Good Morning Plain Ol'! Unfortunately, in many States, Florida included, (since 1985) it is against the law to resist ANY arrest, including an "unlawful" arrest. Thus this new, (since 1985) charge, "resisting arrest without violence".
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:35 AM, plainolamerican <[email protected]>wrote: > They should be repealed in every jurisdiction, and the old laws that 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]> 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<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 politicalforu...@**googlegroups.com. >>> >>> For more options, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<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. > > > -- -- 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.
