protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 57,112
- 18,355
- 2,250
One wonders why you are bothering to post all this, since there was nothing unlawful about what Casebolt was doing.Those arguing in favor of the Texas law are probably ignorant of the federal court case precedents. The McKinney Police Chief probably is aware of that federal civll protection against unlawful arrest. He must have passed that knowledge on to his subordinates. One, apparently, was sleeping when that topic was being discussed during his tenure at the police academy.
Other highlights of the link include:
“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.
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).
Secondly, you haven't dismissed the culpability of the people who interfered with Casebolt at all. Your own post here shows a federal law stating that those who interfere and kill an officer, would be charged with involuntary manslaughter. That is a crime that, in Texas, carries a punishment of
Computer trouble - will finish post later
Last edited: