No you stated "you shoot to stop not to kill". That wasn't a question.
Then you asked the question about being convicted by a jury, in a manner to lead to the assumption he must be guilty.
So I asked questions about if the jury were fully informed.....
You need statutes for long held common law rights? Your lack of understanding of how law works is frightening. Bad Elk vs. United States ......
Here goes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Elk_v._United_States#cite_note-36
Internet meme and myths
The case has also been cited as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest on various internet sites, normally in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State.[43] The most commonly quoted version is:
"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. 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."[44]
In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest
Dont like wiki? ok...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=52410
This is form the abstract from a book on this subject:
THE RIGHT TO RESIST AN UNLAWFUL ARREST PERMITS REASONABLE PHYSICAL RESISTANCE TO THE OFFICER MAKING AN UNLAWFUL ARREST IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE ARRESTEE'S LIBERTY. RULES OF SELF-DEFENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ARREST ARE SIMILAR TO RULES OF SELF-DEFENSE GENERALLY.
MISSOURI COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO RESIST AN UNLAWFUL ARREST, BUT THE STATUS OF MISSOURI CASE LAW CONCERNING THIS ISSUE IS SURROUNDED BY CONTROVERSY. STATUTORY LAW ON THE MATTER IS CLEAR; A CRIMINAL CODE HAS BEEN ADOPTED THAT MAKES IT A CRIME TO RESIST OR INTERFERE WITH AN ARREST IF THE ARRESTEE KNOWS THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS MAKING THE ARREST. STATUTES ELIMINATING THE DEFENSE OF RESISTING AN UNLAWFUL ARREST, AS WELL AS CASE LAW TO THE SAME EFFECT
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5750000150.htm
This is the statute they are referring to:
Resisting or interfering with arrest--penalty.
575.150. 1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if, knowing that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest, or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, or the person reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest or attempting to lawfully detain or lawfully stop an individual or vehicle, for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, the person:
(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer; or
(2) Interferes with the arrest, stop or detention of another person by using or threatening the use of violence, physical force or physical interference.
2. This section applies to:
(1) Arrests, stops, or detentions, with or without warrants;
(2) Arrests, stops, or detentions, for any crime, infraction, or ordinance violation; and
(3) Arrests for warrants issued by a court or a probation and parole officer.
3. A person is presumed to be fleeing a vehicle stop if that person continues to operate a motor vehicle after that person has seen or should have seen clearly visible emergency lights or has heard or should have heard an audible signal emanating from the law enforcement vehicle pursuing that person.
4.
It is no defense to a prosecution pursuant to subsection 1 of this section that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to bar civil suits for unlawful arrest.
Ok a little bit more... lets look at Plummer v.s State.... wiki first since it's easy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plummer_v._State
Opinion of the Court
Chief Justice James McCabe delivered the opinion of the court on October 10, 1893. McCabe noted that Dorn may or may not have held the authority to make a warrantless arrest of Plummer. The offense that Plummer committed was a misdemeanor and for Dorn to have legal authority to make that arrest, the offense must have been committed in Dorn's presence.[10] The state cited legal authority to support that it was in his presence, and McCabe said that for the purpose of the opinion, the court would assume that Dorn had the authority to make the arrest.[11] McCabe stated that an officer, in effecting an arrest, is allowed to use force, but only that force that is necessary.[12]
He then noted that by striking Plummer with a nightstick before telling Plummer he was under arrest, Dorn had committed a battery by the use of excessive force.[13] Plummer was then entitled to defend himself, and when Dorn shot at Plummer, Plummer had "a clear right to defend himself, even to the taking the life of his assailant."[14] The court held, that by not giving adequate self-defense instructions to the jury, the trial court erred and the conviction was reversed.[15]
Above bolded is to stress this was a SELF DEFENSE case not a RESIST ARREST case...
More from wiki..
Internet Meme
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups.[20] The most commonly quoted version is:
“ “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. 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.”[21] ”
The quote is a fabrication. There are no known examples of the above quotation being accompanied by a reference giving the year, the court, the state, or a link to the exact wording. The quoted text is not found in the text of Plummer or in any other known ruling by any court. In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.[22]
Heres another good one,
http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2429&context=mlr
I tried to past, but its blocked. So look at page 6, 7, 8. Explains how they used to accept common law right to resist unlawful arrest. It's now since been taken away with case law and legislation in Missouri. So NO common law doesn't apply.
2 things I noticed about this little bit right here..... 1 people fail to realize what common law is and when its used. Common law is normally used when there isn't ANYTHING ELSE to use. For example, prior to 1979 there wasn't any legislation saying that you COULDN'T resist, so they went with Common law. Prior to Nunes V. State it was accepted. Common law is an appeal to tradition, not always actual legal defense. Sure you can say WE USED TO be able to resist arrest lawfully, back in the 1890s or even better a couple hundred years ago in England. But TODAY you CANNOT RESIST ARREST in Missouri. Period. You CAN apply self defense if you are being beaten or fear for your life/limb. That's an EXCESSIVE FORCE standpoint, not resist arrest. So if you feel the "arrest" is bad, oh well go with it.
Please take time and read this one....
http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2429&context=mlr
Its an article that came out right around the time the statute came into affect and it explains it pretty well.
The SECOND thing I noticed is do a google search of the Bad Elk case... you get TONS of people claiming on the internet you can resist an arrest all the way up to shooting the police. But they are guys like SVG who nit pick the case because they hate the barrel. Both cases on Wiki (I know not the best source) have a whole SECTION dedicated to clearing up the fact that this is propagated falsely on the internet.
So no SVG they wouldn't be informed if the right to resist arrest, because it doesn't exist in Missouri. They wouldn't be given any type of jury instructions unless he claimed it was self defense and that they were using excessive force. They never touched him or went near him so they did use any force. Sure... go ahead use your favorite THREAT of force.... you can't use self defense against the threat of force from LEO, it's EXCESSIVE FORCE, meaning it has to actually occur.
But your right SVG...I have NO IDEA how the law works....
