interesting distinction

peter nap said:

If your being detained, your not free to leave. If you walk away, expect to be cuffed.
The biggest distinction between a detention and an arrest Is the detention is temporary and can only last a "reasonable" amount of time. There have been a number of court rulings as to what reasonable is. The last one I remember eliminated making the person wait for a dog to arrive in absence of an evidence of a crime .
That used to be a dodge to search vehicles. The officer would say, if you refuse I'll call for a drug dog but it'll be a couple of hours before it can get here.

Click to expand...

I know and have been through almost every trick leos use. I was trying to see if what was being taught was actually the law.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

All American Nightmare said:

I know and have been through almost every trick leos use. I was trying to see if what was being taught was actually the law.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The point is not if what they are being taught (formal academy, training officer, or post TO OJT) is actually the law. The point is if what they are being taught is against the law.

Cops can lie to you about just about anything and get away with it. Including (or is that "especially") what the law is. That has been known since before even I was young.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

The point is not if what they are being taught (formal academy, training officer, or post TO OJT) is actually the law. The point is if what they are being taught is against the law.

Cops can lie to you about just about anything and get away with it. Including (or is that "especially") what the law is. That has been known since before even I was young.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I was trying to prove that

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

That's really interesting because English Common Law, as understood in the State of Victoria in Australia defines any detention as an arrest and any unlawful detention is an unlawful arrest, and thus to resist it is lawful.

English Common Law is also the basis for Common Law in Virginia so it is interesting to see how both are interpreted differently?

peter nap said:

That used to be a dodge to search vehicles. The officer would say, if you refuse I'll call for a drug dog but it'll be a couple of hours before it can get here.

Click to expand...

This was shown on the OCDO thread of the criminal justice college girl getting Tazered by the Border patrol in upstate Ny - inside the 100 mile range of the Canadian border. Federales didnt like her impertinence at recording their illegal search and request for ID.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been pondering this. If you can't resist an unlawful detention, then they can essentially disarm you, if you are disarmed then how can you resist an unlawful arrest?

The notion that a detention is not an arrest is absurd and goes against English Common Law.

Lafayette said:

That's really interesting because English Common Law, as understood in the State of Victoria in Australia defines any detention as an arrest and any unlawful detention is an unlawful arrest, and thus to resist it is lawful.

English Common Law is also the basis for Common Law in Virginia so it is interesting to see how both are interpreted differently?

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

I've been pondering this. If you can't resist an unlawful detention, then they can essentially disarm you, if you are disarmed then how can you resist an unlawful arrest?

The notion that a detention is not an arrest is absurd and goes against English Common Law.

Click to expand...

You would do well to bring this up for discussion with the courts. Too bad they do not offer opportunities to do that in a detached intellectual fashion, but prefer to do so while adjudicating a criminal charge.

Hold out one hand and fill it with what you think is the way things ought to be. Hold out the other hand and fill it with how things actually are. Figure out which one is more likely to hit you in the face.

Just for my edification and education, why do you need to be armed (in the sense that we usually think of that, with a firearm or some sort of blade) in order to resist an unlawful arrest? Further, explain why the resisting can only take place at the time, if I understand you correctly, when the cop first says "You are under arrest" or "You are not free to go" or merely "Assume the position" as they are putting the cuffs on.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

You would do well to bring this up for discussion with the courts. Too bad they do not offer opportunities to do that in a detached intellectual fashion, but prefer to do so while adjudicating a criminal charge.

Hold out one hand and fill it with what you think is the way things ought to be. Hold out the other hand and fill it with how things actually are. Figure out which one is more likely to hit you in the face.

Just for my edification and education, why do you need to be armed (in the sense that we usually think of that, with a firearm or some sort of blade) in order to resist an unlawful arrest? Further, explain why the resisting can only take place at the time, if I understand you correctly, when the cop first says "You are under arrest" or "You are not free to go" or merely "Assume the position" as they are putting the cuffs on.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

You don't need to be armed to resist an unlawful arrest. Though, the fact is that you're going to be less likely to be able to successfully defend yourself against people who are armed with firearms and attacking, when you yourself are not in possession of one.

With regards to the second question. You can resist an unlawful arrest for as long as you are being attacked in that manner.

"You are under arrest" and "You are not free to go" are very different, usually police will detain you for as long as they can possibly do so before they arrest you because they have to Mirandize you as soon as they arrest you. If they've already detained you, and placed you in handcuffs for 'officer safety' then they'd have disarmed you also, meaning that if they do at that point, unlawfully arrest you, you will have nothing to defend yourself with.

