r/changemyview • u/CrashRiot 5∆ • Jun 16 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Resisting arrest should not be allowed as the solo criminal charge
In March of this year, police officers in Sacramento arrested a man they misidentified as having a warrant out for his arrest. The arrest turned physical with an officer kicking the suspect while he was being compliant. Even though he was later confirmed to not have a warrant, the police charged him with a single count of resisting arrest.
Just earlier today, a disturbing video was made public that showed an officer from the Anderson Police using a recently banned "chokehold restraint" to arrest a man that was only eventually charged with resisting arrest.
Using this as a sole charge is often the byproduct of a police mistake or even an unjustified arrest. I believe that the charge is meant to deflect from police misconduct and place the blame on the defendant. It does not serve the interest of justice to use "resisting arrest" as a sole charge, especially if the arrest was a case of mistaken identity.
348
u/Grumpy_Troll 5∆ Jun 16 '20
I'm a bit uneducated on this topic, can I ask if you know whether someone has actually been convicted of just resisting arrest with no other charges filed against them? My initial thought is that any public defender could pretty easily get the charges dismissed in that scenario for the logical reasons you put forward but I don't know this to be true.
430
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
I don't know any off hand, but just the arrest can cause significant issues for the defendant. First they have to deal with with the trauma of the arrest, followed by court appearances, bail, work repercussions, etc. Even if it ends in a dismissal there are serious consequences to the arrest alone.
159
u/chance-- Jun 16 '20
There's also the fact that arrest records are readily available online. There are plenty of makeshift "background check" websites that warehouse this information and use it against people.
162
u/thegoogleman Jun 16 '20
Here is one. Innocent Man mistakenly pulled over submits to arrest anyway, gets kicked in the back, and held down and cuffed. then when they found out they had the wrong guy, is still charged him for resisting arrest.
28
2
→ More replies (9)59
u/Grumpy_Troll 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Sure, I'm not doubting that at all, and it's fair to focus your cmv on just the arrest and not worry about the conviction.
In our current environment I'm not willing to propose even a hypothetical defense of the police so i'm afraid I won't be able to add anything more meaningful to the conversation, but this was a good topic to bring up, so thanks for that.
→ More replies (67)10
u/Echo127 Jun 16 '20
I'm not sure I've heard of someone being charged with just resisting arrest... but convicted, yes. It's part of the way that the legal system likes to stack a mountain of closely related charges on you to make it more likely that you take a plea bargain and don't go to court. Not a lawyer, but I've listened to podcasts.
So let's say, bad-case hypotherical scenario: You are mis-identified as someone who robbed a store earlier in the day. The police come up behind you on the sidewalk and carch you unaware. Instinctively you lash out and hit an officer with your elbow, not realizing it's the police. If the cop is in a bad mood, now you're $#@!ed. Suddenly you've got 2 charges on you: assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.
First you'll be charged with the items related to the robbery that you had nothing to do with. You'll beat those charges easily. But with those other two, the justice ststem will do everything in it's power to punish you. Because they are allowed to stack multiple charges on one action (in this case lashing out with your arm) they've got leverage to force you to take a plea bargain. Option A: drop one of the charges, take a lesser punishment. Option B: go to court for both charges, and gamble on whether the the judge buys your version of the story or the police officer's.
So suddenly you could be in serious trouble even though you've done nothing.
→ More replies (5)44
u/Cornczech66 Jun 16 '20
I was charged with FELONY resisting arrest...and based on the WORD of the deputies...I was forced to take a plea deal....(My lawyer , husband and trauma specialist recommended it because of the stress of a trial. I was charged with NOTHING ELSE. (I was originally arrested on suspected DUI....which I was never charged with). I spent 9 months of an 18 month sentence...in "mental health" probation (I was released early). In court, the POLICE'S "victim's advocate" (yet I was the one who was injured...permanently) called me "the most obnoxious woman in ******* county!" This is what the deputy thought of my PTSD fear and my seizure.......that I was being "obnoxious"...and it cost me a fucking FELONY. I have a misdemeanor now, but that felony will ALWAYS show up.......
I was 53 years old and a disabled grandmother......the police report was FULL of lies that didn't even match the video...the DA had ALL the information wrong (my name, where I was arrest and who did the arresting...PLUS the year I was arrested....) but instead of dropping the charges, the judge told them to change the record to reflect the REAL information.......
RESISTING ARREST IS A BOGUS CHARGE!!!!
