Arrested for photographing in Henrico

[Grapeshot]

We must also include the fact that in both of those statutes the arrest or actions by the officer must be lawful and therefore, if the arrest or search is not lawful in the first place then you are breaking neither of those laws, rather you are simply defending yourself against an aggressor that is infringing upon your rights.

Nooo, you are simple going about your business - no physical conntact need be made.

 

[Lafayette]

Resist an unlawful arrest with deadly force? Cite please.

It has long been held in Virginia that where an officer attempts an unlawful arrest, the officer is an aggressor which gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense to resist so long as the force used is reasonable.

You can use deadly force if that is the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent yourself from being unlawfully arrested. It being the minimum force necessary makes it reasonable.

An unlawful arrest is not an arrest, and therefore it becomes an assault and an unlawful seizure, which you have the right to resist. I'm not suggesting that every unlawful arrest should be met immediately with deadly force. I'm stating that like any assault, you have the right to use the minimum force necessary to prevent it from occurring and if the officer committing the assault on you does so by attempting to use force which could reasonably cause you to believe that it will result in your imminent death or grievous bodily harm coming to you then you have the absolute right to use deadly force to stop that officer.

 

[Lafayette]

Nooo, you are simple going about your business - no physical conntact need be made.

Physical contact is only necessary if you are defending yourself against physical contact. One would reasonably assume that in a hypothetical case where the officer is trying to unlawfully arrest you that they are going to attempt to put their hands on you to do so.

Once they attempt to do that you have the right to resist it using the minimum force necessary to do so.

 

[Grapeshot]

Physical contact is only necessary if you are defending yourself against physical contact. One would reasonably in a hypothetical case where the officer is trying to unlawfully arrest you that they are going to attempt to put their hands on you to do so.

Once they attempt to do that you have the right to resist it using the minimum force necessary to do so.

Physical resistance will almost assuredly harm any defense you might have. It is the epitomy of holding court in the street - bad juju.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

If it were me, I'd verbally oppose, but not physically resist (this can get you KILLED), then litigate accordingly.

 

[Lafayette]

Physical resistance will almost assuredly harm any defense you might have. It is the epitomy of holding court in the street - bad juju.

No, it is simply defending yourself against an aggressor. That is your defense and in Virginia that right is respected.

 

[peter nap]

No, it is simply defending yourself against an aggressor. That is your defense and in Virginia that right is respected.

I am delighted your not a lawyer. The prisons are short on space as it is...and yes, legally you can resist an unlawful arrest. Try it sometime and report back how it went.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I would say that resisting with force is not out of the question, but it depends on the seriousness of attack by the officer/s. If a woman is getting raped by a LEO, she is without a doubt justified to use deadly force. If a officer is already trying to kill a person, they have only a few options. Pray, run, die, or fight back. For minor rights infractions fight in court, and buy a new vehicle with the settlement.

 

[Lafayette]

I am delighted your not a lawyer. The prisons are short on space as it is...and yes, legally you can resist an unlawful arrest. Try it sometime and report back how it went.

Peter, nothing that I've stated in this thread has incited or encouraged any unlawful action so the issue of prison is not relevant. My opinion here is consistent with Common Law with relation to self defense including defending one's self against unlawful arrest.

I have stated what the rights of the person are, whether or not each individual is willing to resist and put themselves in that potential danger is a decision for each individual to make alone. Each person has to draw their own line in the sand that they won't allow others to cross without resistance and that is fine but the fact is that if you don't have the testacular fortitude to stand up and die for your rights you shouldn't criticize or ridicule those that do on a forum that is dedicated to protecting our right to open carry, lest you be viewed as a Chicken-Hawk.

 

[Lafayette]

I would say that resisting with force is not out of the question, but it depends on the seriousness of attack by the officer/s. If a woman is getting raped by a LEO, she is without a doubt justified to use deadly force. If a officer is already trying to kill a person, they have only a few options. Pray, run, die, or fight back. For minor rights infractions fight in court, and buy a new vehicle with the settlement.

Exactly, it is ultimately up to the individual whether or not they are prepared to resist and each person should have his or her own line in the sand. I find it a little concerning that people on this forum would criticize or ridicule people that would defend their rights by using the minimum amount of force necessary to do so.

What is clear is that simply going to court or settling out of court is not working because the actual law enforcement officers involved are not themselves going to face any consequences for their actions because they won't be punished, they won't pay a dime if sued and the police departments will rarely change their policies because insurance covers everything. The end result is that these violations continue because there are no real consequences.

I am of the opinion that short of enacting laws that actively punish law enforcement officers with serious penalties including prison time and the forfeiture of their property that the only way to prevent law enforcement from acting unlawfully towards the people is for the people to resist it.

