-
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.
-
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.
If a cop wants to disarm you...
- Thread starter Bowers
- Start date
BaconMan
Regular Member
Here in Cali, these LEO do not care if you do not want to be stopped and have your weapon checked, they only care that if they do stop and check someone's weapon, that the weapon holder is acting within the law. Verbal objection to surrendering one's weapon is okay as long as it is done respectfully. Just know folks, here in Cali, if they want to check....LET THEM CHECK....
Nevada carrier
Regular Member
The most important thing I can add to this it simply, To resist will get you Tazed, arrested, and charged. objecting without resistance will not. It is best to argue the fourth amendment in court not at the scene. remember, anything you say can and will be used against you, so do not say anything beyond "I do not consent to any search and seizure nor will I answer any questions, however i will not resist." this is the only thing you should ever say to the police, and every time you say it, it should be followed with, "am I now free to go?"
One last word of caution, never, ever unholster your firearm. If the police want you disarmed, insist that they be the ones to unholster your firearm. If you are ordered to unholster it yourself, and refuse, an obstruction charge would be dismissed if it's based on you refusal to unholster yourself. You're lawyer will argue that you were acting in the best interests of your safety as well as the officers.
One last word of caution, never, ever unholster your firearm. If the police want you disarmed, insist that they be the ones to unholster your firearm. If you are ordered to unholster it yourself, and refuse, an obstruction charge would be dismissed if it's based on you refusal to unholster yourself. You're lawyer will argue that you were acting in the best interests of your safety as well as the officers.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
since9
Campaign Veteran
It may sound funny in Reader's Digest, but I assure you the LEO won't think either are a bit funny.
I'd probably respond to a request that I hand him my firearm with, "It's a foreign make, and a bit tricky. May I unload it for you?"
Reflecting on it a bit, both times I was asked during traffic stops to disarm, law enforcement had me unload the firearm and show them both the clip and the empty chamber. This is standard gun safety 101 procedure, so unless you're forceably resisting (or being a smart-alec), you'll probably be handing them an unloaded firearm, not a loaded one.
eye95
Well-known member
I don't want to handle my firearm in any way whatsoever.
If there is a bullet in my corpse and a gun in my hand, the officer will be able to tell any story he wishes, and I will be in no positions to refute it.
If the officer wishes that I remove my firearm, he will learn that I do not consent, but will not resist his efforts to remove my firearm still in its holster. All of this will be recorded.
If I disarm myself, I run at least two risks: being shot and being seen as consenting to the seizure. Won't do it.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Not quite... You reply "Why am I being detained?"
followed by "Here's my driver's license" (or whatever other paperwork s/he wants from you)
You have the right to remain silent. USE IT.
There's no reason for them to ask, or for you to tell, anything about weapons.
The answer doesn't help the officer in the least. Follow me here:
If someone says yes, they're unlikely to be a threat, & disarming them won't help the officer.
If someone says no, they may be unarmed, or they may be an armed threat and just aren't gonna tell.
And if they order you out of the car, LOCK YOUR DOORS & roll up the windows. Makes it a LOT harder for them to claim you allowed them to search the car if they have to steal your keys from your pocket.
In general, make it as hard as possible for them to commit crimes against you without physically resisting their illegal actions.
since9
Campaign Veteran
That depends upon the state. Some states specifically require you to inform law enforcement if you're carrying.
OldCurlyWolf
Regular Member
I currently know of 1 state where it is actually legal to resist an illegal arrest. That is Texas. Of course it is not something I recommend unless you have irrefutable evidence on your side and/or it is absolutely necessary to your continued survival.
eye95
Well-known member
I was under the impression that court rulings made asserting that the arrest was unlawful a defense against a resisting charge everywhere in the US. I will defer to someone with better knowledge.
If that is the case, to assert that defense, you will have to resist an arrest, get arrested anyway, charged with resisting arrest, and appear in a criminal proceeding where you will defend your actions. A judge or a jury will decide whether the arrest was unlawful.
Not a wise risk to take unless you have reason to believe that the unlawful arrest will come attendant with other dangers, such as the likelihood of threat to life or limb, even if you submit. What you "know" is an unlawful arrest may be adjudicated as lawful, resulting in a conviction on the resisting charge--even if the underlying charges are dismissed!
We armchair lawyers (IANAL) are a dangerous lot, willing to give risky advice to others. Be wary of legal opinions expressed on a message board.
If that is the case, to assert that defense, you will have to resist an arrest, get arrested anyway, charged with resisting arrest, and appear in a criminal proceeding where you will defend your actions. A judge or a jury will decide whether the arrest was unlawful.
Not a wise risk to take unless you have reason to believe that the unlawful arrest will come attendant with other dangers, such as the likelihood of threat to life or limb, even if you submit. What you "know" is an unlawful arrest may be adjudicated as lawful, resulting in a conviction on the resisting charge--even if the underlying charges are dismissed!