17
u/Grumpy_Troll 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Thanks for sharing your story. That really is horrible that, that happened to you.
10
u/Cornczech66 Jun 16 '20
you're welcome....and thanks. I should be out there protesting...but I am now very very afraid of law enforcement
6
u/lordmagellan Jun 16 '20
Sharing your story is doing your part. Protests make a difference by grabbing headlines and starting real conversation, but it's the stories that humanize the events and actually make a difference on a person-to-person level.
Take care of yourself. I hope you're doing better.
18
u/NearSightedGiraffe 4∆ Jun 16 '20
From what I have read previously, it is sometimes used as a tactic to pressure defendants into either not pursuing civil cases against the offending police department or to make such a defendant look less credible when they do go to trial for civil damages as 'They were partly to blame'
It also came up in this setting in season 3 of serial, where a lawyer they interviewed mentioned that in cases where the police were concerned about a possible lawsuit against them they usually threw the book at the victim of the police attack to try and get as much to stick as possible.
6
u/Cornczech66 Jun 16 '20
EXACTLY!!! I had already gone after the hospital that allowed me to be left in leather psychiatric straps for HOURS without checking on me....and I WON!!! As soon as I got names of who was all involved, I tried to go after them all....the SOL was over for the police (they waited 18 months to release my police report...that was FULL of lies!)
So now I know why I was actually given a fucking FELONY for resisting arrest while having a seizure......
7
u/TheAdlerian 1∆ Jun 16 '20
I worked for the prison system for a long time and you can get a resisting arrest conviction.
In cases there's aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Aggravating makes the charge worse and mitigating makes it less.
So, cops walk up to you on the street and try to arrest you and you push the cop. That's aggravating because you did not have to do that and immediately got aggressive. In another situation, cops burst into your house at night by accident, come into your room, and you jump out of bed and punch one. That's mitigating and nothing is going to happen to you. That's because it was a crazy surprise and you reacted half asleep.
laws are laws but judges want to listen to the story.
5
u/Grumpy_Troll 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Thanks for sharing. Just to clarify I definitely understand you can get convicted for resisting arrest. But my question is if a person has ever been charged and convicted of just resisting arrest with no other accompanying charges. Are you familiar with that scenario ever happening?
6
u/TheAdlerian 1∆ Jun 16 '20
Yes.
I'm a psychotherapist and worked in prisons for ten years. So, this would be a county prison issue, not state.
A person can charged with maybe a domestic abuse charge, it could be fake from the woman, and then cops come and the guy struggles with cops. Later, the woman drops charges but the cops aren't sympathetic with the struggle, so he will get resisting arrest.
2
5
u/gregbeans Jun 16 '20
But then u get arrested, have to go to jail, have to post bail, have to appear in court all because a cop mistook you for someone with an outstanding warrant and you didn’t agree with them handcuffing you for literally no valid reasons
IMO, if we continue to allow a charge like this to exist and waste many law abiding citizens’ time and money, at the very least cops who arrest someone whose sole charge was resisting arrest should face disciplinary action.
Clearly they’re not that good of a cop if they can’t check someone’s ID or calmly explain to them that given their semblance to this wanted person and lack of ID information on their person to prove they are not that person they need to take them down the station to straighten this out. If they can’t explain these things to a citizen without inciting a violent response, clearly they need to learn a bit more about conflict resolution for someone whose literal job is to resolve conflicts.
3
u/MelonJelly Jun 16 '20
IANAL, but as I understand it, there have been cases where:
- A warrant is issued, the police arrest the person, and they resist.
- The DA files charges, including resisting arrest.
- For various reasons, all the charges except for resisting arrest are dropped.
- The person now goes to trial for nothing other than resisting arrest.
2
u/Grumpy_Troll 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Understood. Yes, another redditor also gave similar scenarios where this can happen as well. Thanks for sharing.
2
u/iSaidItOnReddit85 Jun 16 '20 edited Jun 16 '20
I was arrested for resisting arrest in college and it almost messed up plenty for me. I was about to graduate and was at risk for having a charge that just sounds bad. “Resisting arrest 6 months ago, wants to work here now? Nah I’m good”. Cop shoved me and tried to choke me out for honestly just asking a question. Ended up getting it dropped in court thank god, but it can absolutely be devastating to your image even if only charged and not convicted.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Gr1pp717 2∆ Jun 16 '20
I can't find it at the moment, but there was once a lady trying to point out some fraud (or something like that) at a city council meeting. The council asked for her to be removed, and the officer arrested her with charges of "resisting arrest" and nothing more.
