Don't tase me bro!

[KittenKoder]

JGB is my daughter and she is not blond.

Um ... I was using your nickname, I don't care about your family, unless you want to discuss them ... even then, I don't really.

My nickname is J

No, it's JGBKAB ... whatever that means.

 

[jgbkab]

Um ... I was using your nickname, I don't care about your family, unless you want to discuss them ... even then, I don't really.

My nickname is J

No, it's JGBKAB ... whatever that means.

That is a username and it's my kids initials. That would be defeating the purpose of a nickname. You know like Bob, or Rob, or Marge, or Kate...those are usually nicknames...something shorter than their real name and/or easier to remember someone by.

 

[KittenKoder]

My nickname is J

No, it's JGBKAB ... whatever that means.

That is a username and it's my kids initials. That would be defeating the purpose of a nickname. You know like Bob, or Rob, or Marge, or Kate...those are usually nicknames...something shorter than their real name and/or easier to remember someone by.

Online is the same as real life for you? Sad, really sad.

 

[jgbkab]

No, it's JGBKAB ... whatever that means.

That is a username and it's my kids initials. That would be defeating the purpose of a nickname. You know like Bob, or Rob, or Marge, or Kate...those are usually nicknames...something shorter than their real name and/or easier to remember someone by.

Online is the same as real life for you? Sad, really sad.

What's really sad is how much time you spend online while at the same time retaining your ignorance. I fail to understand how you equate my using my kids initials online to my real life. I mean, do you think all of my family and friends address me by my username?

 

[Citizen]

Should I be tased if I resist arrest for speaking freely?

If you resist arrest, you should be flat out knocked out. Whatever it takes it what it takes. Don't like it? Don't resist.

I have the right to resist unlawful orders and arrest. Of course, that isn't the point. IF the reason for this attempted arrest is the freedom of speech I have exercised here, it's the cops who should be flat knocked out. Or worse.

You are correct, you do have the right to resist unlawful arrest.

“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.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

 

[Sweet Willy]

What the heck, let's reign this thing in one more time and put it back out there for anyone besides the dregs, who have now been thoroughly reduced to hoping for some kind of pathetic, salvaged playground victory.


Here's the Webster police chief's account of the incident:

According to Smiley, an officer was talking with a motorist in the church parking lot when he ran a registration check and discovered the man had no car insurance.

Taser for pastor, pepper spray for congregation | Breaking News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

This is the earliest reported interaction between police and the suspect. It reports a conversation taking place in the parking lot. I would expect the police to report that they were conducting a stop. That piece of information is very important and police know it. They know how that timeline is established. I know you are an expert and all Kitty so you probably already understand that establishing detainment or a "stop" is even more important than the arrest. It's not some automatic submission to authority, in deference to police general suspicion. And absent a cause for the stop, a lawful cause, nearly anything that happens next, up to the killing of the police officer, can and has been successfully argued as justified, or at least incidental to the first crime that occured, the illegal issuance of an order. Manslaughter, perhaps.

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest


While I would expect there to be some immediate clarity about where and why the stop was initiated, it hasn't come or the Houston Chron hasn't told us yet. So far, it's all in the parking lot. If it turns out that the stop was initiated on the street, the scenario changes a bit. Maybe they just profiled him and followed him into the parking lot. That's a whole different argument to be taken uo there.

In the end, with what we have, it was an illegal stop.

§ 542.005. RULES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. This subtitle does
not prevent an owner of private property that is a private road
from:
(1) regulating or prohibiting use of the property by
the public for vehicular travel; or
(2) requiring conditions different from or in addition
to those specified by this subtitle.

Texas Transportation Code - Section 542.005. Rules On Private Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


At some point during this conversation/stop, the pastor comes out and proclaims exactly what he should proclaim to anyone who is doing something he doesn't want done, on private property. He informs them, they are on private property and ask them to leave.

“He said we were on private property and wanted us off the property,” Smiley said. “He was pretty aggressive.”

Taser for pastor, pepper spray for congregation | Breaking News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Officers admit they were informed that they were on private property.

