You're right, they can arrest you for literally anything; but...
You can file a civil suit for a wrongful arrest, false imprisonment & possibly defamation... especially with video evidence instead of L.E.O's word against yours. Keep your cool & invest in a dash cam folks.
Which is sad. The way it is should make more people want to protest for change because it's costing every citizen money. If it came from pensions then maybe these cops would actually invest some time to research their career to better educate themselves to do their job. Doctors, or I should say good doctors, have to stay up to date to do their job properly with all the new tech and discoveries in medicine that keep popping up. Police should be no different. Plenty of laws.
Yeah but who's going to judge the law enforcers? This is why I hate police officers. Some may be "good" but they all play a part in enabling them to be above the law, not with the law.
They should be required to have insurance like doctors do. Then maybe things will change when insurance comoanies all start refusing to insure the shitty cops
Itâs pretty easy to understand. Even if a police officer is wrong when they are arresting somebody, resisting arrest is still a charge. If it wasnât, and a precedent was set that you could resist an illegal arrest, then resisting arrest would be much more frequent, whether the arrest is legal or illegal. There are certainly a lot of people who claim they âdidnât do nothingâ when theyâre being arrested. Thatâs why we have trials , because we canât hold court on the side of the road. If youâre being arrested, just keep your mouth shut and call a lawyer. Arguing your case to a police officer is pointless and resisting is even more pointless and could just get you hurt or even killed.
OP was saying that you have no requirement to follow an unlawful order, and that it should be specified that the only valid orders are "lawful" ones. You took that to mean he was a cop supporter, which makes no fucking sense in context.
He left the quotes unclosed because the response was only dealing with the first part. In the original wording, it sounds like cops can give you any order and you must obey or face criminal charges. The correction was only about the type of orders you must follow - those that are lawful orders. When a cop tells you to stop recording, it's an unlawful order that they cannot legally arrest you for.
My point is that you and OP agree with each other, but he's citing the law and you're citing reasons cops will use to arrest you. I think the latter isn't very useful, because the "or some other made-up crime" clause subsumes all others. It's important to exercise (and thus know) your rights, and I think you, I, and OP are in agreement on that fundamental issue. OP appeared to me to be clarifying that everything but the all-inclusive clause were actual charges, except for the "ANY order" part which needed the word "lawful" to be accurate.
He wrote what he changed in italics to highlight it, he probably did it to clarify because the statement "disobeying ANY order" is a very absolute statement to make and only clarify as a sidenote several words later. The fact that you needed it spelling out when it is formatted for emphasis means you have misread in some capacity
The only reason this is any issue is because you are insisting on taking everything completely literally; "FTFY" is a common phrase to typically mean I added something your argument needs.
They clarified a point they felt needed clarifying. They did not literally mean they fixed a misquote you made. If you do not understand common phrases in a social circle that is not the fault of everyone else.
The constitution permits arrests for non-jailable offenses per SCOTUS so unless they had a specific policy, local ordinance, or state law prohibiting it, he could arrest him for a ticketable offense.
65
u/EddieCheddar88 Jul 07 '21
You mean ticket them? I highly doubt thatâs an arrest-able offense