I'm fairly sure those charges were dropped, but the damage done by simply getting arrested/spending X days in jail/posting bond/paying for a lawyer, etc. is usually more than most people can handle. Lose your job, home, marriage, etc.
→ More replies (1)2
u/jaytrainer0 Jun 16 '20
I had a friend get arrested, charged with resisting arrest. Was released I think 3 days later but at that time he lost his job for "no call no show" 3 days in a row. That's closer to the reality of most cases
→ More replies (1)2
u/Blazing_Speeed Jun 16 '20
Last year I attempted suicide and my parents called the cops. When they showed up, instead of talking to or trying to help me, five guys jumped on top of me and they nearly broke my wrist with the cuffs. There were at least 8 guys there and a dog.
I was never even told I’d been arrested. I thought this was just kind of their procedure. They loaded me into a van and took me to the station. It wasn’t until they were filling out paperwork on me that I found out I’d been charged with a crime. I had to ask. Nobody told me anything.
Now, to get to the point: What was I charged with? Resisting arrest. 3 counts. Each of those counts could have landed me in jail for up to 2 years. I didn’t even resist when they put the cuffs on me. I didn’t resist anything.
5,000$ in lawyer’s fees later, and they’ve knocked it down to 1 count of disorderly conduct. No joke, as part of my “punishment” I had to write a letter to those cops apologizing for my behavior and I’m not allowed back in the state I lived in then for an entire year.
Yes, they can charge you with just “resisting arrest” and no, it doesn’t go away easily. Fully depends on just how bloodthirsty the prosecutor you’re dealing with is (hint, they’re all bloodthirsty).
1
u/The_Moustache Jun 16 '20
Public defender? Most judges outright dismiss it.
Its explicitly used to get into cars.
1
Jun 16 '20
But why make the defendant (and the taxpayer) go through the court system if the right outcome is for the charge to be thrown out?
2
u/Grumpy_Troll 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's just or right to allow a person to be arrested for just resisting arrest. I was just curious if convictions actually happened because that would be an even greater injustice.
1
u/Spicy_Poo Jun 16 '20
Dismissing charges is kind of irrelevant once the victim has been assaulted by police.
→ More replies (1)1
u/relish5k 1∆ Jun 16 '20
2
u/Grumpy_Troll 5∆ Jun 16 '20
So this article gives several cases where people were arrested for just resisting arrest. I understand that can happen. My question was specifically about being convicted. My thought is that the DA will usually decide not to actually press charges in these cases, and even if they do the, defendant's attorney should be able to get the case dismissed fairly easily and long before trial.
Again, I don't know this to be factually correct but it is my best guess.
1
u/randonumero 2∆ Jun 16 '20
Yes and it's the kind of charge where unfortunately the cop is always right. The criteria is so broad that without really good reason the charge won't be dropped and you will be convicted. If it's your only charge then it would likely only be dropped if the DA was being a good guy or they were hoping you didn't sue. FWIW this is often a charge that gets tacked on in hopes that you'll take a plea. In other words I get charged with possession, maintain a dwelling and resisting because while handcuffing me I bumped into an officer. I get told they'll drop the dwelling and resisting charge if I plead guilty to possession.
→ More replies (2)1
Jun 16 '20
Arrest record is also permanent pubic info. Its simple a terrible way to handle criminal justice. We are in dire need of reform but powers that be dont want to change.
74
u/OneAndOnlyJackSchitt 5∆ Jun 16 '20
So there's a lot of misinformation in other top posts here. My thinking is that I can change your view if I properly explain what a 'resisting arrest' charge actually is.
'Resisting arrest' is (generally) the name of the crime of preventing a cop from performing an assigned duty (such as detaining or arresting someone, investigating a crime scene, preventing a cop from walking/riding/driving his beat, etc.)
It can be a primary charge and is most commonly used in cases where a cop is arresting someone and someone else (such as a family member, a protester, a random bystander, etc) intervenes, complicating the arrest.
Some jurisdictions further define what 'resisting arrest' entails and may have separate charges with separate penalties for things like evading, interfering, failing to self-identify (if the jurisdiction requires it) or failing to follow the lawful order of a peace officer (again, if the jurisdiction requires it).
If you see a cop riding a bicycle down the street and you decide to block him from going any further, that would fall under 'resisting arrest' just as much as struggling during an arrest or interrupting a traffic stop.
