Stopped for OC @ Poulsbo Walmart 2/10 @1935

[sudden valley gunner]

Eroded indeed. I don't know of too many other prosecutors in this state who supported Sanders and I would much rather still have him on the bench than his successor. Not saying I agree with Valentine or think it was correctly decided, just pointing out that it is the current law here.

Hope you didn't think I assumed you did, was commenting my own opinion on the info you provided. I must thank you for the link to the case, Sanders said so much in that dissent that expresses very well how I feel. It's sad that it appears to many that prosecutors no longer care about common law or our Blackstone foundation for our legal system. I think we may need to go the route of several other states and codify the right to self defense against anyone including LEO, it may be the easiest way to nullify this legislating from the bench the judges did in this case.

 

[PALO]

Hope you didn't think I assumed you did, was commenting my own opinion on the info you provided. I must thank you for the link to the case, Sanders said so much in that dissent that expresses very well how I feel. It's sad that it appears to many that prosecutors no longer care about common law or our Blackstone foundation for our legal system. I think we may need to go the route of several other states and codify the right to self defense against anyone including LEO, it may be the easiest way to nullify this legislating from the bench the judges did in this case.

i'll make this brief. the primary reason why resisting, even an unlawful arrest/detention is still unlawful is PRIMARILY because very rarely can the person being arrested/detained KNOW it's unlawful.

i was detained at gunpoint once. i had done NOTHING wrong. was the detainment lawful ? yes.

why? because an armed robbery had just happened, i was in the area, and i matched the description. i also had NO know way of knowing that, and IN GENERAL, people have no way of knowing the facts and circs known to the officer

there is absolutely a right to redress in such detentions, from IIU complaints, civil actions, contacting the media, etc. etc.

but that is not WHILE somebody is being detained

 

[sudden valley gunner]

i'll make this brief. the primary reason why resisting, even an unlawful arrest/detention is still unlawful is PRIMARILY because very rarely can the person being arrested/detained KNOW it's unlawful.

i was detained at gunpoint once. i had done NOTHING wrong. was the detainment lawful ? yes.

why? because an armed robbery had just happened, i was in the area, and i matched the description. i also had NO know way of knowing that, and IN GENERAL, people have no way of knowing the facts and circs known to the officer

there is absolutely a right to redress in such detentions, from IIU complaints, civil actions, contacting the media, etc. etc.

but that is not WHILE somebody is being detained

No that is the primary rationalization not "reason".

Even though Washington Case law overturned over a century of common law, SCOTUS's decision has yet to be overturned.

The officers gave you RAS it still in my opinion didn't justify the gun pointed out you, just like staring down the barrel of officer Slodysko's barrel just because he don't like OC was justifiable in my case.

Read Sander's dissent he spells it out better than I can.

Nevertheless, the majority suggests victims of illegal arrest should not be allowed to resist by physical force because their rights can be "’vindicated through legal processes.‘" Majority op. at 11 (citation omitted). But this claim misses the mark: the rights of the victim have already been violated by the illegal arrest. The remaining question is whether the victim who instinctively resists the injustice is to be doubly wronged by suffering the second indignity of a criminal conviction.

Moreover, the rule adopted by the majority is inconsistent with the lawful entitlement to use force to protect one’s person and property, or, to put it another way, protect one‘s property in his person and his estate. It is well established that determinations as to when force may be used in self-defense are not made (as the majority suggests) on the basis of where the right can best be vindicated. Indeed, in this state the citizen has the right to use force to defend property against trespass and invasion. RCW 9A.16.020(3); Coffel v. Clallam County, 58 Wash. App. 517, 524, 794 P.2d 513 (1990).

Nope I don't like sacrificing liberty for safety. I'd rather have officers walking around on eggshells and leery about the ramifications of false arrest than the continual, abrogation of our fundamental rights for "state's interest".