They should be repealed in every jurisdiction, and the old laws that required a citizen to resist illegal arrests be reinorporated.
--- In many cases, individuals will realize that they are the target of false arrest and attempt to resist or flee. This is known as *resisting unlawful arrest*, and is a justification<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(jurisprudence)> for such resistance where it would otherwise be a crime (i.e. resisting arrest<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest>, flight to avoid prosecution, assault <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault>, or even murder <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder>). Justification for such action is often hard to prove in court, and only justified in certain circumstances. Simple mistake of fact<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_of_fact> situations would generally not warrant attempting to elude law enforcement. However, there are some that would, such as: - the person making the arrest never identifying themselves, causing the defendant to believe they are the target of kidnapping<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping> or robbery <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery>. - the reasonable belief that the person making the arrest is an impersonator <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonator> with the intent of victimizing the defendant. - the reasonable belief that the defendant would be the victim of police brutality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality> if taken into custody by that individual.[*citation needed<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed> *] Many courts generally will not condone violence used in resisting an unlawful arrest, or "deadly force," unless it's proven the police<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police> began to use violence upon the defendant. In most jurisdictions, the arrest powers of police<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police> and police agents are in excess of those afforded to ordinary citizens (see citizen's arrest <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest>). However, the powers of police officers to arrest are not unlimited. Generally speaking: 1. Anyone may arrest a person if in possession of an arrest warrant<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_warrant> issued by an appropriate court. In the United States, this includes bounty hunters <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_hunters> (agents of bail bondsmen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_bondsman>) acting under the authority of abench warrant <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_warrant> to bring a criminal defendant who has skipped bail<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skipped_bail> to court for trial. 2. A police officer, or a person authorized by a jurisdiction's police powers act, may arrest anyone whom the officer has reasonable and probable cause <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause> to believe has committed any criminal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime> offence. 3. Any person may arrest someone suspected of committing a felony<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony> or indictable offence <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictable_offence>, as long as the arresting person believes the suspect is attempting to flee the scene of the felony. imo ... everyone has a responsibility to keep an eye on those we perceive as criminals. On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:53:21 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Thanks for sharing this article Michael. As Shafer openly admits, he > didn't watch the whole trial, (I caught most of it) and I think his > premise is just a little skewed, but he brings up an excellent point; a > point that is, (as Plain Ol's calls it) "Spot On". > > In my humble opinion, our Nations' States, Counties and municipalities > all made a grave, serious mistake, like here in Florida, when in 1985 we > removed the "law" that required and mandated it a citizen's duty to use > whatever force necessary to resist an illegal or wrongful arrest. > > This was replaced with statutes that mandated it was illegal to resist a > law enforcement officer.....In Florida, the minor infraction is titled: > "resisting an officer without violence" and the felonious charge is > captioned: "resisting an officer with violence". Both of these statutes, > but especially the "without violence" charge are "catch-all" criminal > infractions and hard to prove against. They should be repealed in every > jurisdiction, and the old laws that required a citizen to resist illegal > arrests be reinorporated. > > I believe that this is just one more check to balance out overly > aggressive and errant law enforcement officers. > > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM, MJ <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > >> >> *What Bothered Me Most About the Zimmerman Trial >> *Butler Shaffer >> July 14, 2013 >> >> I did not watch the entirety of this trial, but I did watch most of the >> closing arguments. There was a tone to the prosecution’s summation to the >> jury that left me with the impression that the core of George Zimmerman’s >> offense was that he was *not* a police officer. While giving lip-service >> to the propriety -- even the desirability -- of “neighborhood watch” >> practices, the state’s prosecutors saw a conflict between ordinary people >> and “official” police officers doing what Zimmerman did. Toward the end of >> the state’s summation, it was said that if a person wanted to do what >> George Zimmerman did “you’d better have one of these” (whereupon a photo of >> a policeman’s badge was projected onto the screen). >> >> What the state was implicitly acknowledging -- whether such was its >> intent or not -- was the real-world dual standard that operates on the >> streets of virtually every city in every state: a police officer will >> almost never be held to account, criminally, for wrongs committed against >> innocent victims. Take the identical facts in the Zimmerman case and change >> just one: have George Zimmerman be a city-appointed police officer. Is >> there anyone so naïve as to believe that his actions would have turned him >> into a criminal defendant? Would the event have even made it into the >> media -- apart, perhaps, from a blurb news report on page 23 of the local >> newspaper? Because the state is defined as a system enjoying a monopoly on >> the use of violence, its practitioners must be shielded from the >> consequences of their violent acts. >> >> I shall not hold my breath awaiting the media babblers addressing this >> issue. The institutionalized keepers-of-the-questions-to-be-asked would >> never be so foolish or careless as to allow such a thought to surface. >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
