• 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.

Help! Deadly force/Civil Rights...

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Simply put, if you even believe for a half a second that reasonable resistance against a law enforcement officer is going to prevent an illegal arrest, then you're plain daft. The cop WILL escalate his force, no matter how wrong he is going to be, so it will ultimately result in deadly force, period.

WRONG. Though it is a gamble. Read on:

"The United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past
deciding upon the matter, has recognized that "at common Law", a
person had the right to "resist the illegal attempt to arrest him."
John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529

If I were approached by law enforcement officers and arrested for conducting law-abiding activities such as carring a firearm in public (OC is allowed here in Colorado), I would comply with them completely!

Afterwards, I'd promptly sue their ass for wrongful arrest and/or prosecution. Public officials MAY NOT unlawfully detain or arrest citizens engaged in lawful behavior.

If they do so, everyone in the chain is subject to civil suit, and as much as I applaud their sacrifice over the years (I did much the same in the military), I reconize that they subject themselves to such scrutiny when they devolve to such horrendous levels of behaviour.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
And, I ask you again, please cite a Supreme Court decision that says that DEADLY force may be used to stop ANY civil rights violation.

Care to answer this time?

Would you please calm down and read post #6.

DKSuddeth has kindly done the resarch and cited case law from SCOTUS that gives at least boundaries of when deadly force may be used to resist a violation of at least certain civil rights.

Personally I'm off to study those cases and increase my scope of knowledge. DKSuddeth, I owe you. If we ever meet I will be buying.

stay safe.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
So, according to SCOTUS, simply say "I am a law-abiding citizen engaged in lawful activity. I am resisting arrest based on John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529"

I read it. Seriously! You cannot legally resist arrest. You CAN legally protest your position throughout, though, and if you both comply with the arrest while citing the above case, you stand a good chance of being exonerated.

Provided you have no priors...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Even though the situation may escalate to the point where deadly force would be justified 999 times out of 1000 (and, I don't for a second think the real number is anywhere near that high), then one had better not use deadly force that one time out of 1000.

Which means that deadly force cannot be used to prevent any rights violation, only those that have escalated to the point where, under State law, deadly force is justifiable--generally, that life or limb is in imminent danger.

One more thing: You not only have to be right; you will have to convince a judge or a jury that you were right to resist.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Would you please calm down and read post #6.

DKSuddeth has kindly done the resarch and cited case law from SCOTUS that gives at least boundaries of when deadly force may be used to resist a violation of at least certain civil rights.

Personally I'm off to study those cases and increase my scope of knowledge. DKSuddeth, I owe you. If we ever meet I will be buying.

stay safe.

Would you get off your high horse and read post #8.

I am replying to the contention that State law, which defines the parameters under which deadly force may be used, has no bearing on the amount of force that may be used to resist.

The cited cases do not say that DEADLY force can be used to resist ANY rights violation. Yet, by saying that the State laws mean nothing in the face of the court rulings, the implication is that the State has no say, under law, how much force is justified. As I pointed out, responding with gunfire to the words, "You are under arrest," is not justified.

My point here is to caution folks against the rash implication that DEADLY force can be used to resist ANY rights violation.

When I ask for a court ruling to back up that seeming assertion, there are two rational replies (and an infinite number of irrational ones). Those replies are: (1) Posting a ruling that confirms the assertion*, or (2) Acknowledging that DEADLY force cannot be used to resist just ANY rights violation, only those violations that have escalated to the point where DEADLY force is justifiable.

Instead, the argument is continued in such a way as to leave unsuspecting folks the impression that they may escalate to DEADLY force just because their rights are being violated.

More and more I see this site dragging innocent folks down a path where they will do something stupid simply because they were convinced by big-talking posters here that it was something they had a right to do.


*That assertion being that DEADLY force may by used to resist any rights violation.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
So, according to SCOTUS, simply say "I am a law-abiding citizen engaged in lawful activity. I am resisting arrest based on John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529"

I read it. Seriously! You cannot legally resist arrest. You CAN legally protest your position throughout, though, and if you both comply with the arrest while citing the above case, you stand a good chance of being exonerated.

Provided you have no priors...

The point of the ruling is that an arrest being unlawful is a justification to a resisting charge. However, as with any other justifiable use of force, it had better be commensurate with the threat to you, or you will face other charges.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Ok, let's summarize:

1. The use of deadly force for personal protection is granted to the citizen.

2. Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force in the line of duty.

3. When a law enforcement officer arrives on scene, they have the ball. I'm pretty dang-well trained when it comes to self-defense, but when it comes to enforcing the law, commensurate with all the rights, rules, and legalities thereof, they're better trained than I am.

So - when they arrive, whatever's going on is THEY'RE responsible. They want it, and they own it. They've got it! Six ways to Sunday. My tax dollars at work, and more power to them. :)

Now - suppose some perp encroaches the scene blasting away. Do you really think I'm going to hesitate to drop his ass, even if preserving my own life requires plucking the sidearm from a cop too stunned to react appropriately?