When Moran refused an order to leave, the officer told him that he was under arrest. Moran pushed the officer as he tried to handcuff him, Smiley said, and fled inside the church.

Taser for pastor, pepper spray for congregation | Breaking News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

And why was Moran ever placed under arrest to begin with? What was the cause? He refused an order to leave his own property. That's enough to spark a constitutional debate right there. Now add in the fact that this order to leave, on his own property, was made during an illegal stop on private property to begin with?

The discussion pretty much ends for me right there. Anymore discussion of what ensued would have to be accompanied by a reasonable explanation for the stop on private property and the order to leave private property.

 

[Diuretic]

no, it isn't
you have stated that you support resisting arrest if you dont think the crime was serious enough
that is supporting law breakers
that is exactly what you are advocating

and every post you have made in this thread supports what i said

It is perfectly legal to resist arrest if the arrest is unlawful according to the Constitution. However, it's never a good idea because you usually end up hurt or worse.

it is a crime to resist arrest
thus it is not your right

It's a crime when it's proven to have happened according to legal processes, until then it's just another allegation. I can only speak for the law in my jurisdiction but if someone reasonably believes they are being subjected to an unlawful arrest they do have the right to resist the unlawful arrest and may use reasonable force to do so. But as has been said, it's never usually a good idea, the police will usually win that round.

 

[Diuretic]

Fuck! I just got an electric shock from my keyboard!

The mods have tasers!!!!!

Oooh ... now there's a cool idea ...

Me and my big mouth!!!!!

 

[Diuretic]

No, Dive it is a crime to resist a lawful arrest. It is not a crime to resist an unlawful arrest. I have been through it and I know first hand. It is your Fourth Amendment right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Spirit of the law verses letter of the law.

Resisting arrest can be done within legal confines, thus why you are allowed the "one phone call" ... however, once you violently resist you are breaking more laws and instantly become a criminal, if you evade the law there is another set of laws being broken which again makes you a criminal instantly. Use your one phone call wisely and you can resist arrest legally.

My bad, I totally missed the violent part. What is the difference between resisting arrest and violently resisting arrest?

A smack in the mouth????

 

[Diuretic]

In my jurisdiction a police officer has no implicit or express right to enter private property, unless there is a common law or statutory authority allowing such entry, outside of the right that any other person possesses. For example, anyone can enter someone's private property and go to the front door unless the implied right of entry at common law has been specifically withdrawn (eg a sign on the front fence or gate saying exactly that). That's been settled in the High Court. So, if someone is on their property and the police want to speak to him or her they have no right to enter and remain after being told to leave unless they have a specific authority, for example they're going to arrest the person. I don't know how it is in the various US states but I would think it wouldn't be too different in principle.

Some places are private (eg car park) but there is an implicit right to enter such as when the car park is open. A police officer (here) can follow someone onto that property just as if it were a public place to speak to them about driving offences but if the person drove into their driveway and ran inside their house the cop can only ask to be admitted to speak to him, if the suspect tells the cop to leave then, unless there is a specific authority to stay there, they have to leave the premises or they are trespassers.

 

[Sweet Willy]

In my jurisdiction a police officer has no implicit or express right to enter private property, unless there is a common law or statutory authority allowing such entry, outside of the right that any other person possesses. For example, anyone can enter someone's private property and go to the front door unless the implied right of entry at common law has been specifically withdrawn (eg a sign on the front fence or gate saying exactly that). That's been settled in the High Court. So, if someone is on their property and the police want to speak to him or her they have no right to enter and remain after being told to leave unless they have a specific authority, for example they're going to arrest the person. I don't know how it is in the various US states but I would think it wouldn't be too different in principle.

Some places are private (eg car park) but there is an implicit right to enter such as when the car park is open. A police officer (here) can follow someone onto that property just as if it were a public place to speak to them about driving offences but if the person drove into their driveway and ran inside their house the cop can only ask to be admitted to speak to him, if the suspect tells the cop to leave then, unless there is a specific authority to stay there, they have to leave the premises or they are trespassers.