As for the courts, this is probably something that needs to be changed in the legislature.

Lafayette said:

You don't need to be armed to resist an unlawful arrest. Though, the fact is that you're going to be less likely to be able to successfully defend yourself against people who are armed with firearms and attacking, when you yourself are not in possession of one.

With regards to the second question. You can resist an unlawful arrest for as long as you are being attacked in that manner.

"You are under arrest" and "You are not free to go" are very different, usually police will detain you for as long as they can possibly do so before they arrest you because they have to Mirandize you as soon as they arrest you. If they've already detained you, and placed you in handcuffs for 'officer safety' then they'd have disarmed you also, meaning that if they do at that point, unlawfully arrest you, you will have nothing to defend yourself with.

As for the courts, this is probably something that needs to be changed in the legislature.

Click to expand...

Why give them a chance to lie like a rug? I think some recent ruling has changed the rules in this matter and may the odds be never in your favor

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

Lafayette said:

You don't need to be armed to resist an unlawful arrest. Though, the fact is that you're going to be less likely to be able to successfully defend yourself against people who are armed with firearms and attacking, when you yourself are not in possession of one.

With regards to the second question. You can resist an unlawful arrest for as long as you are being attacked in that manner.

"You are under arrest" and "You are not free to go" are very different, usually police will detain you for as long as they can possibly do so before they arrest you because they have to Mirandize you as soon as they arrest you. If they've already detained you, and placed you in handcuffs for 'officer safety' then they'd have disarmed you also, meaning that if they do at that point, unlawfully arrest you, you will have nothing to defend yourself with.

As for the courts, this is probably something that needs to be changed in the legislature.

Click to expand...

Where did you learn this claptrap? What TV show was it?

You get Mirandized at the beginning of a custodial detention. The cops can say stuff to you, makes jokes about your momma, and read the dictionary at you without having to inform you of your rights under Miranda. They can also leave you sitting on a bench/in a cell and never talk to you but exchange comments about the crime without "reading you your rights".

Going back to the beginning of your comments - where does it say you have a right to successfully resist an illegal arrest? It's not semantics.

"You are under arrest" and "You are not free to go" are very different

Click to expand...

So now you are agreeing with the rest of us? (Your posts #24 and #26)

Verrrrry interestink![/Artie Johnson voice]

stay safe.

Fencing is an art form where one can get the tip/point w/o obtaining room temperature.

Note that verbal fencing is an included variation oft included here.

peter nap said:

...

“The commonwealth contends that a rule permitting a detainee to resist an illegal detention would escalate the danger of violence to law enforcement officers engaged in the reasonable performance of their duties,” reads the ruling.

Click to expand...

Really? Does not a judge actually read what they tell their clerks to write.

These "judges" need to be tarred, feathered, and run outta town on a rail!

The most basic right anyone has is that to move freely without being restrained. Typically a cop would need RAS to restrain your ability to move freely. But cops may not like something you are doing... Filming taking pictures, open carrying, protesting, or whatever. They can use all sorts of bogus tactics to suggest that you COULD be a criminal. Today everyone is guilty first until proven innocent and let go. You no longer have the right to live free of armed government interaction until you do something wrong. By default we are all potential criminals and can be investigated at any time. The investigation will mean that government can prevent your free movement and if you "resist" or find their behavior to be because they don't like you carrying a gun or taking their pictures then they will shoot and kill you. Their demands an their safety trump your rights and your safety every time.

I feel like we need a refresher course on what it means to be free.

richarcm said:

The most basic right anyone has is that to move freely without being restrained. Typically a cop would need RAS to restrain your ability to move freely. But cops may not like something you are doing... Filming taking pictures, open carrying, protesting, or whatever. They can use all sorts of bogus tactics to suggest that you COULD be a criminal. Today everyone is guilty first until proven innocent and let go. You no longer have the right to live free of armed government interaction until you do something wrong. By default we are all potential criminals and can be investigated at any time. The investigation will mean that government can prevent your free movement and if you "resist" or find their behavior to be because they don't like you carrying a gun or taking their pictures then they will shoot and kill you. Their demands an their safety trump your rights and your safety every time.

I feel like we need a refresher course on what it means to be free.

Click to expand...

You paint with a very broad brush there and would seem to see the cup as draining, whereas I see it as filling. Life is good and getting better.

Grapeshot said:

You paint with a very broad brush there and would seem to see the cup as draining, whereas I see it as filling. Life is good and getting better.

Click to expand...

