Do you think defending yourself against a law enforcement officer should be a right?

I'm not saying it's a good idea. In fact I would strongly advise against it in all but the most extreme circumstances. But do you think being able to defend yourself against a law enforcement officer should be recognized as an inherent natural right? Or do you think the law should always punish people whenever they resist an officer?

 

Yes, but in the courts. When an officer stops a person, that person still has rights. If they are abused then there can be a mistrial.

 

you are obliged to obey any legal order given by a cop.

 

No, this is not what I mean. I meant when individuals use physical force (including use of a gun) against a law enforcement officer.
So then should the courts seek to punish these individuals? Maybe they had good reason to resist the law enforcement officer in that particular situation.

Which runs into some potential problems. Anyone could throw on a uniform and pretend to be a cop. Or in other cases, an actual law enforcement officer may be obviously abusing his authority.
In Mexico, often times when organized crime groups carry out a kidnapping they will actually get a corrupt police officer to accompany them to "arrest" the abductee so the target's bodyguards will not put up a fight. Only later does the abductee find out it was not a real arrest, when they are being held for ransom in a remote location. Or sometimes the one who was abducted just "disappears" permanently.

Maybe a law enforcement officer demands immediate access to a bank vault. Should the bank employees just let him in? And the guards just surrender their guns and allow themselves to be handcuffed?

 

unless you have seriously legitimate concerns that the guy is a criminal illegally posing as a cop, you are legally required to follow all lawful orders given by a police officer.

 

let me restate this:

unless have some some seriously reasonable questions as to the authenticity of a police officer, you MUST follow all of his lawful orders, or you can be arrested.

if you violently resist a police officer, who is giving lawful orders, you have committed a crime and can be punished for it.

 

I am not saying the individual cannot be arrested, I am just questioning whether the law should punish them for resisting. Maybe they did nothing else wrong besides resisting arrest.

But one might not be sure at the time whether the orders being given by the officer were truly lawful.

There is another thread about this:
another freedom taken away: "Resisting Arrest"

 

unless the cops says something like "drop your pants!!" or "show me your tits!" or "jump up and down like a chicken", you should obey his orders.

...or be ready to go to jail.

 

If they were going to do that, they would usually do that after the victim was arrested and vulnerable.

 

When Mitt was a student at Michigan and his father was governor, he used to dress up in a police uniform, 'borrow' a squad car, and stop pretty girls. Of course, he was a perv.

- - - Updated - - -

By 'anyone', we know who you mean. Mitt Romney.

 

Well it depends. If we're talking about the rights to revolution, then yes of course. But attacking an LEO for a ticket stop, that's just it, it's a lot harder to justify.

 

It used to not really be a serious offense to impersonate a police officer. Then the legislatures passed laws that gave those in law enforcement total power when dealing with civilians, where it became a crime merely to "not follow a police order" or just to "resist arrest". Basically, in many States, civilians have absolutely no lawful ability to assert their rights when dealing with police officers. This has effectively given those in law enforcement total power in a situation, and as a consequence it has now become a serious felony for someone (who is not actually a police officer) merely just to go out and wear a police uniform.

Unfortunately I think the problem is that legislatures thought they could solve problems by passing more laws.

No, no. That is not what I am talking about at all. Although I could foresee in some extremely rare emergency situation people might have a legitimate reason for not wanting to have to stop and be pulled over.
But it can be a blurry line. What if the officer wants the driver to step out of the car and put his hands up? What if the driver wants all the passengers to step out of the car too?

I read about one case where an officer misread a car's license plate, mistakenly thought it was a stolen car, and ran in front of the moving car and aimed his gun directly at the driver through the windshield, signaling him to stop. Fortunately, this particular situation was quickly resolved without incident, but it could potentially have ended a lot worse. If the people in the car had reason to believe that someone was coming after them, intending to do them harm... (I am not saying this is a common situation, but it is possible)

If we accept this, then that makes everyone potentially vulnerable, unable to act to defend themselves without fear of harsh retribution by the State.
The criminals or oppressors need only be wearing a law enforcement uniform.

 

Although your not resisting, you can legally drive to the nearest lighted area, if at night or a business area, where people are, before stopping when being red lighted. Once the police have properly identified themselves, you best follow any instructions. I feel most cops, have this in mind before turning on their lights, but.....

 

If someone truly believes they have a valid reason for refusing a lawful order, that would be a defence (or at least mitigation) to any charges.

I don't think there is a perfect answer but I don't see a better one either. I also note that you're making no attempt to offer one though you seem to be suggesting that anyone should be free to ignore any legal orders from police officers without consequence.

 

it is a serious offense to impersonate a cop.

however, it seems that you, through your various comments on this subject, are encouraging people to NOT obey the lawful orders of police officers.

will you volunteer to share in the criminal penalties when someone takes your advice? I doubt it.

 

I get what you're saying, but I just can't see a legitimate excuse if a police officer pulls a person over for them to resist arrest. Perhaps it's because I grew up in a police culture, but there doesn't really seem like another way out of it. A person does have rights, the problem is just ignorance. Why would the police want to tell them their rights before questioning them? If people were taught there rights, then that would be the best way to resist arrest.

 

its pretty pathetic to encourage people to refuse to obey orders from a police officer, when one will not be facing the consequences of those actions.

 

To a cop, he thinks every order he gives is lawful. A cop thinks the simple fact that he is a cop means everything he does is lawful. It does not matter what the law really says. And whether the order is lawful or not, its your word against the cops, and the cops will lie for each other, plant or destroy evidence, harass you, and do whatever it takes to "win" and put you in jail.

 

guess what? most instructions from a police officer, are lawful.

 

Yes, it is an inherent natural right, and it used to be accepted that a person had the right and responsibility to not follow a cops illegal orders.

That does not mean it is always wise to assert your rights. The USA is a police state, and cops are above the law and are likely to respond violently to people who do not immediately "comply" as subserviently as a slave to his master. And cops know they will get away with being violent.

The difficult situation would be if an out of control cop is severely beating or attempting to kill you or one of your family members after the victim has already "complied" or is helpless. Then you have every right to use deadly force, but you are probably going to die either right there or in police custody, or will face a few years of incarceration, trial, abuse, harassment, and in the end will likely be thrown in jail for a number of charges both real and trumped up.

 

you only have the right to defend yourself against a cop, if they are breaking the law.

 

That's not the point. The point is that a cop thinks all of his orders are lawful - whether they actually are or not - simply because he wears a uniform and because he can get away with breaking the law.

The majority of orders from cops are lawful and intended to maintain the peace, other orders might be lawful but not moral, and a small set of orders are both unlawful and immoral. Its that last set which is the real major problem area.

 

It is a tricky subject. Whether "resisting arrest" is punished or not, either way carries problematic implications in certain potential situations.

We could just say it is too difficult, and leave it up to a jury to decide on a case-by-case basis, but even that carries its own set of problems.

 

Truth be told, I can't see a way out of it. Simply make people know their rights before an arrest and a lot of complications can be dealt with.

 

What was the choice, really, considering the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and such?