resistance is futile ... move along. On Monday, July 15, 2013 9:20:53 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > 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]<javascript:> > > 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 They should be repealed in every jurisdiction, and the old laws that 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] <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.