The very fact that there is a distinction creates the only conclusion possible, you are either free or you are arrested.

Resistance will be met with dire consequences even when the law is on the citizen's side. This is a fact and many documented case are readily available, with little effort to retrieve them required on the part of the researcher required.

"Accountability" is typically civil and not criminal, of little use (in reality) to effect the required change. There is rarely any accountability applied to the transgressor, specifically, tax payers bear the burden.

Parsing the discussion with the legal construct, title of this thread, inserted into the legal arena by those who make a living off of the law is to acknowledge reality yet do little to rectify this insult to liberty. The folks who make a living of the law business are not willing to expose themselves as we are exposed...they have rigged the system in their favor, if you will.

Poor "lawyering" does not excuse ignoring the obvious, by judges, because "procedural constraints" preclude placing the obvious in the official record...placing themselves on a hook, if you will.

Far too much time would be needed to use specifics, where generalities accomplish the task, to convey the fact that the system is again reinforced against liberty and the citizen.

Eliminate QI and exemptions in the law that shield the transgressor and the transgressor's boss.

http://www.judgesabovethelaw.com/

^ Don't disagree ^

Paying the piper should be uniformally applied to the individual. Finding a balance point can be difficult though.

Resistance will be met with dire consequences

Click to expand...

Why is there a fixation on a violent physical response as the only/preferred way to resist an illegal arrest? Especially as it seems to be well known and well understood that the consequences are more than likely going to be physically painful?

In general I am not opposed to pushing a cop's hands/arms/body away while saying "Leave me the hell alone" or "Get your hands off me" or even "This is an illegal arrest".

But everybody seems to be in agreement that once the cop has made the determination to arrest you it is going to happen whether you like/want it to or not.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Why is there a fixation on a violent physical response as the only/preferred way to resist an illegal arrest? Especially as it seems to be well known and well understood that the consequences are more than likely going to be physically painful?

In general I am not opposed to pushing a cop's hands/arms/body away while saying "Leave me the hell alone" or "Get your hands off me" or even "This is an illegal arrest".

But everybody seems to be in agreement that once the cop has made the determination to arrest you it is going to happen whether you like/want it to or not.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

[strike]Until you have been in a situation you have no right[/strike]...........never mind

skidmark said:

Why is there a fixation on a violent physical response as the only/preferred way to resist an illegal arrest? Especially as it seems to be well known and well understood that the consequences are more than likely going to be physically painful?

Click to expand...

Interesting, are you intimating that we can talk our way out of being unlawfully arrested by a law breaking cop?

In general I am not opposed to pushing a cop's hands/arms/body away while saying "Leave me the hell alone" or "Get your hands off me" or even "This is an illegal arrest".

But everybody seems to be in agreement that once the cop has made the determination to arrest you it is going to happen whether you like/want it to or not.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Really? In general, OK. Go ahead and "push" a wayward cop away from you and then post video of the incident so that we may all see how it is done...correctly.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/careers-training/articles/2013/06/arresting-active-resisters.aspx

See posts #37 and #39 for context.

OC for ME said:

Interesting, are you intimating that we can talk our way out of being unlawfully arrested by a law breaking cop?

Click to expand...

No, and you know it.

The place to argue violation of rights is in the courtroom, not on the streets.

But just for giggles, will you accept talking my way out of being arrested right then & right there? That seems to be part of my only claim to fame around here. (Yes, I was eventually arrested, but it took the cop and his private security buddy hours to figure out what charge to use and then find a magistrate that could not read very well.) And yes, I fought the arrest in the courtroom - twice! Once in criminal court and once via a civil suit. Won both times, too.

OC for ME said:

Really? In general, OK. Go ahead and "push" a wayward cop away from you and then post video of the incident so that we may all see how it is done...correctly.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/careers-training/articles/2013/06/arresting-active-resisters.aspx

Click to expand...

Again, taking things out of context. I said "In general I am not opposed to pushing a cop's hands/arms/body away while saying "Leave me the hell alone" or "Get your hands off me" or even "This is an illegal arrest".

But everybody seems to be in agreement that once the cop has made the determination to arrest you it is going to happen whether you like/want it to or not."

But as for your request for some video - I'm afraid you will have to wait a fairly long time as I tend not to do stuff that makes pushing wayward cops away necessary. I also seem to live and operate in an area where most cops are aware of/are learning what is legal in spite of their not liking it or wanting to go off on personal power trips. All of which is due to the folks other than myself who have stood up - in the courtroom - against the improper behavior.

stay safe.