|
Post by brocktownsend on Dec 19, 2011 19:20:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sedition on Dec 19, 2011 19:41:21 GMT -5
I beg to differ... SOME people out there have the means to make both the cop, and their SWAT butt-buddies, have a very bad day.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Dec 19, 2011 20:08:38 GMT -5
The time to assert your rights is not after you are in the position and have admitted their jurisdiction over you. The time to be rude is when you submit a bill to the local government who pays those officers. Here in NC Rodney Class has caused the State Appeals court to stipulate that Police Officers are agents of the Municipality and Independent contractors. When you agree to be searched you are agreeeing that the Officer is authorized to search you and there is no way back.
|
|
|
Post by hefferman1 on Dec 20, 2011 8:37:17 GMT -5
This should be oveturned asap. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. 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.” “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621. “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903. “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260 www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
|
|
|
Post by aronatbc on Dec 20, 2011 9:01:28 GMT -5
Good to know. Thanks hefferman1...
Bookmarked.
|
|
|
Post by midnightrider on Dec 20, 2011 10:18:21 GMT -5
An armed society is a polite society!
|
|
|
Post by Cujo on Dec 20, 2011 11:12:29 GMT -5
Mind your P's & Q's ;D
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Dec 20, 2011 13:32:40 GMT -5
Sounds like my mother.
|
|
|
Post by smokeeater on Dec 21, 2011 12:15:44 GMT -5
not in my world cell cameras and dash cams work great to the good and bad
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 21, 2011 12:59:29 GMT -5
not in my world cell cameras and dash cams work great to the good and bad Yep
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 21, 2011 13:01:44 GMT -5
This should be oveturned asap. Excellent post Heff, bookmarked.
|
|