We armchair lawyers (IANAL) are a dangerous lot, willing to give risky advice to others. Be wary of legal opinions expressed on a message board.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
I currently know of 1 state where it is actually legal to resist an illegal arrest. That is Texas. Of course it is not something I recommend unless you have irrefutable evidence on your side and/or it is absolutely necessary to your continued survival.
You may resist an illegal arrest in Virginia, too. And the force you may use can be up to and including the use of deadly force as long as the necessary conditions/requirements are met.
INAL, but here you go: Briggs v. The commonwealth, Clinton v. Commonwealth, and more sitings if y'all wish.
BTW.. This is NOT police bashing by any extent. Police who conduct themselves, involve themselves, in illegal activity are criminals. They are NOT police officers.
Last edited:
Amen!
You're right eye95, even if resisting up to and including lethal resistance is a concept of law, it's utterly stupid. If brought to the point of lethal resistance, chances are you won't be alive to defend yourself in court. Resistance at the point of incident gets most little more than a good thumping, the legal arguments are for court not the streets, I know the law quite well but am not taking it to the point of violence on the side of the road where I can't win. If you were to actively resist, do you think you can overcome that officer and more won't come? Do you plan to stand off the whole of LE without submitting to the arrest at some point? And if you have to be overpowered and arrested in order to prove the rightousness of your actions in court anyway, why not do it at the point of contact? Just an opinion. (whether or not the case is legal or correct is not always the officers choice, we are often sent to enforce or serve things which did not originate with us, just because you're not guilty of wrongdoing doesn't mean our service of warrant or arrest is illegal)
You're right eye95, even if resisting up to and including lethal resistance is a concept of law, it's utterly stupid. If brought to the point of lethal resistance, chances are you won't be alive to defend yourself in court. Resistance at the point of incident gets most little more than a good thumping, the legal arguments are for court not the streets, I know the law quite well but am not taking it to the point of violence on the side of the road where I can't win. If you were to actively resist, do you think you can overcome that officer and more won't come? Do you plan to stand off the whole of LE without submitting to the arrest at some point? And if you have to be overpowered and arrested in order to prove the rightousness of your actions in court anyway, why not do it at the point of contact? Just an opinion. (whether or not the case is legal or correct is not always the officers choice, we are often sent to enforce or serve things which did not originate with us, just because you're not guilty of wrongdoing doesn't mean our service of warrant or arrest is illegal)
eye95
Well-known member
I don't think that the law allowing for resistance to an unlawful arrest is stupid. I think that resisting, unless there is a threat to life or limb is stupid. That we may lawfully resist an unlawful arrest is one of the things that keeps police power in check--as it should be in a Free State!
My point was solely in regards to resisting an unlawful arrest when submission will lead only to time and trouble. I will choose to err on the side of caution and a potential paycheck.
Keep your head while others are losing theirs.
The problem is that the risk to life and limb usually begins at the point of resistance..six of one, half dozen of the other
PS resistance does not keep people of any stripe "in check" cops or otherwise. Laws and consequences do, those consequences are felt by officers AFTER they screw up, not on the side of the road where we always win and can't afford not to! Like it, don't like it, we are the biggest, best equipped, best organized street gang on the planet..we just happen to work for the good guys- you!
eye95
Well-known member
Again, my point is that unless and until there is a threat to life or limb, it is wiser to submit to the unlawful arrest and settle the matter later, in court, hopefully with a nice payday at the expense of the city and possibly the rogue officer.
My point is also that, in a Free State, it is essential that the citizenry retain its right to resist an unlawful arrest, lest too much power be vested in the police in order that they may be used as an arm of a tyrannical government.
Thundar
Regular Member
I currently know of 1 state where it is actually legal to resist an illegal arrest. That is Texas. Of course it is not something I recommend unless you have irrefutable evidence on your side and/or it is absolutely necessary to your continued survival.
It is part of common law and is also true in Virginia....However in Virginia it is illegal to resist when you are illegally detained. So if you go to court the officer says, no he wasn't under arrest, he was only detained, then you are screwed.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Well, they're still police officers. They're just among the few who've chosen to violate the oaths and principles under which they operate, as well the public trust with which they've been charged.
Hopefully, if/when they're caught, that's not all with which they'll be charged.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
I could not agree more with these statements. Absolutely spot on correct.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
My statement which you quoted was rhetorical in nature but based upon a level of fact. Officers take an oath, and though I do not know the actual verbiage, I suspect it is pretty much the same across then nation. Once they step outside of the bounds of this oath and begin acting in concert with others in illegal operations, say selling guns and/or drugs from evidence lockers, they have ceased to be officers of the law and are now simple criminals. The only difference between them and any other criminal who is doing the same thing is the fact that they carry a badge and a gun and are still being paid by they employers -> meaning us.