• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A name every American should become familiar with.

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
John Bad Elk



John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an individual had the right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest and was entitled to a jury instruction to that effect.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Uh, that was like a hundred years ago dude. That don't apply in today's modern LE environment.
RSMo 575.150.4. It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.

http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57500001502.html
http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57500001501.html
Ya know whats missing from this statute, and a great many others, that criminal penalties such as:

RSMo 565.130 False Imprisonment (before 31 Dec 2016)
RSMo 565.120 Felonious Restraint (before 31 Dec 2016)
RSMo 565.110/120/130 Kidnapping (after 1 Jan 2017)

Remember, a cop can kidnap you and that would not be determined until the unlawful arrest is actually found to have been unlawful. No cop shop is ever gunna charge a cop with kidnapping.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Uh, that was like a hundred years ago dude. That don't apply in today's modern LE environment.Ya know whats missing from this statute, and a great many others, that criminal penalties such as:

RSMo 565.130 False Imprisonment (before 31 Dec 2016)
RSMo 565.120 Felonious Restraint (before 31 Dec 2016)
RSMo 565.110/120/130 Kidnapping (after 1 Jan 2017)

Remember, a cop can kidnap you and that would not be determined until the unlawful arrest is actually found to have been unlawful. No cop shop is ever gunna charge a cop with kidnapping.

This is similar to a citizen's arrest. Relief of a wrongful citizen's arrest is usually the same as a wrongful arrest of a LEO ~ a civil matter. So if you have no money (can't get blood from a stone) one could, in theory, citizen arrest everyone/anyone that the citizen believes has violated a law that has a felony punishment and really not suffer anything. Of course, different states have different takes on citizen's arrest ~ so see yours for details.
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
Uh, that was like a hundred years ago dude. That don't apply in today's modern LE environment.Ya know whats missing from this statute, and a great many others, that criminal penalties such as:

RSMo 565.130 False Imprisonment (before 31 Dec 2016)
RSMo 565.120 Felonious Restraint (before 31 Dec 2016)
RSMo 565.110/120/130 Kidnapping (after 1 Jan 2017)

Remember, a cop can kidnap you and that would not be determined until the unlawful arrest is actually found to have been unlawful. No cop shop is ever gunna charge a cop with kidnapping.

If a hundred year old legal statement doesn't apply to modern times then what about a 223 year old amendment?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
John Bad Elk



John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an individual had the right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest and was entitled to a jury instruction to that effect.

My state has a specific statue that says one cannot resist; but I don't think it would pass muster even under our right to defend ourselves.

Otherwise, any cop can walk up to you and shoot you in the head or choke you to death and you're supposed to say "thank you, may I have another?"??.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
Read my post again and you just may, maybe, understand the point being made...I will not provide assistance.

Here. I have no pressing engagements for the next few minutes. I'll do it.

O.K., Timmy. Go get your big boy chair and have a seat.......

At no point did he say the law is irrelevant because it is old. (Which is the meaning you read into it.

He said "That don't (sic) apply in today's modern LE environment." meaning: Even though you may be in the right, you will most likely be killed, and the victors will write the history books.

Whereupon, the truth of the matter will be "He resisted arrest, went for his gun, and was killed before he killed me."

Nobody will blink an eye. Who will contradict the reasoning of this explanation? Not you. You're dead, remember? They could even have it on videotape. Video would probably even support the (known only to your cooling corpse) false narrative.

No. In today's modern LE environment this antique law is exactly that: antique.

It is still applicable. It is still relevant. It is still just.

It is NOW more likely to get you killed with your face plastered on the news next to the words "attempted cop killer" and nobody the wiser.

Ever heard of being "dead wrong"?

Well, being "dead right" isn't much of an improvement.

(Did I just coin a phrase?)
 
Top