Oh, hell no. I'll stop the perp by any and all means necessary, while endeavoring to preserve, to the maximum extent possible, any unnecessary loss of life (collateral damage).

Bad guy down. Me, hands in the air, weapon on the ground.

That's the ideal situation. More than likely I'll simply tackle and hopefully disarm the perp and the LEOs will sort things out later.

To all LEOs, I'm sorry in advance. I will never take over your jobs! I admire and respect what you do. Please note, however, you're not always around, and even when you are, sometimes things may not be what they seem.

Please keep that in mind if you ever arrive to the scene of an altercation to which I am a party. I'll do my best to let you know what's going on, though I suspect 9,999/1,000 you'll simply tell me to stand down.

Fair enough! However, if said perp rises to the occasion and presents himself as a clear and present danger to either myself or the officers around me, I will act in accordance with federal, state, and local laws, which, if I'm not mistaken, allow anyone in our 50 United States to defend our lives by any means necessary.

I think my point at this point is mainly directed to the LEOs: You have some reluctant friends out here. I'll never try to get into your game. But I'll never allow myself to be a mort, either, nor will I allow anyone close by to wid their lives of family and friends.

Betting back to the OP, how in the heck are you going to know?

More soon...
 

SaintJacque

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
WRONG. Though it is a gamble. Read on:



If I were approached by law enforcement officers and arrested for conducting law-abiding activities such as carring a firearm in public (OC is allowed here in Colorado), I would comply with them completely!

Afterwards, I'd promptly sue their ass for wrongful arrest and/or prosecution. Public officials MAY NOT unlawfully detain or arrest citizens engaged in lawful behavior.

If they do so, everyone in the chain is subject to civil suit, and as much as I applaud their sacrifice over the years (I did much the same in the military), I reconize that they subject themselves to such scrutiny when they devolve to such horrendous levels of behaviour.

I understand what you're saying and, in all honesty, I would probably do the same. However, let's be clear about this: false arrest by a police officer is no less the rape of liberty. The "officer" becomes a tyrant, undeserving of respect. The fact that you or I would bend over and accept the theft of our liberty does not mean that we do not have the natural, God given right to resist with all necessary force.
 

SaintJacque

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Ok, let's summarize:

1. The use of deadly force for personal protection is granted to the citizen.

2. Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force in the line of duty.

3. When a law enforcement officer arrives on scene, they have the ball. I'm pretty dang-well trained when it comes to self-defense, but when it comes to enforcing the law, commensurate with all the rights, rules, and legalities thereof, they're better trained than I am.

So - when they arrive, whatever's going on is THEY'RE responsible. They want it, and they own it. They've got it! Six ways to Sunday. My tax dollars at work, and more power to them. :)

No one is better trained in my liberty then me, and it's solely the responsibility of the individual to protect his/her liberty. The police are not required to protect you, it's their discretion whether or not you're worth saving.

In other words: cops are great, but you can't rely on them to respect your liberty. For that, you have only the force of arms.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
So, according to SCOTUS, simply say "I am a law-abiding citizen engaged in lawful activity. I am resisting arrest based on John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529"

I read it. Seriously! You cannot legally resist arrest. You CAN legally protest your position throughout, though, and if you both comply with the arrest while citing the above case, you stand a good chance of being exonerated.

Provided you have no priors...

how many cases need to be posted before you accept that you are wrong? were the half dozen + not enough? maybe you need two dozen? four dozen? how about actual state penal code citations?
 

PavePusher

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,096
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
(We the people) "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

SNIP

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)


Thanks! That's exactly what I needed!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
(We the people) "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

SNIP

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

Thanks! That's exactly what I needed!

Since this has been raised again, let me make sure that no one thinks that they may use DEADLY force to resist ANY rights violation.

What criteria will the court use to determine whether killing an officer is murder, manslaughter, or no offense at all? The appropriateness of the level of force used. How will they measure that appropriateness? Current State law on justification.

If you use deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest, you will be arrested and tried for that action. You, in your affirmative defense, will have to show that the arrest was unlawful and that killing the officer was an appropriate response. That won't be easy.

So, unless you believe that the arrest will, even if you don't resist, result in grave bodily harm or death, I recommend you tell the officer that you believe the arrest to be unlawful, but that you won't resist. Keep your recorder going.
 

SaintJacque

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Since this has been raised again, let me make sure that no one thinks that they may use DEADLY force to resist ANY rights violation.

I agree here. Obviously one shouldn't use lethal force against a clearly non-lethal force. However there is a wide spectrum of force between lethal force and non-violent non-cooperation.

If an arrest is unlawful why should I cooperate?

Put your hands behind your back. No.
Get in the squad car. No.
Tell me you name/address/etc. No.

