Resisting an unlawful arrest

[mikestilly]

imported post

quarter horseman wrote:

Michigander wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

Any Ideas on how to get this information to an attorney from inside the jail if this were to take place?

The best way to handle this one is not to do it.

Resisting an unlawful arrest, especially for us, would be political suicide. It could very easily result in OCing being banned if someone here was stupid enough to shoot it out with the cops.

Not to mention literal suicide, since the police would probably kill anyone who tried that. 5 cops or more wearing body armor WILL defeat one guy with a sidearm.

It is a subject that frankly has no place here. Anyone who advocates physically resisting police actions that don't put lives in danger, in my opinion, should be banned from this forum. Furthermore, discussing the ins and outs of it doesn't seem to serve much purpose. I hope that this thread will be locked soon.

You should ask some of the surviving Jews of Eastern Europe how they feel about unlawful arrest.

This is a whole other can of worms that I'd love to talk about. I'd really like to talk more about this because I have second hand experiences from first hand accounts from my grandparents who were both holocaust survivors from Eastern Europe. This something that drives me to fight gun control and the importance of fighting for gun rights. I dont have time now but I'll open a thread on this subject. It's a powerful one when you're trying to understand what gun control is about. Also the relationship between gun control and mass murder and genocide.

~Mike

 

[Big Gay Al]

imported post

Everything I've ever read has always said, in the event of what you perceive to be an illegal arrest, as long as you are not in danger of death or great bodily harm, the best course of action is to lodge your complaint later.

 

[quarter horseman]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

quarter horseman wrote:

Michigander wrote:

stainless1911 wrote:

Any Ideas on how to get this information to an attorney from inside the jail if this were to take place?

The best way to handle this one is not to do it.

Resisting an unlawful arrest, especially for us, would be political suicide. It could very easily result in OCing being banned if someone here was stupid enough to shoot it out with the cops.

Not to mention literal suicide, since the police would probably kill anyone who tried that. 5 cops or more wearing body armor WILL defeat one guy with a sidearm.

It is a subject that frankly has no place here. Anyone who advocates physically resisting police actions that don't put lives in danger, in my opinion, should be banned from this forum. Furthermore, discussing the ins and outs of it doesn't seem to serve much purpose. I hope that this thread will be locked soon.

You should ask some of the surviving Jews ofEastern Europe how they feel about unlawful arrest.

This is a whole other can of worms that I'd love to talk about. I'd really like to talk more about this because I have second hand experiences from first hand accounts from my grandparents who were both holocaust survivors from Eastern Europe. This something that drives me to fight gun control and the importance of fighting for gun rights. I dont have time now but I'll open a thread on this subject. It's a powerful one when you're trying to understand what gun control is about. Also the relationship between gun control and mass murder and genocide.

~Mike

That would make a good thread,in my opinion.

 

[jeremiahJohnson]

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

NicF wrote:

But, I think a couple of you have also over reacted to a simple question. Maybe I'll just stick to CCing and leave the OCing to the rest of ya. I think I saw less reaction to the bulls$$t that Hombre1 used to say!!!

Stick around for a while, and you'll find out that over reacting is the main hobby here. One thing that this forum, and the Police forums have in common. At least from what I've seen.

This is a relatively recent development, though, to be fair.

Yeah recently! About the same time we started getting an Infiltration of LEO's, and Trolls from other sites.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post

CrossPistols wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

NicF wrote:

But, I think a couple of you have also over reacted to a simple question. Maybe I'll just stick to CCing and leave the OCing to the rest of ya. I think I saw less reaction to the bulls$$t that Hombre1 used to say!!!

Stick around for a while, and you'll find out that over reacting is the main hobby here. One thing that this forum, and the Police forums have in common. At least from what I've seen.

This is a relatively recent development, though, to be fair.

Yeah recently! About the same time we started getting an Infiltration of LEO's, and Trolls from other sites.

And it is so counterproductive. I feel like half my posts lately are attempts to quell useless arguments and get back on topic. Maybe in the future we should start two threads, one to discuss the topic, and the other one to flame people for posting in the first one.

 

[quarter horseman]

imported post

With the people in the top ofgovernment we have nowadays I dont think unlawfull arrests are to far off. Some already are talking about arresting top people in health insurance companies, it's not far off I'm afraid, and I will not go quietly into the night. They can only have my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead hand.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post

quarter horseman wrote:

With the people in the top ofgovernment we have nowadays I dont think unlawfull arrests are to far off. Some already are talking about arresting top people in health insurance companies, it's not far off I'm afraid, and I will not go quietly into the night. They can only have my gun when they pry it out of my cold dead hand.

