BREAKING: Master Sergeant Christopher Grisham found guilty in right to carry trial

[twency]

I've always wondered how this squares with the SCOTUS case stating otherwise.

“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.”


This goes without addressing the numerous rulings affirming the same in State courts (although I did not find one in PA), or in Common Law (going back to Robin hood - which was cited by the PA courts in a ruling on the authority of Sheriffs).


Is it a case where the law as been pasted, and no one (with a good lawyer), has fought it?

There's a false legend which refuses to die about John Bad Elk. I usually see it referenced as part of a larger string of cases and what they supposedly say, including the claim that

“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.

That's quoted from www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm. You appear to be quoting from that website or a similar source, PAMedic=F|A=.

I've never bothered to research Plummer, but the claim about John Bad Elk is false. The court in John Bad Elk stated (approximately) that the trial judge had erred in not allowing the jury to consider the improper arrest as a potentially mitigating circumstance. The jury should have been told that they might find the defendant guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder.

As far as I can tell with my non-lawyer case reading skills, John Bad Elk does not support the proposition that "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary".

As for PA case law, I quoted a recent and controlling precedent a few posts above, and it is explicit.

there does not exist in Pennsylvania a right to resist arrest, under any circumstances

[Grey Bearded One]

Just like how the Fudds . . .

GI Joe wannabes calling hunters disparaging names is not a good way to foster solidarity.

And I'm pretty sure you DON'T have a right to walk around without a shirt on.

I do, just like I can burn a flag if I want.

[beginthefight]

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”


― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


It is time to begin the fight!

[donotknowme]

The government is a cancer that will kill you to keep itself alive. It has made a number of laws that go against your rights. Rights you have by your mere existence. You always have a right to self defense. Maybe not legally but morally.

[Grey Bearded One]

Regarding what Solzhenitsyn wrote in the above quote. Hindsight is always 20/20. No one wants to be the first martyr meaning that if the police show up at my door tonight to conduct a warrantless search, I'm probably not going to get into a gun battle with them. Especially a gun battle that I know that I cannot win.

Also, when shit starts going downhill, human nature is to believe that it will get better or that the legal system will prevail When it becomes obvious that the legal system isn't going to help, you need to decide if you want to risk your family or just keep hoping that it will get better.

Fifty years ago, you could fade into the mountains with your group of rebels and disappear. One hundred years ago, you could build a town in an area where the government couldn't get to it. Now, the eye in the sky can find your campfires. Radio can be tracked. Try to hide out of sight and they'll still find you.

[Bang]

My take, for what it's worth.....Grisham was not charged relating to carrying the AR-15....so how can law enforcement justify manhandling him for the rifle?

He was told he was being placed under arrest for resisting arrest. Those charges were (I presume) amended, if they ever were filed, by the prosecuting ADA... so Grisham was not resisting, apparently...the very charge he was arrested for... or he would have been tried for it.

"That charge was ultimately changed to the current charge of interfering with police duties, and Grisham could face a possible $2,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail for the offense".....

So the law enforcement officers, investigating a man carrying an AR-15 "on the wrong side of the road" (WTF is THAT?) ask why and he stated factually "because I can". At that point Grisham had commited contempt of cop. Based on the charge of contempt of cop, the officer got physical about it, and was met with physical objection.
Then the officer puts a gun to Grisham's head, I believe?

OK....it's a tough job. Police cannot know what a person doing something out of the ordinary is about. He doesn't want a DC sniper on his beat. If it had been a loon and he opened fire on passing vehicles after the officers could have investigated and didn't, this thread would be beating the shit out of the useless cops.

The news labeled it a "right to carry case". No charges were tried on that premise...but it certainly was the precursor to all that followed.

The police were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. They took action fearing what might happen if they didn't. Fearing a false arrest charge, once someone is arrested and detained and transported to the station, just letting them go may invite a false arrest suit. So they charge something that will require court action. From what I see, this case those earmarks.

With hindsight.... police have the duty to try to ascertain that what they observe is not the result of a violation, a present existing violation or a pending violation. Grisham may have faired better if he had replied " Oh, I'm hoping to find a safe and legal area to get in some target practice. I'm also concerned with self protection for myself and my son and this is the type of gun I am most familiar with, being in the Army and all". "Because I can" brought an "Oh yeah? Well here's what I am going to do, because I can". Rather predictable, I would think. One would think a MSGT would understand courtesy and discipline better.

[Grey Bearded One]

"Because I can" is a reason that usually evokes a negative reaction.

"It's 105 degrees, why are you wearing long pants?" "Because I can." "Fucking smartass."

"It's 105 degrees, why are you wearing long pants?" "Because I don't like shorts." "Oh, ok."

The question could be just about anything and the "because I can" answer will cause a "Fucking smartass reaction."

Why are you sitting in the corner?
Why did you buy a Buick?
Why did you turn the TV off?
Why did you throw the pizza out?

[Deleted]

"Because I can" is a reason that usually evokes a negative reaction.

"It's 105 degrees, why are you wearing long pants?" "Because I can." "Fucking smartass."

"It's 105 degrees, why are you wearing long pants?" "Because I don't like shorts." "Oh, ok."

The question could be just about anything and the "because I can" answer will cause a "Fucking smartass reaction."

Why are you sitting in the corner?
Why did you buy a Buick?
Why did you turn the TV off?
Why did throw the pizza out?

The man speaks the truth.......because he can.

[wewo]

And I'm pretty sure you DON'T have a right to walk around without a shirt on.

In New York even women can do this

[ray h]

"Because I can" is a reason that usually evokes a negative reaction.

"It's 105 degrees, why are you wearing long pants?" "Because I can." "Fucking smartass."

"It's 105 degrees, why are you wearing long pants?" "Because I don't like shorts." "Oh, ok."

The question could be just about anything and the "because I can" answer will cause a "Fucking smartass reaction."

Why are you sitting in the corner?
Why did you buy a Buick?
Why did you turn the TV off?
Why did you throw the pizza out?

But being a "smartass" isn't illegal, it may be a bad idea and it may be just the thing to piss someone off but it's not illegal.
If a cop gets pissed he should have the same options we all have, hit the guy, cuss at him, shake your head in disgust or just walk off. Arresting him because he's a smartass is not a valid option.
No one else I know of is allowed to use their job to get back at people just for being a smartass.
I give student's grades that can either pass or fail them in our courses, should I be able to fail a student who is other wise passing a course just because he pissed me off? I would be fired for that, no doubt in my mind, as I should be. Why isn't law enforcement held to the same standard as other professionals? I'm baffled everytime I read this kind of shit.