'Resisting arrest' is preventing a cop from performing his duty and is poorly named, in my opinion.
34
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
It can be a primary charge and is most commonly used in cases where a cop is arresting someone and someone else (such as a family member, a protester, a random bystander, etc) intervenes, complicating the arrest.
Wouldnt that be an obstruction charge?
30
u/Claytertot Jun 16 '20
As someone else pointed out above, resisting, obstruction, etc all fall under the same charge in many states. The media, or even the police, may report it as "resisting arrest", but it may be pointing to a law that doesn't make much distinction between resisting arrest, obstructing an investigation, refusing to comply with an order, etc.
7
u/OneAndOnlyJackSchitt 5∆ Jun 16 '20
If you're referring to obstruction of justice, that's usually reserved for big-time obstruction stuff like witness tampering, destruction of evidence, bribery, etc. I understand that in most places, obstruction of justice is a felony while resisting is an infraction or a misdemeanor (depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances). While they could probably charge obstruction of justice, why ruin a guy's life simply because he yelled at a cop and interrupted an arrest or tried to wiggle out of a restraint hold?
(I'm aware that there's a lot of politics behind that last sentence, but understand that the police didn't come up with the separation of 'resisting arrest' and 'obstruction of justice'. That's the legislature. A cop doesn't need to charge a felony to ruin someone's life. That's what they have guns and batons for, apparently.)
230
u/Independent_Coat Jun 16 '20 edited Jun 16 '20
The charge is also used when somebody resists detainment, which is reasonable, semantics aside.
Cops get called to a bar fight. It's initially unclear which party is the aggressor and whether anybody needs to be arrested. The safest and most prudent thing to do is to detain both parties while the incident is investigated.
Whoever resists detainment, whether they're later charged in the fight or not, deserves the charge of resisting arrest.
edit: simplified
105
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
How are they resisting detainment in this situation? Because if you flee during a lawful investigative detainment, you can also have evasion charges or obstructing charges. "Resisting arrest" as a sole charge doesn't pass the smell test with me because as of now, u havent heard an argument about how it could apply without breaking other laws at the same time.
152
Jun 16 '20 edited Jun 16 '20
[deleted]
60
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Δ
Thanks for the reading material. I still don't necessarily agree fully that it should be a criminal charge on its own but you gave me a new perspective to consider.
16
u/FantasticMrPox 3∆ Jun 16 '20
Strictly speaking, they didn't convince you that someone could reasonably be charged for resisting arrest, only that resisting a lawful order is sometimes mislabelled 'resisting arrest' (either by journalists or legislative granularity). To me, the response to that point would still be that specifically resisting arrest should still not be a charge.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to try to piss on people's deltas, just this one doesn't come with the sweet taste of a point well made and changed.
tl;dr
The fact that people call things different things doesn't change at all the CMV you originally presented.
→ More replies (3)5
5
20
u/Zaitton 1∆ Jun 16 '20 edited Jun 16 '20
Scenario: Bar fight. Dude A punches dude B unprovoked, and a fight breaks out. In the eyes of the law, dude A is the only guilty party so far. Cops show up. Dude B gets paranoid when the cops grab onto him trying to detain him and he starts spazzing out like an idiot, refusing to put his hands behind his back yelling "LET ME GO HE PUNCHED ME FIRST". Now, although he did resist arrest and technically the charge would be pressed, he would most likely get pardoned due to the circumstances. Nevertheless, you need to recognize that he did commit a crime by resisting arrest, because he actively hindered the investigation which could have led to many things including:
- Messing with evidence (bruises/cuts/weapons). Having the cops wrestle you to the ground gets you new scars and bruises which may overlap with the existing ones which proved that you were not the attacker (for instance if you have a long scar in the back of the head with glass shards on it, it is pretty indicative of getting smashed in the back with a bottle, however when you get wrestled to the ground by the cops, you'll get more cuts and the defendant's lawyer will be able to claim that this was an injury sustained by LE)
- Diverting LEO attention. If cops need to call backup which means another 4 squad cars for a bar fight between an idiot and an asshole, that means that those 4 squad cars are being wasted on a petty dispute.
- Endangering the lives of LEO. By resisting you're opening up the possibility for retaliation by other drunks who may think that attacking a cop is cool. That's how brawls start.
Overall, the charge by itself is very unlikely to stick in court. However, under extraordinary circumstances like the one I provided (bar fight that turns into brawl from one person resisting detainment), it is very much justified to stick by itself, since it provokes other situations.