 

[Big Gay Al]

imported post

Evil Creamsicle wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

NicF wrote:

But, I think a couple of you have also over reacted to a simple question. Maybe I'll just stick to CCing and leave the OCing to the rest of ya. I think I saw less reaction to the bulls$$t that Hombre1 used to say!!!

Stick around for a while, and you'll find out that over reacting is the main hobby here. One thing that this forum, and the Police forums have in common. At least from what I've seen.

This is a relatively recent development, though, to be fair.

Yeah recently! About the same time we started getting an Infiltration of LEO's, and Trolls from other sites.

And it is so counterproductive. I feel like half my posts lately are attempts to quell useless arguments and get back on topic. Maybe in the future we should start two threads, one to discuss the topic, and the other one to flame people for posting in the first one.

We could always ignore the flamers. I think that might be the better way to go.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post

Big Gay Al wrote:

Evil Creamsicle wrote:

CrossPistols wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

NicF wrote:

But, I think a couple of you have also over reacted to a simple question. Maybe I'll just stick to CCing and leave the OCing to the rest of ya. I think I saw less reaction to the bulls$$t that Hombre1 used to say!!!

Stick around for a while, and you'll find out that over reacting is the main hobby here. One thing that this forum, and the Police forums have in common. At least from what I've seen.

This is a relatively recent development, though, to be fair.

Yeah recently! About the same time we started getting an Infiltration of LEO's, and Trolls from other sites.

And it is so counterproductive. I feel like half my posts lately are attempts to quell useless arguments and get back on topic. Maybe in the future we should start two threads, one to discuss the topic, and the other one to flame people for posting in the first one.

We could always ignore the flamers. I think that might be the better way to go.

I agree. I was kind of just being a smartass.

Anyway, since I don't feel I've contributed much to the topic here, minus that Red Dawn reference,

While resisting 'Unlawful' arrest is legal [and not to be confused with 'false' arrest, since the difference can mean your life or freedom], I would NOT recommend doing so FOR ANY REASON SHORT OF IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM. Or unwanted sexual penetration but I think I would be questioning whether or not that was even an arrest...

 

[sjalterego]

imported post

Did some research. I am answering this question with respect to Michigan b/c the right to resist an unlawful arrest is not a constitutional doctrine but a common law doctrine and will therefore vary from state to state.

The law in Michigan is not 100% settled right now. The most recent Michigan Supreme Court cases on this issue were written several years ago. See People v. Krum, 374 Mich. 356, 361;132 NW2d 69 (1965) (holding that an individual may use reasonable force as is necessary to resist an illegal arrest). These Michigan Supreme Court cases were decided on the basis of state common law and the statutory definition of resisting arrest as it existed at the time.

The right to resist the unlawful arrest was but one aspect of self-defense. People v. Eisenberg, 72 Mich.App 106, 111;249 NW2d 313 (1976). The unlawful arrest was viewed as “nothing more than an assault and battery against which the person sought to be restrained may defend himself as he would against any other unlawful intrusion upon his person or liberty.” Id.; see also Detroit v. Smith, 235 Mich.App 235, 238;597 NW2d 247 (1999) (an illegal arrest can be an assault).

Recently in 2002, the Michigan legislature amended the law on Officer use of force in making arrests and on the charge of resisting arrest. MCL 750 .81d. A Michigan Court of Appeals but NOT the Michigan Supreme Court decided that this changed the common law right to resist a false arrest. People v. Ventura 262 Mich.App. 370, 686 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. App. 2004). "A person may not use force to resist an arrest made by one he knows or has reason to know is performing his duties regardless of whether the arrest is illegal when charged pursuant to MCL 750.81d." Id. at 377-378.

This decision has been followed in other Michigan cases but the Michigan Supreme Court has NOT ruled on this question. Thus, no one canknow for certain what theMich. S.Ct. would decide if this were appealedup to it. However,it appears fairly clear that the police, trial courts and intermediate appelate courts will all behave and apply the law following People v. Ventura and rule that you may not resist an unlawful arrest.

If you are convicted of resisting arrest and manage to appeal your way up to the Michigan S. Ct. you might (doubtful but possible) convince it to overturn Ventura on some basis or other and decide that the legislature's enactment of MCL 750.81d did not abolish the common law right to resist a false arrest.

