Is it right to resist an unlawful arrest?

A rapist was going around with a patrol car light on his car and using it to arrest women to rape them. Criminals were using stolen Atlanta Georgia Red Dog uniforms to break into houses, using the same tactics the police were using; an EMT I was taking a physics class with got shot at because the Red Dog Squad was using ambulances for raids.

Sometimes it is not easy to know if you are resisting arrest or resisting crime.

A police officer was giving tickets to every yellow truck, and my father just happen to have a yellow truck, my father did not resist but proved that the Officer was a nutjob who got fired from a company that drove yellow trucks.

I saw several police officers using excessive force and with my hands raised asked an officer for his name and badge number, he looked around and went behind me, I was then arrested for assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. If the witnesses, one a respected doctor, had not seen him walk around behind me (had my hands up and was not moving), kick my feet out from under me and handcuff me and shove my face into the ground several times making it really bloody, after I was handcuffed...he would not have been transfered to the Watts division where his talents as black belt could be appreciated by the negroes.

No need to mention the time me and my father went fishing, and went to a Sheriff's house to get directions to the lake and my father asked what was going on, there were sound of shots in the woods and everyone in town was armed. You see the Sheriff held out a derringer, just big enough for my little hand, I was door knob high and they were Southern Democrats, so I was invited to a "coon hunt." That is a very special social tradition in the deep South. Two coloreds had just broke out of the jail by removing the toilet; that was back when we had two water fountains, one for Obama types and one for me types; I could ride the Pink Pig at Richs, the other types could not. Would those "coons" have been justified killing the Sheriff and just about everyone in town to stay alive, you bet.

The police are there to serve everyone, but sometimes themselves or their crooked government.

An arrest is usually not a deadly threat.

A police officer violently pushed my father, who just got out of the hospital for two bipass opperations, after my father asked who the officer was that insulted my mother, resisting would have made his day. So I helped my father to the car, went to the county manager who was his boss, he did not care and suggested a lawsuit. So I went to the newspaper but the local newspaper editor told me to my face the owners were afraid of retaliation so they could not run the story the reporter and the editor wanted to run just minutes before, and they would not allow me to buy and ad. So I got a lawyer, at $250 per hour, who sent out the legal letters. The officer was a criminal, along with the County Attorney (who was fired later with a 28 year perfect record of defending the county) and I had irrefutable proof both of them and another commited a crime, but after the lawyers letters went out I got arrested, and had to get another lawyer for a crime that was later found to be "without merrit" after I moved to another state. The second time I was stripped and deloused and put in "population," with bail revoked, for contempt of court, I said on the phone in the Jail, "I will drop the lawsuit and move to another state if I am out within an hour," I was out within an hour with no legal reasoning, no legal wrangling whatsoever, no lawyer involved, no nothing, just a phone call from a jail cell to mommy, charge and fine dropped for the second offence without any explanation whatsoever, so the Judge, who must have signed off on it verbally, and the Sheriff's office listening in on the calls in the cells were also criminals?

You see a Republican at one Zoning Board meeting, because I was denied the right to be on the County Commission agenda, which was another violation of law, and I sneaked into a Zoning meeting, after I presented my evidence of the County Attorney's crime, said "if I was you I would have taken the law into my own hands," and since I was the last one the reporter in the first row, from the same paper that was afraid of free speech, who was only other civilian there, after everyone else left, did not report that act of Terrorism support. So I repeat, "if I was you I would have taken the law into my own hands," not did it find its way into the meeting transcripts. It did not happen. Because of a cowardly newspaper and a criminal taking notes, NO record exists of the Republican saying, "if I was you I would have taken the law into my own hands."

You just have to pick your war very carefully, because that is what it is when you resist legal authority, WAR.

You would be wrong to resist with murder for a push and a yell. People are arrested all the time with a lot worse by a lot worse than the Moslem lover. Soccer moms will just see you as being on the wrong side.

 

intressting stories. made me a bit angry just to think about though. This is one reason I want to be armed.

 

It is right, and it is a right. Whether or not natural or common law rights have ever been recognized in Sweden, I don't know. I know very little about the Scandinavian legal code, though if it's like any other, the modern government largely ignores it in favor of statute.

 

Considering that these days one can be charged with resisting arrest for simply getting one's face in the way of the police officer's fist, I'd say it's best to avoid any encounter with the police. Brandon Raub, the former marine forced into involuntary commitment was dragged from his home in handcuffs for not only passively resisting (ie. not moving to cooperate or prevent the ministrations of the police), but for refusing a search of his home without a warrant.

 

Some people are just obsessed with American Exceptionalism. The Modern American government is the panacea, the beacon call of freedom to the uncivilized world and the antithesis of old-world Socialist Europe. That it is descending quickly into a modern police state with statutes and administrative rules very similar to those enacted by Germany in the late 30's, is completely ignored by them. To speak badly of the American Empire is to be Anti-American, and Anti-Educated and possibly a terrorist. Just ask Brandon Raub. Likely it was someone like the poster to whom you responded that reported his Facebook comments to the police, FBI, and Secret Service.

To the proponent of American Exceptionalism, the government IS America, and to give any resistance, even passive resistance, to the enforcers of the dictates of the political class is anarchy, or terrorism, or whatever bogeyman word is in vogue at the moment. Don't want your house searched without a warrant? You must hate freedom!

 

IN THE US, resisting arrest itself is a crime. Depending on the jurisdiction or local/State law, even to arrest a person is different, some requiring a warrant down to suspicion. In Texas for instance you can be arrested simply for refusing to sign a traffic ticket, taken as a statement NOT to appear in court. Once arrested however Miranda takes over....

 

Some people kind of do not get the purpose of our Second Amendment, "the security of a free State," and the "right of the people." It is not there to allow for security of a person from their sovereignty (the People) in all cases, that would be anarchy.

Crime happens like crap happens. And sometimes government officials support treason like John Kerry did, or they violate the civil rights or human rights of the citizens. Even Lincoln sent Robert E. Lee to put down a slave insurrection; and most people would say the slaves had every human right to rebel, but to preserve the Union or sovereign power, the Union had every right to put it down.

Like say for instance consider the US Senate ratified a treaty like the UN, ICC (see traitor John Kerry's, "some protection from politically motivated prosecutions"), or one for a One World Government, without a veto power; since the States joined the Union (and have no power to secede from that Union, see Gettysburg Address) and not a foreign power, the forced joining of any State to a foreign power would be a de facto dissolving of the original intent of such Union of States, being both guaranteed in the Constitution a Republican form of government and the formation of said Union was according to "consent of the governed" as stated in the Declaration of Independence; and it says in the Constitution "New States may be admitted by the Congress," not the Senate, so a treaty that in effect made us a State of a foreign power would be admitting new States without the consent of Congress into this Union, and the States not wishing to join such foreign power could secede, and that is why the Second Amendment is there for "the security of a free State."

Wanting to be armed is understandable. A person is really not free if only some citizens are allowed to be armed. The sovereignty also has an obligation to prevent anarchy, and to do that requires that there be officers of the law. And if every time an officer went out in the hood to arrest a criminal a mob starting shooting at them, the sovereignty has to decide if such actions benefit the people; the only way to prevent the mob thinking it can take the law into its own hands every time, is to give some preference to the officer.

In the incident where the police officers were using excessive force beating a man in the street, a Nurse was pleading with another officer to make them stop, and I was peaceably standing right there when he threatened to break her arm if she did not shut up. Now if we had all been armed we could have killed the police abusers, who threaten to break women's arms for simple speech in their own driveway, but to keep law and order the People have to give some advantage to the police.

The 6 foot black fight club thug that beats a shorter man's head into the ground and is seen on top (clothing color) beating him mercilessly is first assumed to be a criminal, while according to hear witnesses the victim of the agression (started by the larger man) is yelping in excrutiating pain, and then after the media potrays the thug as a boy with ice tea and a candy and the victim as a larger man.

If I had shot the policeman who assaulted me and arrested me, for a crime I did not commit, and the well respected witnesses that said I had my hands in the air when he attacked me from behind had been watching the boob tube instead or had been my peers instead of "well respected," I would probably be a lifer in prison. It would have been "dead highly decorated white as the driven snow" officer of the law's word against mine.

It is just a simple fact, the officers of the law have to be assumed by the sovereignty to not be the criminals.

So my advice, leave the gun at home, take your licks and then test in the court of law whose word is believed first. Because, dude, if your word is no good at proving the officer is a jerk, it is no good proving you had a right to kill the officer.

 

We have a story, with no link or reference at all, that happens to mention an unprovoked attack by Muslims.
I'll believe it as soon as I start to believe total rubbish made up by racists to forward daft pretend politics.

 

From where derives this "sovereignty" the authority to do anything that you have described?

 

Resisting unlawful arrest is not a crime, it's just a violation of statute and has penalties that are used to punish crime as well.

 

It's important to add, TOO MANY people complain about unlawful policing by calling up, or even appearing at, that police department. Very often they are dissatisfied, they didn't get any results, the cops never got punished, or they just got the runaround.

OF COURSE.

Cops cover for each other. Complaining to cops about pretty much pointless.

Still do it, but as a formality. This gives other recourses more weight, and adds to your case when they don't take it seriously.

But unlike all those others, DON'T leave it at that.

The BEST thing you could do is to complain to the courts.

Lodge a criminal complaint for their criminal conduct. This is the same procedure the police use when they go to bust you. The only difference is you've not arrested them first. That's not necessary though.

You must do your homework, get all details and evidence together, witnesses etc, time date, all that. Make sure you've followed correct procedures and mentioned the correctly applicable statute. Legal advice might be useful but you can get that free on the web anyway.

Otherwise, complain to the city council, complain to the press, and even grab the D.A. by the political balls, making sure the town will be made aware about their stance on police brutality come election month if they don't take you seriously.

Any videos, of course go to youtube, that's an automatic.

These might not all be foolproof but they're sure better than calling the PD.

 

Don't resist arrest unless there is reason to suspect that the law enforcement officers are not legitimate. Put up your fight in court, the odds are in your favor....especially if you have resources.

 

From the Consent of the Governed and in the case of this Consent, majority rules. So you are stuck with it.

 

Is it right for two men to vote to enslave a third?

 

I said that the story was irrelevant, the possible scenario is what's important. And here you pretentious prick, look at the sources. I hope you break some bones when you fall down from your high horse and onto the hard facts.

http://avpixlat.info/2012/08/09/pah...r-blev-sjalv-misshandlad-av-polis/#more-31110

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article15225241.ab

 

If you are in a "western" or "civilized" nation, this is the best advice given so far.

If you are in northern Afghanistan, eg, and are arrested, you might as well shoot and run. You aren't going to make it out alive.

 

Little thing called "social contract," which exists even for visitors to a nation; when in Rome...

Like when in Little Britain do not stand in the square today and scream "the Queen is a man," and tomorrow scream MoHamMad was "a diseased psychopathic inhuman monster that ascended to be frozen on the Event Horizon of Hell for a King of the Hill abomination on the Temple Mount." The former will be a joke in a werewolf movie, as you try to get arrested, and the later may get you beheaded or blown up.

We just have to remember what Peaceful Muslim from Chicago on Debate Politics forum said about all the human rules we are creating being void with the insult of a cartoon, and then asked, "do we have to blow things up?"

Just remember that Marc Levin stood there will a vacuous look on his face in HBO's "Protocols of Zion" when the American Muslim compared a civilian clothed suicide bomber to a military fighter jet. Logically though, we can shoot down all fighter jets that do not have the right markings, but cannot shoot all Muslims wearing the same clothes. Can you say Mark Levin is a retard?

"Also if I see an article about Christians being put on trial in a certain country for just simply spreading the word, carrying out their religion, and the accusers themselves make no accusation of the Christians using force, oppression or persecution I will have to look in the Koran to see what it says about forcing religion on others. I would like to know where in the Koran it says that Christians can’t practice their religion, which requires the spreading (not by force) of the word, because if Islam is afraid of the Christian word then Islam is insecure in it‘s beliefs? By understanding the word I can know whether the Islamic country allegedly doing the persecution is following their religion, which can’t be a true religion if it must be forced (a faith is not a faith if it must be forced), and whether those being persecuted were violating their social contract, and then can judge how my country should respond if it‘s citizens are involved." (posted August 30, 2001 10:35 PM, to muslim)

If say for instance Sweden's social contract was changed by conversion or other to Islam, and they danced in the streets with Al Quacka (KKK)--and like when I was a kid around the time the KKK dumped trash in the engine compartment of our car, and later pushed it down the street into the doctor's mail box, and when that did not work burned a cross in our yard, because my parents refused to discriminate against the coloreds, we went for a drive out on a new highway and stopped where a patrol car was and several other cars of only white people, and got out and took a walk in the woods and saw lots of unmarked graves, and we stopped in front of a little grave about my size and then my parents explained that they were black graves, and a bad thing happened there, and the whites were in tears--if the Islamifascists were violating the social contract of the minority of non-islamic Swedes then certainly with a broken social contract...the situation changes, like for the two blacks hunted in the coon hunt.

But, as always, this is good advice:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Like say from your perspective of Gary Johnson, if the Gestapo Communist Manifesto Gubermint was taxing people with something other than Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785--"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise"-- or "fairly," and there was no social and economic justice, code words for a congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY, and your minority does not like it, what did you do to buy the this land is your land?

There are countless instances where we cannot get, or keep, what we want as our utopian society, and many times attempts at libertarian individual freedom only make the city walls less secure, as ideas do not need visas to cross borders:

"[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense."

A Great Wall and border patrol will save us. {Sound of laughter}

If say for instance Sweden decided they did not want the spread of the idea or "social contract" in their country, of Jizya or great social pressure to pay Zakat (pretty much a net worth tax, not unlike many ancient taxes), what libertarian principle would you apply to stop it?

"From where derives this 'sovereignty' the authority to do...?"

Until stopped by a majority:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Where the word "Congress" is defined NOT a State's Legislature but is defined in Article 1. What does "and to provide new Guards for their future security" actually mean?

The Federalist argument was that this was sufficient, and the Anti-federalists did not think so:

"but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So what is the difference between that and the First Amendment? Why the word "Congress" in the First if it applied to the States? Would you claim they did not understand the English language?

In essence, if you got your Libertarian utopia what could you do to keep it from going Christian commie or Islamic? Write some books alike Ann Rand and hope the Hope and Change stays to your liking? Shiva_TD's idea, give your minority a veto in the Supreme Court? Write your Constitution on Adamantine Steel, and remove the amendment process? Remove the majority's right to bear arms? Pass laws establishing Libertarian religion, saying MoHamMad was NOT a prophet and Allah was Shaitan, so as to bring the kiddies up as you want them to go? Take the law into your own hands to force your ideas on the majority? Arrest Peaceful Muslim?

 

No kidding.

 

The US Supreme Court has approved police deception in the time leading up to arrest. I find that remarkable. I also find it remarkable that Miranda only kicks in on arrest. In England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand (probably Canada, not sure) a police officer must caution a person immediately that person becomes a suspect and not simply another person to be interviewed for information. Cops ignore this at their peril. If they fail to caution then the interview is not usually admitted as evidence to the jury. If they caution too late then the judge is able to excise any parts of the interview that were obtained in violation of the caution, that is, the judge will only allow that part of the interview that follows where the caution should have been used.

Miranda is useless in terms of securing rights.

 

That's a an interesting point. I would think that resisting a lawful arrest is a crime in most, if not all, US jurisdictions. But the conviction, if it happens, can certainly be overturned if the arrest is found unlawful. So resisting unlawful arrest isn't a crime and can't be a violation of a statute and no penalties can be applied.

 

When in Rome do not look for a corner to (*)(*)(*)(*) in if you are in the Coliseum.

 

Yeah because beheadings happen like all the time in Britain.

These words seem to reflect a bit of paranoia and fear. Your odds of getting killed by a Mexican or black gangbanger are much higher.

 

Of course there are some Muslims who would kill over perceived religious offense. But then again there's loads of people who would kill because you're wearing the wrong colors or aren't even affiliated. There's more people who would kill for no reason at all!

 

How did he do this?

 

Voting for an authorization, but putting a yellow stained post-it-note on the LAW saying you will turn against it if it is used as it is worded, and then doing so, because the Biden and Lugar amendment did not pass, is a "deliberate act of betrayal" and that is the very definition of treason:

“I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.” (TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002)

You said, "your odds of getting killed by a Mexican or black gangbanger are much higher."

And you said, "there's more people who would kill for no reason at all!"

Those "words seem to reflect a bit of paranoia and fear."

Where I live the odds of getting killed by a criminal white is much higher. What are you a racist? Yes, there are some "people who would kill for no reason at all," but we call them mentally ill, and they are not in the majority.