In this particular case, I think Texas law supports that the police were making an illegal stop. Texas code is specific that on private property, and specifically if that private property is a traffic area, the owner of that property is the sole authority on traffic codes. The only public codes broken here are absolutely within the right of the property owners discretion, as to enforcement. While the cops are free to enter and speak to the man, once they property owner shows up and ask them to leave, if they have nothing more than a traffic violation that is specifically unenforcable on private property, without the owners consent, they are trespassing. To further escalate the affair by issuing an unlawful order for the property owner to leave his own property is absolutely crazy. And to then place him under arrest for failure to obey that unlawful order....shit, those cops should be charged and prosecuted. Same as any of the terrible, criminal, seat belt offenders. I think trespassing, false arrest and assault with a deadly weapon are a little more serious than the traffic violation they were trying to enforce.

 

[Diuretic]

There's some similarity with the law here. If those circumstances were replicated here then the outcomes would be the same. In fact just recently a couple of police officers fell foul of the law and their own ignornance of it by insisting that they would not leave a private premises when ordered to by the owner and kept questioning him about a fairly innocuous traffic matter and then arrested him when he refused to supply information and comply with their instructions. There are some major shortcomings in how police are taught about the law (bear in mind we only have one state force and all police graduate from the same Police Academy programme) but the attitude of the police involved in this incident is also suspect.

 

[jgbkab]

Spirit of the law verses letter of the law.

Resisting arrest can be done within legal confines, thus why you are allowed the "one phone call" ... however, once you violently resist you are breaking more laws and instantly become a criminal, if you evade the law there is another set of laws being broken which again makes you a criminal instantly. Use your one phone call wisely and you can resist arrest legally.

My bad, I totally missed the violent part. What is the difference between resisting arrest and violently resisting arrest?

A smack in the mouth????

Wrong. Resisting arrest is closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and telling the arresting officer la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la.... Violently resisting arrest is when you hear the thud of your head hitting the pavement after you've been tased.

 

[Dis]

My nickname is J

No, it's JGBKAB ... whatever that means.

That is a username and [/b]it's my kids initials.[/b] That would be defeating the purpose of a nickname. You know like Bob, or Rob, or Marge, or Kate...those are usually nicknames...something shorter than their real name and/or easier to remember someone by.

I that so you don't forget them?

Kidding.

 

[jgbkab]

No, it's JGBKAB ... whatever that means.

That is a username and [/b]it's my kids initials.[/b] That would be defeating the purpose of a nickname. You know like Bob, or Rob, or Marge, or Kate...those are usually nicknames...something shorter than their real name and/or easier to remember someone by.

I that so you don't forget them?

Kidding.

Forget who?

 

[Diuretic]

My bad, I totally missed the violent part. What is the difference between resisting arrest and violently resisting arrest?

A smack in the mouth????

Wrong. Resisting arrest is closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and telling the arresting officer la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la.... Violently resisting arrest is when you hear the thud of your head hitting the pavement after you've been tased.

How about someone grabbing a knife and trying to stick it into your guts?

 

[jgbkab]

A smack in the mouth????

Wrong. Resisting arrest is closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and telling the arresting officer la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la.... Violently resisting arrest is when you hear the thud of your head hitting the pavement after you've been tased.

How about someone grabbing a knife and trying to stick it into your guts?

Oh ok, remind me to never try to arrest you....

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong. Resisting arrest is closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and telling the arresting officer la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la.... Violently resisting arrest is when you hear the thud of your head hitting the pavement after you've been tased.

How about someone grabbing a knife and trying to stick it into your guts?

Oh ok, remind me to never try to arrest you....

Nah, I'd go quietly

 

[DiveCon]

How about someone grabbing a knife and trying to stick it into your guts?

Oh ok, remind me to never try to arrest you....

Nah, I'd go quietly

of course you would
you would assume, like most rational people that there was a reason you were being arrested

 

[Diuretic]

Oh ok, remind me to never try to arrest you....

Nah, I'd go quietly

of course you would
you would assume, like most rational people that there was a reason you were being arrested

Not that I'd admit it

And I wouldn't say a word beyond, "I'm not saying nothin' copper!"