Going on to some other issues, I have no idea why a question on this issue in Michigan was answered with a citation to an Indiana court decision over 100 years old. “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34, N.E. 968 (1893).

Likewise the Supreme Court's decision in John v. Bad Elk was not decided on constitutional grounds but merely established that the Federal courts recognized the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest. Thus when in federal court on a charge of killing a police officer (in this case both the dead man and the defendant/shooter were indians and police officers of the Pine Ridge Indian Reervation which is why this was a federal matter) the Supreme Court held the common law rule applied in the absence of any federal statute amending or altering the common law.

Thus, Bad Elk does not stand for some broad constitutional right to use force to defend oneself against or to resist and unlawful arrest.

 

[Leader]

imported post

I find it hard to believe that people here of all places think the posting of the law on an open forum is wrong.

The worry seems to be that the police may notice and be upset that lowly citizens may know the law. Comments from the police forums I have seem usually include police advocating violating the law whenever they feel like it. At least when they have to deal with "civilians".

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

Leader wrote:

I find it hard to believe that people here of all places think the posting of the law on an open forum is wrong.

The worry seems to be that the police may notice and be upset that lowly citizens may know the law. Comments from the police forums I have seem usually include police advocating violating the law whenever they feel like it. At least when they have to deal with "civilians".

Thank you.

 

[Michigander]

imported post

sjalterego wrote:

Recently in 2002, the Michigan legislature amended the law on Officer use of force in making arrests and on the charge of resisting arrest. MCL 750 .81d. A Michigan Court of Appeals but NOT the Michigan Supreme Court decided that this changed the common law right to resist a false arrest. People v. Ventura 262 Mich.App. 370, 686 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. App. 2004). "A person may not use force to resist an arrest made by one he knows or has reason to know is performing his duties regardless of whether the arrest is illegal when charged pursuant to MCL 750.81d." Id. at 377-378.

It seems to me that the words "performing his duties" are quite specific in implying that any arrests that the officer would make would have to be done in good faith of probable cause or a warrant. Aside from that, the cop would be going outside of the scope of his duties, thereby violating a ton of laws, and taking him out of the protections of this one.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28ynj5emffhqdzs33mvjitmzmb%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-81d

Most of the time idiot cops have Terry stopped me and deprived me of numerous rights, they have been stupid enough to tell me that they didn't know of any laws I was breaking. In the others, they still of course failed to list a law I was violating, because there were none.

In my experience, it's very clear cut when a cop has the right to stop you and when he doesn't.

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

Would those stops constitute good faith in the courts eyes though, with the relative newness of OC?

 

[Michigander]

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

Would those stops constitute good faith in the courts eyes though, with the relative newness of OC?

That is something that is very hard to say, because of the lack of legal action those here have been able to take. We'd have a better idea if we had more money to sue the police that have unlawfully detained and prosecuted us.

But of course it isn't a concern of mine, since I am a huge proponent of not resisting unlawful OC related arrests unless lives are at stake, not to mention the fact that OC related hassles are getting extremely rare, hopefully non existent soon.

 

[CrimDoc]

imported post

This may already be obvious to everyone on the forum (pardon my newbie ignorance if that's the case) but there's a big difference between being STOPPED (and detained) and being ARRESTED.

A LEO only needs "reasonable suspicion" to stop you and detain you for an investigation. S(he) needs "probable cause" that a crime has been committed in order to arrest you.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a MUCH lower standard than probable cause. While I haven't researched the case law on OC and reasonable suspicion, I do know that the courts have generally held that virtually ANYTHING that's "out of place" fits the standard. For instance, being a Black teenager walking through a predominantly White neighborhood after dark CAN constitute reasonable suspicion ... which then justifies a stop (and a Terry pat down).

Why is this important? Because notice, that "reasonable suspicion" DOES NOT require that you do anything illegal. Just being "out of place" (and setting off a "cop radar") has generally been accepted by the courts.

So ... if OC is still "unusual" in Michigan (which it is) ... I'd bet money on the facts that the courts will rule (if they haven't already) that it's sufficient grounds for R.S. ... and hence people who OC will routinely get stopped for many, many years.

Now ... I'm not arguing that this is RIGHT, and ultimately I'd like to see OC become common place enough that the courts will say it's insufficient grounds for R.S. ... but I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[FatboyCykes]

imported post

Read moar!

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

CrimDoc wrote:

This may already be obvious to everyone on the forum (pardon my newbie ignorance if that's the case) but there's a big difference between being STOPPED (and detained) and being ARRESTED.

