Police and ILLEGAL beat downs

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

This is going nowhere good.

[SouthHillsNinja]

How about the flip side of the question, if you saw a group of 5-8 people beating on an LEO, would you help?

I assume you mean help the leo and not help the people beating him.

Yes I have helped a leo with a particularly combative subject before and waited till back up arrived.

[Bang]

This thread got loaded up with off-topic stuff thru misunderstanding...in the quiet of our keyboards. Imagine how things can get skewed quickly in a street confrontation?

[Manxdriver]

How about the flip side of the question, if you saw a group of 5-8 people beating on an LEO, would you help?

I have and would again. it's not about who is kicking whose ass, it is about someone is getting their ass kicked. Rarely, very rarely , is it right! There are times when it is called for, and in those times, a prudent man will take it somewhere out of public view.

[justashooter]

You would have gotten your wish on 9/11 if those pesky guys on Flight 93 hadn't interfered.

you really believe that "story"?

93 was shot down by fighters from a base near camp david. the "let's roll" crap is a cover designed to keep the .gov from having to explain why the white house was worth more than the passengers that they killed with an air to air missile. it's not even a very good cover.

[Philbert]

you really believe that "story"?

93 was shot down by fighters from a base near camp david. the "let's roll" crap is a cover designed to keep the .gov from having to explain why the white house was worth more than the passengers that they killed with an air to air missile. it's not even a very good cover.

They would have to explain nothing of the kind since if the plane struck the White House / Capitol, the passengers would all have died anyway.

[shooker8]

What about when siri takes the swat officers to the wrong address in full battle rattle kicking your door in in the middle of the night? Thats the kind of thing that sketches me out.

[twency]

…

Neither the color of someone's uniform, the title of their job nor what's listed on their W2 as employer exempt them from following the law. It doesn't allow them to beat, kill or falsely imprison anyone more than you or I

And it seems SCOTUS agrees …

A I agree with most of the portion I excerpted above, but since you quoted that paragraph about John Bad Elk I feel compelled to repost something I've posted before about John Bad Elk specifically and about resisting arrest in PA generally.

…

… Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary…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…

…

No, it wasn't.

I don't have the time or inclination to debunk that whole thing, but I've read John Bad Elk several times and what's quoted above is not what the SCOTUS held. They basically said that the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to consider the improper arrest as a potentially mitigating circumstance. They should have been told that they might find him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

I see this case brought up frequently in support of the "legal to kill an officer effecting an unlawful arrest" trope, but that's a gross misreading of the text.

Leaving John Bad Elk aside, it's illegal in PA to resist an unlawful arrest. I don't think it should be, but it is.

It is settled law in Pennsylvania that it is unlawful to resist an unlawful arrest.

Com. v. Biagini, 655 A. 2d 492 - Pa: Supreme Court 1995

We cannot state it any more clearly: there does not exist in Pennsylvania a right to resist arrest, under any circumstances. The lawfulness of the arrest must be decided after the fact and appropriate sanctions imposed in a later judicial setting. Contrary to the position of the defendants herein, the opinion in French never touched upon the issue of resisting arrest when the arrestee thinks the police officer is acting without probable cause. What was at issue in French was the distinction between resisting arrest and the right of self-defense which would allow an individual to protect him/herself in the extreme situation where the arresting officer uses force which is so excessive that it will result in death or serious bodily harm. When the Court in French made reference to unlawful conduct on part of the police, the reference was to the unlawful use of excessive/deadly force in making the arrest, and not to the unlawfulness or lack of probable cause for the arrest.

[Citation and footnote omitted.]

[mrnyman]

Isnt a "beat down" a potential murder? So the cowards here would just stand aside and take pictures while a man is beaten to death? Some patriots ah? Boy am i glad George Washington didnt have a camera!

When you attempt to beat a man to death you stop being a "cop" and you are now just a criminal. The same laws that applies to the beatee applies to the beater. Many "cops" are now rotting away in jail because a jury and or a judge saw them for what they are just a thug with a bagde.
Sorry if i dont join the "cop" worshipping church.

[twency]

Isnt a "beat down" a potential murder? So the cowards here would just stand aside and take pictures while a man is beaten to death? Some patriots ah? Boy am i glad George Washington didnt have a camera!

When you attempt to beat a man to death you stop being a "cop" and you are now just a criminal. The same laws that applies to the beatee applies to the beater. Many "cops" are now rotting away in jail because a jury and or a judge saw them for what they are just a thug with a bagde.
Sorry if i dont join the "cop" worshipping church.

If that's the gist you derived from the various responses above then you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.