Unlawful Arrest

[pex]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

if you resist a lawful arrest, the consequences should be severe.

so, you better be absolutely certain that the arrest is unlawful before resisting...because, if it turns out the arrest is not unlawful you are going to prison for awhile.

Isn't that how it already works? Murder/manslaughter if it's lawful, nothing if it isn't?

Perhaps EVERYONE would want to be clearer on the law (legislators, enforcers, the people) if the people were interested in standing up for the law.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by pex

Isn't that how it already works? Murder/manslaughter if it's lawful, nothing if it isn't?

Perhaps EVERYONE would want to be clearer on the law (legislators, enforcers, the people) if the people were interested in standing up for the law.

given the cases cited in this thread, it does seem that that is more or less how it actually works as is.

however, that is not how PA law currently reads. PA law currently reads that it is just plain illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.

rather than relying on the courts to say "wait a minute here...", i think it would be nice to actually modify the law to say that you can resist an unlawful arrest.

[pex]

We have law enforcers now, not peace officers, don't we?

[CZ40P]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

The same way we have a "theoretical" right to revolt against a tyranical gov't, we should have the theoretical right to resist and repel unlawful arrest.

I don't see it as something that happens so often that it's a major issue. Resisting arrest is very risky no matter how you slice it (you will get hurt). If you're so positively sure that the arrest is unlawful, you should not be legally compelled to submit to it anyway, even if, as a practical matter, that might be a better course of action. If you're not sure or it turns out you were wrong, the thump on your head and additional charges for resisting should be enough to deter "routine" resistance (apart from those who resist arrest because they're violent people and not out of some misunderstanding of their rights).

I dunno, Randy Weaver thought it was a major issue.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by CZ40P

I dunno, Randy Weaver thought it was a major issue.

Re-read my first sentence. I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

As for Randy Weaver: "Weaver was charged with multiple crimes relating to the Ruby Ridge incident, including the original firearms charges and murder. Attorney Gerry Spence handled Weaver's defense, and argued successfully that Weaver's actions were justifiable as self-defense."

He was permitted to show that his actions were lawful in resisting an unlawful arrest, including the use of lethal force (under the laws of his state).

[Voolfie]

The great problems are 1. No one knows the law any more...because there are so many, and...2. Police are taught that anyone who does not have a badge is a potential "customer". Police are taught - or at least led to believe - that there are so many laws on the books now, anyone they want to arrest is probably guilty of something...Thus, your average police officer cannot conceive of a situation in which his/her arrest of you could ever be "unlawful". Also, the laws are written to give LEOs legal “cover” in almost any situation. This is the biggest problem...and it's not the LEO's fault. Even the D.A. probably doesn't know that PA law permits citizens to resist an unlawful arrest. The presumption of innocence is, today, nothing more than a quaint, old-fashioned notion.

When, in a confrontation, a citizen knows the law and an LEO doesn't...the LEO isn't going to just shrug his shoulders, say "well, you're probably right” and walk away. Were the citizen to have an elegantly bound copy of the most up-to-date PA Code and be able to conclusively demonstrate that s/he was within the law, this would only be viewed as a challenge to authority…and ironically, end up increasing – rather than decreasing – the chances of arrest. Police are taught that they are not arbiters or interpreters of the law…only enforcers of it (which, when you can’t possibly know it, makes the job difficult). The only exception might be for an “officer of the court” aka a lawyer.

Were someone to employ violence to resist an unlawful arrest, he would find himself in a position in which "the authorities" would try like hell to make an example of him. (Although, in Philadelphia, many judges, to say nothing of juries, will take a citizen's word over that of a LEO 7 out of 10 times. So, perhaps, balance has been found.)

The answer, I believe, is to require, for the next twenty years, that for every new law passed...TWO must be stricken from the books. When we get back to the point where everyone knows what is and what isn't illegal...we'll have a lot more trust and cooperation.

Until then...citizens exercising their rights should do what the police do...project confidence (the police derive their authority and legitimacy from the people, NOT vice-versa), be polite - but not friendly - and ALWAYS know where the closest escape route and cover are.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by Voolfie

Even the D.A. probably doesn't know that PA law permits citizens to resist an unlawful arrest.

You make some good points but for the purpose of this discussion I think it's important to point out that in PA, the statute says you can't resist even an unlawful arrest.

Were someone to employ violence to resist an unlawful arrest, he would find himself in a position in which "the authorities" would try like hell to make an example of him.

He'd also likely find himself in the hospital or the morgue.

Randy Weaver, mentioned earlier, or actually his wife, is a good (yet tragic)example. The feds escalated, screwed up royally and ultimately murdered his wife. The point being not that all the feds are all bad or any of that crap -- just that unlawful arrest and even illegal execution by the gov't does happen.

[pex]

The answer, I believe, is to require, for the next twenty years, that for every new law passed...TWO must be stricken from the books. When we get back to the point where everyone knows what is and what isn't illegal...we'll have a lot more trust and cooperation.

The government is not in that business. Why would you EVER believe they want to bring clarity to the law?