Help! Deadly force/Civil Rights...

[eye95]

I wish that folks would stop telling others, in an unqualified way, that DEADLY force may be used to resist an unlawful arrest.

Even if an arrest is unlawful (that could be argued in court), using deadly force could be ruled murder or manslaughter, depending upon the circumstances.

I hope we don't have some young and inexperienced person reading threads like this and then shooting a LEO for an unlawful arrest for OC. Keep this up, though, and it will happen.

 

[simmonsjoe]

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;[highlight] I understand some states now longer allow it.[/highlight]

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.

Doesn't really matter as it's been upheld by the Supreme Court.

I don't think lethal force would be morally appropriate if the officer is mistakenly arresting you. (You know you will have remedies.)

If you suspect the officer is arresting you KNOWING it is unlawful, I'd be very very worried. (you may wind up dead in a hole somewhere)

There is a part of me that thinks you should struggle to some degree against any BS arrest, even a bogus Disorderly Conduct charge.

My question is can your buddies assist your struggle against an unlawful arrest? Say the cops are trying to arrest your buddy on a bogus charge. Why can't 10 of you simply get in between the cop and your buddy and say 'not gonna happen.' You could stop an unlawful arrest without any use of force. If it can be proven the arrest would have been unlawful, and the group knew it to be unlawful, would that then protect said group from obstruction charges?

hmmm...

 

[simmonsjoe]

I wish that folks would stop telling others, in an unqualified way, that DEADLY force may be used to resist an unlawful arrest.

Even if an arrest is unlawful (that could be argued in court), using deadly force could be ruled murder or manslaughter, depending upon the circumstances.

I hope we don't have some young and inexperienced person reading threads like this and then shooting a LEO for an unlawful arrest for OC. Keep this up, though, and it will happen.

obviously there would have to be an escalation of force. You can't just jump from zero to shoot the cop.
Most likely the false arrest is being used as a form of harassment, or is in error.
Then again if you have reason to believe the cop KNOWS he is arresting you falsely, it is no different than some guy with a gun tying you up with duct tape and throwing you into the back of a van. What do you reasonably believe will be the outcome of the arrest?

I'd say the vast majority of false arrests are harassment and mistakes. There is always the exception. Cops are people and some people are predators.

 

[DKSuddeth]

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!

now why the hell should I meekly submit to each and every unlawful arrest if the officers testimony is going to be given more credit than mine? This would simply allow the officer to unlawfully arrest me for disorderly conduct every single day, costing me thousands in legal fees until i'm destitute, and the cop gets no punishment? THAT is what makes resisting unlawful arrests a natural right.

 

[Daylen]

Why? because as long as your life and limb are not threatened then you will have the law on your side when you get your day in court. Forcibly resist arrest for the sake of pride at your own peril. and keep a recorder on so you have proof!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Why? because as long as your life and limb are not threatened then you will have the law on your side when you get your day in court. Forcibly resist arrest for the sake of pride at your own peril. and keep a recorder on so you have proof!

I beg to differ on two different points

1. First of all Life and Limb in not a requirement in most laws, Washington State for instance doesn't say this and also includes the right to use lethal force in preventing felonies upon yourself or others.

2. The law itself as written may be on our side, but the "law" as in the system that has been created often is on the side of it's own officers that helps feed the system.

Again this has shown how far our country has strayed when folks think we shouldn't even discuss this topic. The bottom line is the supreme court ruled that it is lawful to use lethal force in resisting an unlawful arrest. I don't recommend it unless of course your life is on line in that arrest.

Imagine how much easier it would be for some folks if the police knew that their life could be on the line for a false arrest. This isn't advocating violence against LEO's!!!! I making this statement toward a better police mentality.

 

[simmonsjoe]

Imagine how much easier it would be for some folks if the police knew that their life could be on the line for a false arrest. This isn't advocating violence against LEO's!!!! I making this statement toward a better police mentality.

I'm not sure how this would change anything. A police officer's life is always on the line when making an arrest.

 

[SavageOne]

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.

Many of the surviving Branch Davidions from Waco were charged with the murder of the BATFE agents. The were found not guilty of murder, it was shown that there were numerous inaccuracies on the warrant that the BATFE agents applied for and got. The jury held that since it was an "illegal" search the Davidions were not guilty of murder.

 

[since9]

I wish that folks would stop telling others, in an unqualified way, that DEADLY force may be used to resist an unlawful arrest.

What sudden valley gunner said was: " 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."

"Up to" does not cover the "and including" part. Resisting arrest under nearly any and all circumstances is itself against the law. Just comply! Don't punch their buttons.

 

[eye95]

What sudden valley gunner said was: " 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."

"Up to" does not cover the "and including" part. Resisting arrest under nearly any and all circumstances is itself against the law. Just comply! Don't punch their buttons.

My comment was a general one, aimed to counter many comments in this thread, not any one specific comment that contains a qualification. From many of the posts in this thread the impression is given that deadly force may be used to resist any arrest that the individual deems as unlawful.

On edit: Changed "that comment is" to "my comment was"

 

[sudden valley gunner]

That comment is a general one, aimed to counter many comments in this thread, not any one specific comment that contains a qualification. From many of the posts in this thread the impression is given that deadly force may be used to resist any arrest that the individual deems as unlawful.