A LEO only needs "reasonable suspicion" to stop you and detain you for an investigation. S(he) needs "probable cause" that a crime has been committed in order to arrest you.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a MUCH lower standard than probable cause. While I haven't researched the case law on OC and reasonable suspicion, I do know that the courts have generally held that virtually ANYTHING that's "out of place" fits the standard. For instance, being a Black teenager walking through a predominantly White neighborhood after dark CAN constitute reasonable suspicion ... which then justifies a stop (and a Terry pat down).

Why is this important? Because notice, that "reasonable suspicion" DOES NOT require that you do anything illegal. Just being "out of place" (and setting off a "cop radar") has generally been accepted by the courts.

So ... if OC is still "unusual" in Michigan (which it is) ... I'd bet money on the facts that the courts will rule (if they haven't already) that it's sufficient grounds for R.S. ... and hence people who OC will routinely get stopped for many, many years.

Now ... I'm not arguing that this is RIGHT, and ultimately I'd like to see OC become common place enough that the courts will say it's insufficient grounds for R.S. ... but I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

Would your example, somewhat, fall under Florida v. J.L.?

"Finally, the requirement that an anonymous tip bear standard indicia of reliability in order to justify a stop in no way diminishes a police officer's prerogative, in accord with Terry, to conduct a protective search of a person who has already been legitimately stopped. We speak in today's decision only of cases in which the officer's authority to make the initial stop is at issue. In that context, we hold that an anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability of the kind contemplated in Adams and White does not justify a stop and frisk whenever and however it alleges the illegal possession of a firearm."

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

CrimDoc wrote:

This may already be obvious to everyone on the forum (pardon my newbie ignorance if that's the case) but there's a big difference between being STOPPED (and detained) and being ARRESTED.

A LEO only needs "reasonable suspicion" to stop you and detain you for an investigation. S(he) needs "probable cause" that a crime has been committed in order to arrest you.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a MUCH lower standard than probable cause. While I haven't researched the case law on OC and reasonable suspicion, I do know that the courts have generally held that virtually ANYTHING that's "out of place" fits the standard. For instance, being a Black teenager walking through a predominantly White neighborhood after dark CAN constitute reasonable suspicion ... which then justifies a stop (and a Terry pat down).

Why is this important? Because notice, that "reasonable suspicion" DOES NOT require that you do anything illegal. Just being "out of place" (and setting off a "cop radar") has generally been accepted by the courts.

So ... if OC is still "unusual" in Michigan (which it is) ... I'd bet money on the facts that the courts will rule (if they haven't already) that it's sufficient grounds for R.S. ... and hence people who OC will routinely get stopped for many, many years.

Now ... I'm not arguing that this is RIGHT, and ultimately I'd like to see OC become common place enough that the courts will say it's insufficient grounds for R.S. ... but I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

You are sooo wrong on sooo many points, that i cant believe you are really a lawyer!

read fla v j.l. state v peters state v lawson ohare v alamagordo state v cassad

TERRY V OHIO RAS must be more than a hunch, more than setting off cop raadar!

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

imported post

CrimDoc wrote:

This may already be obvious to everyone on the forum (pardon my newbie ignorance if that's the case) but there's a big difference between being STOPPED (and detained) and being ARRESTED.

A LEO only needs "reasonable suspicion" to stop you and detain you for an investigation. S(he) needs "probable cause" that a crime has been committed in order to arrest you.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a MUCH lower standard than probable cause. While I haven't researched the case law on OC and reasonable suspicion, I do know that the courts have generally held that virtually ANYTHING that's "out of place" fits the standard. For instance, being a Black teenager walking through a predominantly White neighborhood after dark CAN constitute reasonable suspicion ... which then justifies a stop (and a Terry pat down).

Why is this important? Because notice, that "reasonable suspicion" DOES NOT require that you do anything illegal. Just being "out of place" (and setting off a "cop radar") has generally been accepted by the courts.

So ... if OC is still "unusual" in Michigan (which it is) ... I'd bet money on the facts that the courts will rule (if they haven't already) that it's sufficient grounds for R.S. ... and hence people who OC will routinely get stopped for many, many years.

Now ... I'm not arguing that this is RIGHT, and ultimately I'd like to see OC become common place enough that the courts will say it's insufficient grounds for R.S. ... but I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

However, I believe [and I'm sorry i can't find the cite right now I'm at work] that it has been decided or there is an AG opinion or something going with a court decision that the 'mere presence of a firearm' does not constitute RAS for a Terry stop, am I correct fellas?