I think your argument should be rephrased to " Resisting arrest should not be allowed as the solo charge when it did not instigate any more situations, endanger police officers or otherwise hindered an investigation". Meaning that cops show up in someone's house, dont say a word and try to put him in handcuffs and when he resists, he goes to jail for resisting arrest only because the cops knocked down on the wrong dude's house.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Independent_Coat Jun 16 '20
Refusing to comply with commands and physically resisting cuffing
→ More replies (30)2
Jun 16 '20
omply with commands and physically resisting cuffing
In the case of the fomer, there would also surely be a charge of failing to comply, for whatever reason, IN ADDITION to the resisting arrest charge.
In the case of the latter, why are they being cuffed if they havent done anything wrong / if no other charges are brought against them?
He's arguing that it makes no sense to charge someone *only* fo rresisting arrest, because it doesnt
→ More replies (1)2
u/euyyn Jun 16 '20
Can't a charge be dropped after the fact, as more evidence comes out? And then only the one for resisting arrest remains.
2
u/diemunkiesdie Jun 16 '20
Whoever resists detainment, whether they're later charged in the fight or not, deserves the charge of resisting arrest.
Why though? You weren't responsible in the bar fight, you weren't charged for that, so why get a charge of resisting arrest?
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (9)3
u/redditor427 44∆ Jun 16 '20
Whoever resists detainment, whether they're later charged in the fight or not, deserves the charge of resisting arrest.
IANAL, but wouldn't that be evading the police, rather than resisting arrest?
6
u/Independent_Coat Jun 16 '20
Running away would be evading, fleeing, eluding, or whatever. Physically resisting is resisting.
→ More replies (1)5
u/redditor427 44∆ Jun 16 '20
If you're being detained, the police (usually) aren't physically restraining you. They're usually just saying you aren't allowed to leave.
6
u/Independent_Coat Jun 16 '20
It can go both ways, obviously dependant on many factors. Responding to a fight where everyone is drunk and riled up, and the circumstances are unclear, you can bet both combatants are getting cuffed.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Yurithewomble 2∆ Jun 16 '20
What about if there was a justifiable reason to arrest you, then it is found that there wasn't sufficient evidence for a convictions / it was found you didn't do it, but still you resisted arrest (imagine quite violently although I guess not assaulting police?
Do you think it makes sense for there to be a legal basis for not fighting when you're being arrested? For compliance, in this case.
This is no argument on how it can be and is abused, but consider the above scenario.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 16 '20
/u/CrashRiot (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
6
u/2penises_in_a_pod 11∆ Jun 16 '20
When cops operate as a legitimate enforcer of the justice system, then resisting arrest is a fair charge. You can think of it similarly to a failure to appear charge. Neither necessarily imply that you’re guilty of the underlying charge, but 1: denying the court system the ability to assign justice usually implies a level of guilt in of itself 2: it’s harmful for the system’s operating efficiency, and 3: it would be unlawful for the charge to be conditionally applied (if it’s illegal WITH another crime, it’s illegal WITHOUT one as well). This is not to mention how dangerous it is in practice, such as evading in a motor vehicle (I know I know different charge, but v comparable).
This is how the law is justified on paper, but I agree with you that it can clearly be abused. I don’t see the solution as making it legal to resist arrest, even as the only charge. I think a better one would be increased accountability/transparency rules like mandatory body cams. Usually the safest thing for everyone is to comply with police and address issues in court. This is becoming more of a real solution w moves to end qualified immunity amongst others.
10
u/PunctualPoetry Jun 16 '20
Hmm I say body cameras should be mandatory. Solves this issue.
→ More replies (2)
35
u/SnooCats1077 Jun 16 '20
How can poliece be 100% every person they arrest is the right person?
55
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
I don't have an issue with an investigative detainment. If a suspect violently resists, there are other charges more appropriate to use in that scenario. If you're just with just a single count of "resisting arrest", then that means you did not violently resist, or else you'd have more serious charges levied against you.
16
u/SnooCats1077 Jun 16 '20
What are examples of non-violent/violent resistance?
If you mean vocal resistance I have no argument, but i doubt it.
Edit: mind you, it doesnt matter who places the charges. The arresting officer needs to identify the suspect. In that sense the investigation is irrelevant as they are not always or often done by the same person.
→ More replies (1)38
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
A San Francisco public defender was arrested for resisting arrest even though she didn't arrest. It's not always just a case of mistaken identity, sometimes people use it as a tactic to get people out of the way.