I'm not saying that you should arbitrarily use deadly force or any force at all as a reaction against every infringement of your rights, that would be stupid.

Instead I am saying that if individual law enforcement officers were to use force to act unlawfully and infringe on the rights of people that there would be a very good chance that their victim would resist it using force and if necessary to protect their own life, would use deadly force to protect themselves against such aggressions possibly resulting in the death of both law enforcement officers acting unlawfully with force and civilians defending their rights that there would be such an outcry that aforementioned law enforcement agencies would be forced to change their policies and individual officers would be very very hesitant to try and use force to act unlawfully and infringe on the rights of a person.

It's no different than dealing with criminals that want to infringe on your rights, a simple cost vs benefit calculation is all that would be required.

 

[peter nap]

Peter, nothing that I've stated in this thread has incited or encouraged any unlawful action so the issue of prison is not relevant. My opinion here is consistent with Common Law with relation to self defense including defending one's self against unlawful arrest.

I have stated what the rights of the person are, whether or not each individual is willing to resist and put themselves in that potential danger is a decision for each individual to make alone. Each person has to draw their own line in the sand that they won't allow others to cross without resistance and that is fine but the fact is that if you don't have the testacular fortitude to stand up and die for your rights you shouldn't criticize or ridicule those that do on a forum that is dedicated to protecting our right to open carry, lest you be viewed as a Chicken-Hawk.

I can't argue with stupid so I won't bother. Actually walking wolf hit the nail but you have no idea what your talking about.
I am going to remember the testicular fortitude comment though.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

Laf - may I suggest you are preaching to the choir here? If it is up to each individual to determine their line in the sand, then let us pick our battles ... live and let live.

 

[Lafayette]

I can't argue with stupid so I won't bother. Actually walking wolf hit the nail but you have no idea what your talking about.
I am going to remember the testicular fortitude comment though.

No one was suggesting you should argue with yourself, just that you shouldn't say stupid comments. You haven't refuted anything I've said with logic or reason, nor common or statutory law.

 

[Lafayette]

Laf - may I suggest you are preaching to the choir here? If it is up to each individual to determine their line in the sand, then let us pick our battles ... live and let live.

I completely agree Liberty-or-Death, hence my saying it is a personal choice. What I take issue with is Peter Nap's ridicule and criticism of people that have made that choice differently to his own.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

Looks like you shared a bit of your own. Tit for tat as it were. I'm suggesting the volley end.

 

[Grapeshot]

Peter, nothing that I've stated in this thread has incited or encouraged any unlawful action so the issue of prison is not relevant. My opinion here is consistent with Common Law with relation to self defense including defending one's self against unlawful arrest.

I have stated what the rights of the person are, whether or not each individual is willing to resist and put themselves in that potential danger is a decision for each individual to make alone. Each person has to draw their own line in the sand that they won't allow others to cross without resistance and that is fine but the fact is that if you don't have the testacular (sic) fortitude to stand up and die for your rights you shouldn't criticize or ridicule those that do on a forum that is dedicated to protecting our right to open carry, lest you be viewed as a Chicken-Hawk.

Not sure why you keep bringing the point back up regarding physical resistance - that is neither what the OP engaged in nor to what the statute refers to. Yes jail/prison time is a very real possibility if one chooses unwisely when and if to use physical force - at the least your defense costs will rise astronomically.

Testicular fortitude to stand up and die? Really? Quantum leap/escalation that doesn't come close to fitting the situation.

OCDO is dedicated to defending and promoting the right to open carry handguns as we go about our everyday normal lives. It is not about physical resistance, repeating - it is not about physically defending that right.
"(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."

Lastly - your Chicken-Hawk comment insults not only Peter Nap, myself and others, but too the owners of this Forum (John Pierce & Mike Stollenwerk)

Let this be the end of this aspect/derailment of this thread. Do heed the warning though.

 

[peter nap]

Taylor's facebook page is still getting comments supporting Kyle.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

I posted one regarding her promise not to delete posts. [emoji14]

 

[peter nap]

I posted one regarding her promise not to delete posts. [emoji14]

saw that

From what snake says, she wants a meeting. It'll be interesting to see how that goes.

 

[countryclubjoe]

After the unlawful arrest is made, the citizen should then file federal criminal charges against the unlawful arrestor citing title USC title 18 241-242. Then also file a civil suit under USC title 42 section 1983...

It is a must to file the federal charges along with the civil suit...

Everyone here should familiarize themselves with USC title 18 241-242 this is your best defense after your rights are violated...

Step 1- file a criminal complaint
step 2- file a law suit under 42 section 1983

The suit must be filed in federal court.

My .02

CCJ