• 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...

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I've never heard of such, but that's not saying much.

I'm betting the existing common law on lethal force is expected to address it.

The only rights violation that allows lethal force that I know about is the right to resist a false arrest with reasonable force, up to and including lethal force--but only if reasonable for the situation. And, if state law allows it; I understand some states now longer allow it.

I suppose you might could repel a serious excessive force by an LEO. And if it escalated into the need for lethal force, I suppose you might be found justified by a jury. But, if he had grounds for the arrest or to use some force, it might be a real uphill fight in court, not to mention the fight on the street.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
There is no federal statute that I am aware of that allows anyone to use deadly force to prevent deprivation of a civil right. But then I have not spent a lifetime checking the entire United States Code, so I might be wrong. I doubt it, but still I could be wrong. I'm just a lawyer, not an attorney.

If you are looking for federal case law on the excusability or justifiability of using deadly force in defense of a civil right you are going to need to start by finding cases where the defendant was charged with use of deadly force (murder/attempted murder) against state agents (the government). Cases where deadly force was used against a private actor (not the government) to prevent a violation of a civil right would probably be murder/attempted murder trials in state courts.

My question is why you would want to use deadly force in opposition to a violation of your civil rights (except the right to Life)? The resolution to violations of civil rights is generally compensating the victim and instructing the perpetrator not to do it again.

So - what's behind the use of deadly force to prevent a civil right from being violated?

stay safe.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
Deadly force could certainly be applied if the right attempting to be transgressed was your right to life and liberty. Any rights of a lessor priority can be remedied under state or federal criminal and/or civil statutes. As for federal statute I have never seen one that specifically addresses the question. I have only seen statutes dealing with the offenses and penalties for the transgressor.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, 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."


"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.


"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.


"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.


"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).


"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).


"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).


"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.


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)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The mere violation of civil rights (including unlawful arrest) does not justify deadly force. Almost every State has laws covering the amount of force that may be used in certain situations.

Consider the following scenario:

Officer: You are under arrest [unlawfully].

You: BLAM!

I think you would be charged with murder. Your level of response would be inappropriate.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
The mere violation of civil rights (including unlawful arrest) does not justify deadly force. Almost every State has laws covering the amount of force that may be used in certain situations.

state laws cannot override federal supreme court decisions.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
In Texas you may only use force to resist an arrest where unnecessary force is being used against you to make the arrest, even if the arrest is illegal. Even then you may only use enough force to stop the officer.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
In Texas you may only use force to resist an arrest where unnecessary force is being used against you to make the arrest, even if the arrest is illegal. Even then you may only use enough force to stop the officer.

when can a state write a law that invalidates a constitutional right?
 

SaintJacque

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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?

I'll do you one better:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Any officer who deprives any person of liberty, without due process of law, is a tyrant. Not that violence is always appropriate, but I think it sometimes is.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I'll do you one better: Any officer who deprives any person of liberty, without due process of law, is a tyrant. Not that violence is always appropriate, but I think it sometimes is.

Hyperbole. Useless hyperbole. I was responding to someone who was implying that the Supreme Court has said that DEADLY force may be used against ANY civil rights violation. If you want to start a side topic about cops being tyrants and shedding their blood, have at it. I won't participate in such a silly discussion.
 

SaintJacque

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
139
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
Hyperbole. Useless hyperbole. I was responding to someone who was implying that the Supreme Court has said that DEADLY force may be used against ANY civil rights violation. If you want to start a side topic about cops being tyrants and shedding their blood, have at it. I won't participate in such a silly discussion.

You are the one speaking in hyperbole, addressing the use of deadly force against ANY civil rights violations rather than more realistic encounters. For instance, it's not realistic to say that one would respond to an illegal arrest with deadly force. It's much more likely that an arresting officer would escalate HIS force to a level that would warrant violent, possibly deadly, force. It's rare to encounter a police officer who would simply back down even when they are wrong, they would rather "win" the encounter regardless of use of force.

Also, I didn't say cops are tyrants - I said they can be. All authority figures CAN be tyrants, from King George to Officer Joe. It depends on how they act and whether they respect the inherent rights of man.

ANY person who deprives another of life, liberty or property without due process of law is a tyrant. It doesn't matter if they wear a badge or not. It doesn't matter if they have authority from the state or not. I was simply pointing out that I don't surrender my liberty, that's my choice. I reserve the right to use force, including deadly force, to protect my life and liberty.

Nothing personal, Eye95, just my .02.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You are the one speaking in hyperbole, addressing the use of deadly force against ANY civil rights violations rather than more realistic encounters. For instance, it's not realistic to say that one would respond to an illegal arrest with deadly force. It's much more likely that an arresting officer would escalate HIS force to a level that would warrant violent, possibly deadly, force. It's rare to encounter a police officer who would simply back down even when they are wrong, they would rather "win" the encounter regardless of use of force.

Also, I didn't say cops are tyrants - I said they can be. All authority figures CAN be tyrants, from King George to Officer Joe. It depends on how they act and whether they respect the inherent rights of man.

ANY person who deprives another of life, liberty or property without due process of law is a tyrant. It doesn't matter if they wear a badge or not. It doesn't matter if they have authority from the state or not. I was simply pointing out that I don't surrender my liberty, that's my choice. I reserve the right to use force, including deadly force, to protect my life and liberty.

Nothing personal, Eye95, just my .02.

I did not make the assertion that deadly force could be used to stop any civil rights violation. Someone asserted that deadly force could be used against some civil rights violations (a reasonable assertion), another pointed out that State laws require proportional response when using force. Then the poster to whom I replied said that State law could not trump Supreme Court decisions, implying that reasonable force requirements in State law do not apply, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Supreme Court must've ruled that an unreasonable amount of force, i.e. DEADLY force, could be used against ANY civil rights violations. I just want to see this ruling.

As the poster has not produced it, it likely, as I suspected, does not exist. I don't doubt that a ruling exists saying that a reasonable amount of force is allowable to resist a civil rights violation, and that is where State law comes in. It defines what a reasonable amount of force is.

Does that clarify the discussion for you?

Or, you could go back and read the thread and figure it out for yourself.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
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?

"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
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
As the poster has not produced it, it likely, as I suspected, does not exist. I don't doubt that a ruling exists saying that a reasonable amount of force is allowable to resist a civil rights violation, and that is where State law comes in. It defines what a reasonable amount of force is.

Now i've produced it twice for you. 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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
"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

That does not say what you claim it does. One still may only use a reasonable amount of force, and that is where State law comes in.

So, your remark that State law cannot trump Supreme Court rulings was misplaced, since the law cited only explained the amount of force one could use in given situations. In no way was it trying to supersede the ruling--unless you were contending that DEADLY force could be used to resist ANY civil rights violation.

For example, if an officer says that you are under arrest, unlawfully violating your civil rights, you may simply walk away. You may not shoot him. If he attempts to wrestle you to put you in cuffs, you may wrestle back and try to escape. If he attempts to use a weapon on you, you may use a weapon in self-defense. (YMMV based on State law.)

I was not going to let the impression stand that State laws describing the amount of force one can use to defend himself did not apply merely because rights were being violated. It would be dangerous to allow an uninformed person to walk away from this discussion with that impression.

I strongly recommend that you are careful in what you say on a public message board. It is possible that someone could act based on your errant advice, do something stupid, and point a finger at you as being partly legally responsible.
 
Top