why waste the court's time making bogus charges? Hmm.

    There's a pretty small number of dudes (given the population of the US). Amazing how enough of them have had bogus charges AND won lawsuits in the small subgroup of OC-ers and firearm fans who use a computer that you have a feel for it being a fair assumption. In fact, people who know the law and know how to behave are the last thing many (not all) cops want.

    I do find you a fair and reasonable poster, but I'd have thought cuff 'em and stuff 'em and let a judge sort it out was a bad way to go. It engenders less respect for people whom we should really have the highest respect, like Military Vets.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    First, I can't parse the second sentence.

    Second, you might be delusional. You can resist in Indiana (or soon will be able to). They added that for a reason. You're suggesting a 'stop 'em all, arrest what you can, let God sort it out' mentality. How do you 'resist' a stop for a taillight out when you can't get out of the car to check? You can't. It's carte blanche for a stop 'em all plan.

    So, since all bogus charges are tossed, it's all ok in Cop Town (a mythical place where Sly Stallone lives).

    Why waste the court's time making bogus charges? Hmm.

    There's a pretty small number of dudes (given the population of the US). Amazing how enough of them have had bogus charges AND won lawsuits in the small subgroup of OC-ers and firearm fans who use a computer that you have a feel for it being a fair assumption. In fact, people who know the law and know how to behave are the last thing many (not all) cops want.

    I do find you a fair and reasonable poster, but I'd have thought cuff 'em and stuff 'em and let a judge sort it out was a bad way to go. It engenders less respect for people whom we should really have the highest respect, like Military Vets.
    Let me clarify... Cuff them and stuff them is BAD way to go.

    My point is/was that the charges already get dropped if the stop was bad (as they should) so what does this gain?

    Let me put it this way, because im not from IN so I'm probably completely jacked up, before this law.... If someone was arrested for something completely bogus, bad stop, bad arrest , but they get charged with "resisting" and it goes to court..... They find the stop was bad the arrest was bad.... They drop all charges based on stop being bad... They would've kept the resisting charge?

    Cop sees guy walking down street. Grabs guy. Makes up bogus charge. Guy gets mad and resists. Cop tacks on resisting. Guy goes to court says never did it. Judge says "ay d bag cop you violated his rights not guilty" . The resisting would get tossed too..... No?

    See my confusion yet? Is there case law for IN that shows a guy being unlawfully stopped, charges dropped, but yet still convicted of resisting?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Is someone still trying to deny we have the right to resist?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Is someone still trying to deny we have the right to resist?
    Is someone toting a case from evil statist judges in black robes? Thought it didn't matter what they said? Though they just simply side with corruption and stealing power and the sky is falling and run for the hills and destroying liberties.....

    Read what was posted and still haven't seen where it says you have the right to resist. It just says the charges will be dropped if the original stop was bogus.... Which is how its SUPPOSED TO BE. I asked and am waiting for someone to clarify and explain if somehow before this ruling. Guys were being convicted of ONLY resisting arrest.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    The cop will not be held to account, other than via a civil action (cop not held to account) for the unlawful acts. Essentially, a citizen does all of those things and various criminal charges would be applied to the citizen and rightfully so. Cop's get a pass, every time. Criminal charges are never filed for those criminal acts.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The cop will not be held to account, other than via a civil action (cop not held to account) for the unlawful acts. Essentially, a citizen does all of those things and various criminal charges would be applied to the citizen and rightfully so. Cop's get a pass, every time. Criminal charges are never filed for those criminal acts.
    False imprisonment. 565.130.
    1. A person commits the crime of false imprisonment if he knowingly restrains another unlawfully and without consent so as to interfere substantially with his liberty.
    2. False imprisonment is a class A misdemeanor...

    Assault in the third degree. 565.070.
    1. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:
    (1) The person attempts to cause or recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
    (3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or
    (5) The person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative; or
    3. ...is guilty of a class C misdemeanor.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Is someone toting a case from evil statist judges in black robes? Thought it didn't matter what they said? Though they just simply side with corruption and stealing power and the sky is falling and run for the hills and destroying liberties.....

    Read what was posted and still haven't seen where it says you have the right to resist. It just says the charges will be dropped if the original stop was bogus.... Which is how its SUPPOSED TO BE. I asked and am waiting for someone to clarify and explain if somehow before this ruling. Guys were being convicted of ONLY resisting arrest.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

    LOL....the right to resist was there long before, these specific statist in black robes made their opinion.



    No it isn't supposed to be we have to redress the action in court for the charges to be dropped apparently you didn't read the decision.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Moot point. Cops will not change their behavior as a result of this opinion.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Moot point. Cops will not change their behavior as a result of this opinion.
    They won't have to -- they'll be eliminated via the legal means now.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Moot point. Cops will not change their behavior as a result of this opinion.
    Of course not. The job now is to educate folks that they don't have to just bend over and take it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Here in TX, the law specifically states that resisting even an unlawful arrest is still a crime....so very sad.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    Here in TX, the law specifically states that resisting even an unlawful arrest is still a crime....so very sad.
    That's the law that was being decided in the Indiana case ...

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    You guys are kidding right?

    No s*** the arrest or stop has to be legit in order for the charge if resisting said arrest is legit.....

    SNIP
    I've been charged with obstruction of an officer when I was stopped for simply OC while walking.

    They wanted to know who I was and I basically told them it was none of their business.

    I was cuffed, search, put into the police car, my stuff was taken from me.

    No charges at the time of the stop, but after realizing it was a bad stop the persecutor decided to charge me months later.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I've been charged with obstruction of an officer when I was stopped for simply OC while walking.

    They wanted to know who I was and I basically told them it was none of their business.

    I was cuffed, search, put into the police car, my stuff was taken from me.

    No charges at the time of the stop, but after realizing it was a bad stop the persecutor decided to charge me months later.
    And result if charges were? Dropped I hope/assume.

    Also hope you got a settlement if it was that cut and dry.

    Edit: on topic if you decided to resist physically would it have changed anything? If you decided to throw a punch or pull away or even run away do you think it would have changed anything?

    Never understood this line of thinking. Again we are not talking about something extreme like were physically beating you or attempting to kill you. Stick with the facts you gave. They approach "what's your name" you respond "kick rocks" they arrest. You think/know the arrrest is bogus at the time.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Primus; 07-04-2014 at 06:12 PM.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post

    Never understood this line of thinking. Again we are not talking about something extreme like were physically beating you or attempting to kill you. Stick with the facts you gave. They approach "what's your name" you respond "kick rocks" they arrest. You think/know the arrrest is bogus at the time.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    I would assume that if a cop was arresting me for something that was not a crime, then what else would he do once I'm handcuffed? I would not wait to find out. At that point, its kidnapping. A felony.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    And result if charges were? Dropped I hope/assume.

    Also hope you got a settlement if it was that cut and dry.

    Edit: on topic if you decided to resist physically would it have changed anything? If you decided to throw a punch or pull away or even run away do you think it would have changed anything?

    Never understood this line of thinking. Again we are not talking about something extreme like were physically beating you or attempting to kill you. Stick with the facts you gave. They approach "what's your name" you respond "kick rocks" they arrest. You think/know the arrrest is bogus at the time.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    It took way too many trips to court before the persecutor agreed to drop the charges.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    A normal person who isn't constitutionally restricted couldn't do these things and resistance and force at the time of the assault and kidnapping would be justified.

    Yet somehow people suddenly think its ok if the actors were state costumes and shiny badges?

    The principles of the 2A would disagree with that.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    It took way too many trips to court before the persecutor agreed to drop the charges.
    Do you elect your DA?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •