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

I voted for only under extreme circumstances simply because the majority of people do not know what a cop can or cannot do, discretion is sometimes the better part of valour, unless you know your rights and what a cop can or cannot do then you are always going to be the one playing catch-up.

One of the problems is that a cop can, quite legitimately, claim that they suspect you of committing some sort of offence, this gives them certain powers to 'demand' certain things from you .. as noted by another poster, a cop can pull you over for a traffic violation and then under the pretence of "smelling pot or alcohol" ie a suspicion of further offences, demand other things from you. They require no proof of this simple a suspicion is enough. If you refuse their 'demands' they then can arrest you on suspicion of a crime and continue their search etc without having violated your rights.

Example - A cop pulls you over on a traffic violation while talking to you they 'think' they smell alcohol on you, they are entitled under that suspicion to request further things from you, if you refuse they can, and probably will, arrest you for suspicion of driving while under the influence (DUI) that then gives them the legal right to do many other things.

rightly or wrongly the cops have the upper hand, simply by having a suspicion that you are in the process of, or are about to, commit a crime. Even walking up and down a street looking for an address can be seen as suspicious behaviour and may draw the attention of the police, surely the best thing is to co-operate.

 

I think it is not so much a question of "right" but of "MIGHT". IF they are using Undue or EXCESSIVE force against someone then the person SHOULD defend themselves because IF they're going to get hurt they might as well get hurt DEFENDING THEMSELVES and get a whack in if possible at those hurting them OR their families!! The problem is GETTING AWAY with it because it's NOT just a matter of answering to the LIMPID excuse for "justice" of the "judges" but of remaining in PO-LICE custody! As long as you're IN THEIR hands, you're at THEIR "mercy"! Does the "Roman Empire" mean anything to ya??/B]

 

I am partial to the idea of law enforcement having the use of overwhelming force at their disposal, should the suspect pose a threat to them, but at the same time not punishing the suspect after-the-fact for using deadly force in justifiable self defense to resist arrest. If the suspect chooses to use deadly force, he does so at his own peril, since law enforcement could then be justified in shooting back. But the suspect has a natural right to use appropriate force to defend himself, and to take that right away, by making it against the law, would be unfair and grossly totalitarian, in my opinion. This is why I think arrest is a very serious thing and should only be used when absolutely necessary. In many cases they could delay an arrest until after a trial has been conducted. I suppose that may not be very practical to police the less serious laws in many situations, but upholding individual liberty does come at a price.

To basically summarize again, if you try to use force against someone (whether you are a law enforcement officer or not), that person may be fully justified in using force against you. So you better not use force against someone unless it is for something very serious, like robbery or murder. But a court can still order a punishment on someone [for a lesser crime] after they have been allowed to voluntarily show up at a trial, because in that case the convicted individual has had time to verify that the law enforcement officers they are being turned over to are legitimate government officials, not just some unknown strangers who happen to be wearing uniforms.

 

I think that's okay so long as abuse of said power leads to significant punishment, and citizens are allowed to form groups that keep them accountable. An example of a minor abuse of power: It should probably not be legal for an officer to tell somebody to put down their camera (unless the camera is being used as some kind of weapon). There is no justifiable reason for them to give that order other than to hide something they're embarrassed about.

There's also a difference between submitting to an arrest and defending yourself. Getting down on the ground, getting cuffed, and getting into the back of a car is humiliating, but resisting it is not "self-defense." If you're cooperating and a cop starts beating you up or shoots at you. I think it should be legal to do whatever one can to stop the abuse, including shooting the cop in their face. It's self-defense - even with just kicking you they could have have killed you like they have some black prisoners lately. That said, such actual abuse is probably rare and while cops are human, most of them act in good faith.

 

Try arresting a police officer and see what happens. They are perfectly within their rights to want to defend themselves.

On the other side of things, suppose someone is summoned by a court to stand trial for their conduct and they refuse to go. In such an instance I believe the argument could be made that they may no longer have a natural right to self defense to resist arrest, because how else is the court supposed to uphold the law? (this is assuming that the law is morally right)

 

Some states have militias. I have read a bit on them. I think they should be a historical bit of display, sentiment and use re-enactments not train like a guerrilla. In some of those militias they talk about self defense against a militarized this and that and defending civil rights on their online pages. If an officer of the law in uniform with badge or plainly dressed with legitimate badge, arrests someone, from the moment those cuffs get slapped on or that bodily search happens, law suits could pile up. Defending yourself with the law, using the law in a court of law, is the best way to go about any self defense against a police officer should one need to exact self defense. When one researches militias of state, they can come across all kinds of propaganda, opinions against the current federal government, operations the militia has been involved in and come to some pretty sordid conclusions about it. Self defense against a police officer, the mere notion comes to mind because of the militarized presence that reminds people of the state militias that go wildly misunderstood and even feared. This is because people can start their own branches in some states, three simple people could have a platoon of their own creation. No one really knows who is who or what is what so they fear the police after learning about militia. Look for the badge, not the patches, be aware of patches our U.S. Military has, be aware of the patches of the state militias. Basically, if it is a legitimate badge and the person is rolling in a legitimate squad car you fight them and you pile on charges. Don't fear the badges, don't fear the military, don't fear the federal government, do be aware of state militia and be cautious of those guys. It's the state militias that carry their own firearms, buy their own fatigues, push their own bullets, organize their own "posse" and it's them if you get into any situation where they tell you what to do based on their patches that you might defend yourself and face no legal repercussions. Do your research. Know your laws. The state governors have options to call state militias in and do for disasters, but they are only trying to help, so in that situation hand outs are alright and they are extra helping hands, that's great, but, still, even I do not think of them as cops and I do not feel like I have to do a dang thing they say. I can see why the question of should we defend ourselves from law enforcement comes up. Look at all the patches and names of rank confusion. If you do not see U.S. military branch patch on the uniform, only a state militia patch, if they tell you to do anything if your not in a disaster and no other federal patches or cop badges are around, call a cop on them city or state cop, if a U.S. military person tells you to do something in America call a city or state cop on them if it isn't martial law or if your not at a military event on a base, but if a cop tells you to do something, do it. A state cop is not state militia. If a cop knocks on your door no warrent, only shows a card, without showing a badge, call a city cop on them. You can always call dispatch and ask if a badge number is valid or ask them who to ask. I hope that explains it. I feel it was a redundant answer but it also answers the poll. If I am wrong tell me why, provide links to legal statutes. You do not legally have to join a militia, or military, if your a male and 18 years of age, a citizen, you do have to sign up for selective service in the States.

 

I haven't thought about what should happen in the case of civilians attempting to arrest a police officer. I don't remember a case of that ever happening. That seems hugely risky and highly unlikely to be a successful remedy.

In the other event, I agree. Our legal system necessarily addresses injustice after the fact. If someone decides to "defend themselves" against an officer they better have a damn good reason - probably requiring avoiding irreparable harm such as saving ones life. Defense against injustice can not be enough. That is what the courts are for.

 

First off, one should not be in a position to have to defend one's self except in extreme circumstances. One can be assertive while being polite. Defense should only become necessary when the situation has escalated to a level that one is in intimate danger of harm. It is much better to yield and take the battle to the courts than to risk a life.

It is also much more satisfying to destroy a psychopathic individual while leaving them alive to suffer the consequences of their psychotic actions.

And to resist a lawful arrest is and always should be punishable but to resist kidnapping is one of those inherent rights of people.

- - - Updated - - -

Mistrial? And a "person" never has rights.

 

Not unless you are a slave. Cops have no authority without your consent without due process of law.

 

And just where did you get this little tidbit you insist on propagating? Was it in the "Good Citizen" handbook or the "Obligations of Slavery" handbook?

 

Absolutely pure bull. Please state your source and reference that to the "lawful" authority of that source.

 

Not really, you are obliged to do nothing until probable cause has been established. And even then, unless an arrest warrant has been issued or you are delivered to a magistrate, their orders mean nothing. Otherwise it is an unlawful detainment.

 

Everyone has the perfect right to ignore any orders of any public servant. A police officer has no authority except when armed with a warrant and then they only have the ability to serve the warrant. To take one into custody requires an arrest warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Any detainment by a peace officer needs to be minimal and based on probable cause. That detainment can only result in arrest with a valid arrest warrant, either already issued or by transporting the detainee to a magistrate for a warrant to issue.

To be bought before a magistrate without being able to prove probable cause for arrest is kidnapping and the officer is personally liable as he is acting outside his office, a fraud.

And then the fun begins with first claiming a lien on his surety bond and then his personal assets.

 

It's going to be hard for anyone to defend "resisting arrest", which is the most common charge for detaining or arresting in all jurisdictions. So long as your pretty sure they are real police, your best bet is to follow instructions and 99.99% of the time, it will work out for the best.....

 

As Ben Franklin was want to say: Wise men need no advice and fools rarely pay heed. What you are asking is if the ignorant do as they normally do would another be responsible. That would depend on the status of the one giving advice, in your and the one being asked the question cases, both would be responsible, in mine not really. The difference is in whether one commands or demands before the law.

 

Why, I face them all the time and refuse to take orders as I am no man's slave. As I type this I am contemplating the fate of two officers that violated my rights even though they threatened arrest many times as intimidation (read: coercion) they decided to be moderate and invited me to court to my delight.

Now they think they have passed the buck having the courts decide matters but it has only just begun.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep making that claim but have as yet to back it up with any source or justification.

 

All people have rights, it's a question of how much liberty they have.

 

I totally disagree with you, it's not hard at all. Resisting arrest is but another method of controlling the slaves. And I never follow instructions. But you have hit upon the magic spell, jurisdiction. They have none until you consent unless they have a warrant by due process which is seldom the case.

But why would one want to "resist" when aggravated battery and aggravated kidnapping are so much fun for future proceedings.

 

A "person" has no rights, period. The largest part of people are also void of rights, in fact a very small percentage of "people" have rights. And no, it is not a question of how much liberty one may have because without rights, there is no liberty, just allowed movements.

 

That sounds like the basic definition of liberty, it's the ability to do something. Which angle are you coming from? The Marxist or the Fascist angle of no rights?

 

It is an inherent natural right. That said, unless your justification for self defense against the officer is iron-clad, you should be punished for it.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is defining legal order some times.

 

Liberty late 14c., "free choice, freedom to do as one chooses," from Old French liberté "freedom, liberty, free will" (14c.), from Latin libertatem (nominative libertas) "freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint; permission," from liber "free". Being the French is a derivative of the Latin, I choose to use the base of the word, Latin. Therefore my prior post was not the basic definition of liberty but was used to describe limits to the basic concept.

Marxist/Fascist angle, neither, but from the republican, or true sense of liberty, man's inherent rights endowed by their creator, or in the wise words of Johh Locke:

In nature, man has a person but is not a person, the true topic that determines or limits the freedom of a particular man and within that context portends the rights of that man. And that is within the context of whether one is represented as within democracy with rights determined by a mob or a member of the republic with loss of rights only by consent. Few are members of the republic.

 

That is very simple, legal is that which under "Color of Law" tries to parade as lawful. Or in more definite terms, legal would be malum prohibitum while lawful is malum in se.

What most people do not comprehend is that without their consent, there is no jurisdiction. Where there is no jurisdiction, there is no lawful action without due process and a warrant.

A warrant is witness to a sworn oath before a magistrate as to probable cause. Failure to have probable cause after swearing an oath is fraud and leaves the office taking the oath open for personal liability.

 

I think most of us understand you want a totalitarian government for which everyone are to be a controlled herd.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately, any interaction with the police puts you at deadly danger.

This is a serious shift in public perception. Historically people were considered to have a right of self defense against police and police did not have God-like life/death and slave owner authority over citizens.

 

At the end of the day it would all come down to what is reasonable force. A police officer arresting and restraining someone without using excessive force I do not think bares any right for a citizen to retaliate. But if the officer in question is using excessive force and going beyond what is necessary whether its the person in question surrendering themselves and the officer still pushing them down to the ground and holding them there or in the extreme case of actually being attacked then absolutely you would have a right to defend yourself from that.