Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
There is case law which abrogates Common Law Self Defense in the absence of unnecessary force.
Last edited:
-
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.
You may not forcibly resist an arrest you believe to be unlawful....
- Thread starter Interceptor_Knight
- Start date
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
In a POLICE STATE which this is...you may not forcibly resist an unlawful arrest.. because The Supreme Kangaroo court says so.... of course you have no rights in the new AmeriKa.
Anyone not understand ? you can't defend yourself from UNKNOWN invaders serving a no knock warrant of your home at 3:28 am as they are busting your door in while you sleep & killing your dog in front of your child....
Anyone think you have ACTUAL freedoms in this country ?
Anyone not understand ? you can't defend yourself from UNKNOWN invaders serving a no knock warrant of your home at 3:28 am as they are busting your door in while you sleep & killing your dog in front of your child....
Anyone think you have ACTUAL freedoms in this country ?
Last edited:
Judged by 12 or carried by 6.
As for the no knock scenario.. what a nightmare. You'd have to make a quick decision as to whether they are really cops or home invaders. One could argue that if you stay out of trouble with the law you won't be served a no knock warrant but then there's the occasion where one is served at the wrong house. I strongly feel no knock warrants are a really bad idea. I can't imagine most sane cops would enjoy it.... just those goose stepping power junkies would.
As for the no knock scenario.. what a nightmare. You'd have to make a quick decision as to whether they are really cops or home invaders. One could argue that if you stay out of trouble with the law you won't be served a no knock warrant but then there's the occasion where one is served at the wrong house. I strongly feel no knock warrants are a really bad idea. I can't imagine most sane cops would enjoy it.... just those goose stepping power junkies would.
DocWalker
Regular Member
That is a relief because it is inpossiable and could never happen that the cops get the wrong address or a judge gives a warrent on false information.
Wasn't it just last year that someone found a way to place 911 calls from one address while in another state. They made it sound like someone was being slaughtered. When the police arrived the house was dark as the family slept inside. The police thinking someone or a group was being murdered stormed the house since they had a 911 call from this residence and it gave them probable cause only to find a sleeping family.
Good thing nothing like this could happen.......again and again.
georg jetson
Regular Member
This must be the case you speak of...
http://www.wicourts.gov/html/sc/96/96-0914.htm
It appears that the only argument brought on appeal was this: "The question certified to this court is whether Wisconsin recognizes a common law right to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest."
There is case law from the SCOTUS which applies to Wisconsin which could have been used as a basis for argument in this case. Did her appeals attorney screw up??
Here's a good place to begin researching cases related to the OP's topic. This is just a START.
http://www.dailypaul.com/108738/cit...aking-an-arresting-officers-life-if-necessary
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
No screw-up on the case of the defense. The woman actually got off on the most serious charges.
If you read the court case I referenced and you linked to you will find that the SCOTUS case law was ruled to not apply or to be non-binding.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
State v. Hobson is a case involving resistance to an arrest that was peaceful, but ultimately found to have no probable cause (therefore it was not a legal arrest.) If police attempt an illegal arrest, but are not unreasonably forceful, the court has ruled one may not resist. Hobson decided she would hit the police officer when he told her she was under arrest. There is no ruling that says one loses the claim of self-defense against an unreasonably forceful illegal arrest.
230therapy
Regular Member
Fortunately, here in Virginia, the state courts have ruled we may use lethal force against police acting beyond their authority. This was reaffirmed in a 2008 decision (you can find the ruling in the Virginia forum on this site).
georg jetson
Regular Member
I didn't ask if her defense was mishandled, but that her appeal may have been. In many states, an argument not brought on appeal(in the appeal brief) cannot be entertained by the appeals court.
I'm certainly no expert on Wi law, but a state court can't rule that a SCOTUS decision is non-binding to the state court. It seems to me that an appeal to a fed court may have been the next step. Perhaps that expense was too much for the appellant. Perhaps by not using the SCOTUS case arguments initially, they were not preserved for further appeal.
georg jetson
Regular Member
This is a VERY important distinction.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Read the entire document you linked to....
amaixner
Regular Member
The only helpful counter to no-knock mess-ups I can think of is to have your entryways reinforced enough to give you time to figure out who is trying to break down your door. Steel doorframe reinforcements, door bars, etc might help with that some. An interior entry cage would also add time to identify an intruder.
AaronS
Regular Member
Yep, I know what you are talking about.
You can "try" to say whay you want at the time, but only a judge will make the dission as to your guilt.
NEVER NEVER try to "fight" a cop on the spot. Your voice is not going to be that big.
Your voice of the real law could be spoken to help make the cops "understand" that you do have some rights, but...
In MY city, you might not ever make it home again...
I would wait to start talking...
DocWalker
Regular Member
"HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED....."
-Monty Python
-Monty Python
Motofixxer
Regular Member
Any info you find should be researched and exploited in many ways. If one attempts to walk into a courtroom citing some cases he found online...he is the fool. But one who does his research and begins to educate himself...he is a wise man. But just because there is a statute prohibiting an act...does not mean the act is unlawful...hint there is a difference between illegal and unlawful. One has to make his own choices when presented with the situation. That man also must live with the consequences of those choices...so choose carefully.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
If you are gonna go that far you might as well start with a moat of fire.
If you are still alive after a no-knock raid you are already ahead of the curve. Consequences be damned at that point!
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
This sounds overly broad. You're saying a citizen can shoot a cop who demands an identity document during a foot encounter when there is no RAS or no ordinance compelling compliance.
Cite, please. Telling where to look is not a cite.
From the forum rules:
(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
smithman
Regular Member
An unlawful arrest is the really the same as kidnapping as far as I know. You are taking a person without their consent, without the legal grounds to take them. One must always ask themselves what would the court say if a person was kidnapped against their will by a private citizen. That private citizen will likely be charged with kidnapping. However, I am not aware of any officer in WI charged with kidnapping for an unlawful arrest.
If police officers were held liable for every wrongful arrest they made, then there would be alot less of the "just arrest em, book em, and let the DA figure out later if I was right or not".
There are many problems in America. This is one of them.
If police officers were held liable for every wrongful arrest they made, then there would be alot less of the "just arrest em, book em, and let the DA figure out later if I was right or not".
There are many problems in America. This is one of them.
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
yup
user
Accomplished Advocate
If the common law has been abrogated by the Wisconsin legislature, then that's that. In Virginia, where the common law is the basis of the law, defense against a false arrest is appropriate, and one may lawfully use such force as is reasonably necessary to repel the attack. Furthermore, the castle doctrine (which has nothing to do with liability, by the way) is part of the common law, and it says that "no-knock warrants" are illegal - precisely because of the problem that the homeowner who may legitimately defend his home to the same extent that the king may defend his, may well kill a sheriff or two who busts in unannounced. That's why it's illegal under common law for law enforcement to come in without knocking first, announcing themselves and their mission, and giving the occupants time to answer the door.
This used to be a civilized country.
This used to be a civilized country.