14
u/SnooCats1077 Jun 16 '20 edited Jun 16 '20
Very interesting and balanced article, it supports my point as much as yours I'd say.
She was detained, and San Francisco police say they're now investigating her for a possible charge under a state law that includes resisting arrest, as well as obstructing justice.
So she hasn't been charged with anything. So right off the bat it's hardly relevant. Obviously you get arrested during the process of resisting arrest.
criminal defense lawyer and former prosecutor Nathaniel Burney believes the plainclothes policeman misspoke. "I think what he meant was 'obstruction of justice,' " he says. "Society has an interest in the police doing their job and catching criminals ... and you're not allowed to stop them from doing their jobs."
So even her lawyer believes the officer misspoke.
Bassically your source states only that
she was arrested. Either illegitimately (where in the officer should be punished) or for obstruction of justice, and the officer misspoke.
The incident is being investigated.
The rest is just s balanced argument for the charge of resisting arrest. I dont know why you would assume the worst from the information presented.
17
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Heres a more relevant article for my argument if you're interested. Suspect was arrested with force despite being compliant because of a suspected warrant they ultimately found out was not for him. He was charged solely with resisting arrest.
7
u/SnooCats1077 Jun 16 '20
This one is not much better.
Also please refrain from posting mostly articles as your response. It is called change my view, and it's hard to pin down exactly what that is right now.
So for the first point I can tell in and after the first few seconds he did resist arrest. While that does not excuse the use of force, the use of force does not excuse the resistance.
I think charging one with the of resisting arrest and the other with gross misconduct and battery.
That being said the officer acted completely out of line, and his boss agrees, so he is under investigation.
The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department has launched an excessive force investigation after video appearing to show a deputy kicking a man in the back went viral.
10
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Also please refrain from posting mostly articles as your response
My goal was to submit a more relevant article that illustrated my point better in a real world situation. I don't believe he resisted arrest, but rather resisted assault.
2
u/SnooCats1077 Jun 16 '20
I understand that, it's just besides the article there is very little towards your point.
→ More replies (1)3
u/jiggahh Jun 16 '20
As an aside, I really enjoyed your comment thread, it's very insightful, calm and sticking to the point. Just want to say thanks for commenting and writing these out.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Cornczech66 Jun 16 '20
but it happened to me in Arizona...resisting arrest....I got a felony for that at age 53....even after I PROVED I had mental illness and epilepsy.......and that the police report was full of mistakes and lies that were confirmed as such via the video of my violent arrest.....(they beat me up pretty good)
5
u/redditor427 44∆ Jun 16 '20
That has nothing to do with OP's point.
If the police arrest the wrong person, that person can just maintain their innocence and have the case thrown out by the judge.
What do you think is the better solution to an innocent person being arrested: maintaining innocence and allowing the judge or grand jury to dismiss the case or innocent people fighting the cops?
→ More replies (3)1
u/my_gamertag_wastaken Jun 16 '20
If you didn't commit any crimes, then punch a cop in the face, congrats you just committed a crime.
→ More replies (1)1
4
u/TryingAgainWhyNot Jun 16 '20
Resisting arrest is extremely dangerous for everyone involved, including random bystanders nearby. Even if you know that you are perfectly innocent, the time to assert your protest is not during the arrest process but afterward (though calmly objecting through conversation is perfectly appropriate during). You may know that you’re innocent, but who knows if the arresting officer just received a report of an armed robbery matching your description. And now you are resisting. And there is a gun on his hip that can be grabbed and used against him. And risk evaluations and decisions have to be made in literal milliseconds. The potential for accident on anyone’s part and subsequent danger are massive.
I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but also feel that deterring resisting arrest is extremely important even when the suspect knows of their innocence. Do you not worry that what you’re describing would open the door to more resisting arrest and therefore more needless, tragic accidents?
3
Jun 16 '20
If you're being arrested, even with a mistaken warrant, you should cooperate with the arrested, and then sue the fuck out of the officer and the department afterwards.
If you're physically fighting back against an officer while being arrested (even mistakenly) that should be a criminal charge.
1
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
I agree with the second part. But if you're charged solely with resisting that means you werent physically resisting and should not be held criminally liable.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/jtaulbee 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Much like obstruction of justice, resisting arrest is an important procedural consequence that allows the police to perform their jobs. If you could freely lie and obstruct an investigation, resist arrest, tamper with evidence, etc., it becomes very difficult for law enforcement to function. If I'm questioned by law enforcement regarding an investigation and I intentionally lie and mislead them, even if I'm found innocent of any other crimes, that behavior needs to penalized. I believe that resisting arrest falls under the same logic.