Just because you're not shooting doesn't mean you can't resist.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I agree here. Obviously one shouldn't use lethal force against a clearly non-lethal force. However there is a wide spectrum of force between lethal force and non-violent non-cooperation.

If an arrest is unlawful why should I cooperate?

Put your hands behind your back. No.
Get in the squad car. No.
Tell me you name/address/etc. No.

Just because you're not shooting doesn't mean you can't resist.

True. However, this thread is specifically about the use of DEADLY force to prevent rights violations, and some have clearly implied that deadly force can generally be used in such situations.

Also, I would disagree with you on unlawful arrests. If you resist, you are asking for trouble. It won't be your opinion as to whether your arrest was lawful that will matter. It will be the prosecutor, who can choose to prosecute or not, the judge, who will make rulings during your case and will instruct the jury, and the jury, who will make the ultimate decision as to your guilt, whose opinions will matter.

Even if the arrest is unlawful, unless you have reason to fear for life or limb, announce that the arrest is unlawful, but that you will not resist, and keep that recorder going.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
True. However, this thread is specifically about the use of DEADLY force to prevent rights violations, and some have clearly implied that deadly force can generally be used in such situations.

Also, I would disagree with you on unlawful arrests. If you resist, you are asking for trouble. It won't be your opinion as to whether your arrest was lawful that will matter. It will be the prosecutor, who can choose to prosecute or not, the judge, who will make rulings during your case and will instruct the jury, and the jury, who will make the ultimate decision as to your guilt, whose opinions will matter.

Even if the arrest is unlawful, unless you have reason to fear for life or limb, announce that the arrest is unlawful, but that you will not resist, and keep that recorder going.

this is part of the problem in todays society. Your attitude about not resisting or complying while resisting verbally is why cops in states like Illinois just arrest people and let the courts sort it out. It is most definitely an infringement on your liberty. be done with it. stand up for your rights.

as an aside, if you think, again, for one second that simply telling a cop that this is an unlawful arrest is going to make him go away, you're insane. he is going to persist, then go hands on, etc.

also, if you think simply complying and then suing for false arrest is going to do you some good, please tell me the percentage of cases that actually find officers guilty of unlawful arrests. nearly everytime I read a story, i always end up reading the phrase 'good faith exception'.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
this is part of the problem in todays society. Your attitude about not resisting or complying while resisting verbally is why cops in states like Illinois just arrest people and let the courts sort it out. It is most definitely an infringement on your liberty. be done with it. stand up for your rights.

as an aside, if you think, again, for one second that simply telling a cop that this is an unlawful arrest is going to make him go away, you're insane. he is going to persist, then go hands on, etc.

also, if you think simply complying and then suing for false arrest is going to do you some good, please tell me the percentage of cases that actually find officers guilty of unlawful arrests. nearly everytime I read a story, i always end up reading the phrase 'good faith exception'.

Once again, you are totally ignoring the possibility that you could be wrong about the arrest being unlawful. Your judgment in the matter does not count. The officer's judgment will be given more credit than yours in court.

You don't have to be guilty to be arrested. Police officers can be mistaken, and still lawfully arrest! If you resist, you may be innocent of the underlying crime, but guilty of resisting!

Folks. It will be your neck on the line if you accept the advice to resist. Please, make a rational decision.

If you are looking for the best outcome for you and the worst outcome for the LEO who may or may not be unlawfully arresting you, follow the advice I have given. Most likely, the outcome of the underlying charge will remain unchanged. Any discipline to the officer will remain unchanged. However, you could end up facing jail time that you otherwise would not have.

Choose your battles carefully.

Moving on.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Unless complying with the arrest would threaten your life or limb resisting with deadly force would be a bad idea. I do remember reading however, about a case where deadly force was used and the person was found to have acted correctly and the agency was in deep dodo. It was from the 80s I think and I can't remember enough to look it up right now...
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Unless complying with the arrest would threaten your life or limb resisting with deadly force would be a bad idea. I do remember reading however, about a case where deadly force was used and the person was found to have acted correctly and the agency was in deep dodo. It was from the 80s I think and I can't remember enough to look it up right now...
You talkin about the Ruby Ridge standoff? But that happened in 92.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Unless complying with the arrest would threaten your life or limb resisting with deadly force would be a bad idea. I do remember reading however, about a case where deadly force was used and the person was found to have acted correctly and the agency was in deep dodo. It was from the 80s I think and I can't remember enough to look it up right now...

I think it was in Texas.

Any lawyer will tell you not to resist but not to comply either I think mainly for your safety. But as ruled by the supreme court in several different cases, you have the right "up to the use of deadly force" in resisting a wrongful arrest.

If you understand how our legal system is supposed to you would understand the supreme courts decisions. This isn't something to take lightly though, I read many of the cases and I get the sense that it was really the courts trying to reign in LEA's or anyone with arresting power from abusing that power against other civilians.
 
Top