No you assumed that impression that impression was not inferred.
Read the cases since9 understood what I was saying.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'm not sure how this would change anything. A police officer's life is always on the line when making an arrest.

I don't believe that is true, there is a slight slight chance their life is on the line. They know for the most part it is not. The "dangers" of police work are very much blown out of proportion, you are very much more likely to die as a construction worker than a LEO.

Also I should make my point more concise, I should have included false arrest in that statement, and that if an LEO recognized that their life could be on the line for making a false arrest, how much better it would be.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Many of the surviving Branch Davidions from Waco were charged with the murder of the BATFE agents. The were found not guilty of murder, it was shown that there were numerous inaccuracies on the warrant that the BATFE agents applied for and got. The jury held that since it was an "illegal" search the Davidions were not guilty of murder.

Interesting I didn't know that. So we do have modern day examples that seem to concur.

 

[eye95]

No you assumed that impression that impression was not inferred.
Read the cases since9 understood what I was saying.

Again, I was not replying to the specific post that since9 mentioned.

Moving on.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Again, I was not replying to the specific post that since9 mentioned.

Moving on.

Well you should look at post #50.

 

[eye95]

On chance that what I was saying in post #50 was not crystal clear, I edited the first few words. Other than that, I still have nothing more to say in this sub-thread.

 

[Gunslinger]

This may be the most convoluted thread I've ever seen on the forum. Denial of your rights, under color of law, causing you bodily injury is punishable by any penalty up to and including death for the cop. 18 USC 242. It is an unchallenged rule of common law--and every states' statutes, that you have the right to use at a minimum escalating force, up to deadly force, if in fear of your life or grievous bodily harm. The most recent adherent to this is Castle Doctrine. It takes away your duty to decide level of force if in your domicile. Under "normal" circumstances, you may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest. You have other avenues for redress. If you choose to do so, the burden of proof is on you to justify it--at whatever level. A black man resisting a group of klan members wearing badges wanting to "arrest" him has a bit stronger defense against any level of force than I do if I blow away a cop who is conducting a warrantless--and PC lacking search of my car and finds a nickle bag. The guy (Weaver's friend) who killed the Nazi "us" marshall at Ruby Ridge after he had shot the boy (Weaver's son) in the back was found not guilty. His use of deadly force was justified by the illegal action of the storm troopers and his fear of greivous bodily harm or death from their denial of his civil rights.

I don't care what case law says: the only answer that is correct is 'it depends.' In John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial. Their key finding that taking a cop's life when resisting a false arrest may well not be murder, but "only" manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter carries up to a life sentence. So, it may be fully justified, op cit Ruby Ridge, or "only" manslaughter, or murder. There is no clear answer except "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

 

[since9]

My comment was a general one, aimed to counter many comments in this thread, not any one specific comment that contains a qualification. From many of the posts in this thread the impression is given that deadly force may be used to resist any arrest that the individual deems as unlawful.

On edit: Changed "that comment is" to "my comment was"

Ok, I think I hear what you're saying, and to a significant degree, I agree. I'd have to add my own $0.02:

1. Comply with law enforcement encounters to the maximum extent possible at the scnene.

2. You got a beef? Record the encounter and present it to the desk sergeant after the fact.

3. Still got a beef? Raise it at the legal level.

In the meantime, stay heavily in the books, know your rights as codified in statute and case law for your states, exercise your rights in accordance with local, county, state, and federal law, and make dang sure you remain on this side of the law. You loose most of your rights on the other side, so please don't go there.

ETA: Gunslinger, I hear where you're coming from. Your post borders on PhD level analysis of fairly complex issues. I know I've posted much the same here, so I can't falt you. Perhaps we might create new threads to keep things separate? I think that might be appropriate. How about you?

- since9

 

[eye95]

Pretty much.

Just remember, if you use deadly force to stop what you believe is an unlawful arrest, you can shout "unlawful arrest" at the top of your lungs repeatedly at the scene, afterward, in posts on this site, to your lawyer, in court, to the media, and any place else you choose. Unless a court agrees that the arrest was unlawful, you're going down for murder.

It is amazing how simple it is for an arrest to be proved lawful--even if you did not break the law. It is not the officer's job to know that you are guilty of a crime. The threshold allowing for a lawful arrest is much, much lower.

 

[Gunslinger]

Pretty much.

Just remember, if you use deadly force to stop what you believe is an unlawful arrest, you can shout "unlawful arrest" at the top of your lungs repeatedly at the scene, afterward, in posts on this site, to your lawyer, in court, to the media, and any place else you choose. Unless a court agrees that the arrest was unlawful, you're going down for murder.

It is amazing how simple it is for an arrest to be proved lawful--even if you did not break the law. It is not the officer's job to know that you are guilty of a crime. The threshold allowing for a lawful arrest is much, much lower.

An arrest that doesn't stand up is lawful with, and only with, probable cause. The threshold of proving probable cause is not as low as you think. The burden of proof is always on the state and the court will decide the issue by determination of fact in the light most favorable to the defendant, not the cop. "Probable" does not mean reasonable. It is a much higher standard wherein the reasonable man would concur with nothing more than the slightest, passing doubt that the "cause" of a crime did exist. It is not a reasonable standard, but an almost certain one.