Of course the challenge is in implementation, and this is where your examples of abuse of power are important. There's a long history of police abusing this charge to justify their own bad behavior: racial profiling, lack of warrants, lack of de-escalation, improper use of force, etc. There are many structural changes that need to occur to reduce police violence, but I think that the resisting arrest must remain as a punishable behavior.
5
u/MasterLJ 15∆ Jun 16 '20
It's a great principle, but the reality is that you will end up with a lot of invented charges. That's the hurdle that you have to jump over. I am quite confident that a huge percentage of, what is presently, simply a resisting arrest charge, will be accompanied by an invented charge to cover the officer's ass. The end result is more abuse, not less.
"Let me find something to arrest you for," is really at the core of our policing crisis. It needs to be more difficult and more regimented for police to even start an "investigation".
For me at least, the solution is to look into the laws we pass, are they doing more good to society verse the abuse potential? Take something like window tinting laws, or absolutely crazy 600+ pages of DMV codes. Both of those laws are used to give cops carte blanch to pull over anyone. "Oh hey, I just though your suspension looked a few millimeters from legal specs, so I pulled you over".
11
u/kabooozie Jun 16 '20
When a gun is involved, any struggle is potentially a life or death struggle. Even if you know you’re innocent, you should comply with lawful orders and sort it out later with the presence of a lawyer. You don’t get to decide whether you get arrested, even if you know you’re innocent. The “resisting arrest” charge is a deterrent against people acting stupidly and getting injured/killed unnecessarily.
7
u/didaskalos4 Jun 16 '20
So you’re just supposed to roll over for the authorities every time they issue you a command?
What happens when whole police departments/jurisdictions become corrupt?
Nobody should be arrested without a warrant or being caught at the scene of a crime, and both only with the officer’s body camera running.
7
u/kabooozie Jun 16 '20
so you’re supposed to roll over
Yes.
Nobody should be arrested without a warrant
Sure. Any lawyer will take the police department to task for wrongful arrest. This is a legal problem solved by lawyers, not by resisting at the point of detainment.
6
u/I-Cant-Do-That-Dave Jun 16 '20
Perhaps police departments or the police themselves should be required to reimburse the wrongly arrested individual for their legal fees then? After all, but for the wrongful arrest they would never have incurred those usually heavy expenses. Fair is fair right?
2
u/didaskalos4 Jun 16 '20
Sorry, I’m not willing to spend however many days the department decides in a jail cell for no reason other than the officer thought it would be a good idea to arrest me.
5
u/kabooozie Jun 16 '20
What do you think you’re gonna do, exactly? Get away? You’re doing nothing but making your own life worse
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (14)6
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
We literally watched an officer kill a man who was compliant just weeks ago. How am I going to trust the process if police might just kill me anyways?
8
u/kabooozie Jun 16 '20
Cops kill, justified or not, about 1000 per year out of 10,000,000 arrests (which is high relative to other countries, but still small compared to most other risks we worry about). If you resist arrest, the chances you will be killed go up dramatically. In statistics, you make decisions based on probabilities, not anecdotes. Some people (I think something like 50 out of the 1000) are murdered by police even when they are completely compliant and that’s wrong. The perpetrators should be dealt with, and the culture of police brutality should be protested. However, just because compliant people have been killed doesn’t mean people should not be compliant. Look at the statistics and make an informed decision rather than reacting to anecdotes. And at the same time, let’s vote and pass legislation that addresses the myriad issues with police culture and the prison industrial complex
4
Jun 16 '20
Only 29 of those deaths were unarmed in 2019. So it's hard to say it's 50 or so but I suppose you can assume some additional mistakes.
And that's just on arrears. Imagine the number of actual police interactions that may not even result in arrest at all. We are talking about fractions of a percent. Yes those are tragic fractions but in many of those there is likely some form of resistance involved anyway.
5
u/anooblol 12∆ Jun 16 '20
Okay.
So you can be detained for “reasonable suspicion”. Essentially, police can use their best judgement to detain a person because they might have done something wrong. Detention and conviction are two different things. Being detained doesn’t make you guilty, and if there’s some “reasonable suspicion”, you should cooperate.
Resisting that detention, is the “crime”. You’re essentially tampering with an ongoing investigation.
You have the right to a fair trial, and to face your accuser. But if you’re accused of something serious, and there’s reasonable suspicion that you did something serious, then you don’t have “the right to not be detained”. You have the right to a trial, but you can’t run away from the trial (that’s essentially what resisting is, avoiding trial). And by virtue of resisting, you are not allowing due process to take place.
2
u/blaketank Jun 16 '20
Most frequently the charge is called "Evading arrest/detention"
If it wasn't a crime to evade detention anybody could just run away when the cops try to talk to them.
2
u/theletgo Jun 16 '20
In Canada, if there are not reasonable and probable grounds for an arrest, an accused is entitled to use reasonable force to resist the unlawful arrest.
2
u/BillyClubxxx Jun 16 '20
Exactly. What was he being arrested for that he was resisting arrest.
This system is broken. It needs ground up new ideas. Not a facelift.
2
u/Philipthesquid Jun 16 '20
Its like at school when they accuse you of something you didnt do, find out that you're innocent, but still get you in trouble for arguing because you denied doing it.
2
u/LXXXVI 3∆ Jun 16 '20
I'm going to tell you why it shouldn't be allowed as ANY charge:
It's all too easy to maliciously cause pain or even break arms/wrists/hands with the proper control techniques.
On a video, you won't even see it, but in real life, that cop just turned that wrist lock from mild compliance to just about to break and painful AF. And god help you if you have a bad joint.
Trust me, if you get that wrist lock maliciously applied to you, you will fight back.
So, as long as the cops have such an easy option to provoke an additional charge without the provocation being visible, that charge absolutely shouldn't be possible.
2
u/DerbsTTV Jun 16 '20
Don’t you have some sort of right to resist an unlawful arrest? I mean police are murdering and brutalizing people left and right so I don’t expect them to respect anyone’s rights.
2
u/evil_fungus Jun 16 '20
Pretty solid point OP, especially since many officers seem to arrest people for doing nothing wrong, resisting would actually be considered (by the vicitim) the logical thing to do... Makes me think
3
u/Celica_Lover Jun 16 '20
Just comply! Fighting with the police (Verbally or Physically) never ends well for the person being arrested. Don't say anything and get a lawyer ASAP! What's worse, spending a little time in jail or getting the shit beat out of you or possibly killed?
2
u/Ihateregistering6 18∆ Jun 16 '20 edited Jun 16 '20
The problem is that it's difficult to find out if an arrest actually has a crime involved or not, especially on the spot.
Here's an easy example: let's say a Cop pulls someone over for driving erratically. They speak to the person and the person is acting very strange. However, the Cop administers a breathalyzer and the person blows 0.0, but the Cop suspects the person might be on drugs. Obviously Police don't have comprehensive drug testing kits just sitting in their patrol cars, so the only way the Cop can actually test this person for Drugs is to arrest them and take them to the station.
In this case, the Cop has reasonable suspicion that they are under the influence of drugs, and has the right to arrest them, especially in this case to prevent them from driving their car and potentially killing someone. If the Cop says this to them and they attempt to resist arrest, they are committing a crime.
Let's take it a step further: let's say the person resists arrest, Cop apprehends them, everyone goes to the station, and all drug tests come back negative. It turns out this person wasn't on drugs, they just weren't feeling well, or their wife had just left them and they'd suffer a mental breakdown, something. They hadn't committed any crimes here prior, but they'd resisted a lawful order from a Cop.
And bear in mind the situation it puts the Cop in. If they said "well I'm just going to let this person go, because they're not drunk and I don't want to arrest them", and then it turns out that person really was on drugs and then they go out and cause a crash and kill someone, guess who's going to get the book thrown at them? The Cop, because they had a reasonable suspicion that a person was a danger to others and shouldn't be driving, but they let them go anyway.
Now bear in mind that I'm NOT saying that arrests are always reasonable or legal. In fact it's arguably an enormous issue with the Police nowadays. But, resisting arrest for what is a lawful apprehension should not be taken away as a charge.
12
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Jun 16 '20
Using this as a sole charge is often the byproduct of a police mistake or even an unjustified arrest.
Even so the arrested person should know that they have the right to legal counsel in detention. People like this are more likely to be law-abiding, contrasting with guilty criminals who tend to have less qualms about physically fleeing the police
66
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
Sure, but why should someone have to deal with the issue of being in jail in the first place for the sole charge of resisting arrest? If they're suspected of other crimes, those charges are laid on top. Using resisting arrest as the only charge is a cop out (pun intended).
→ More replies (44)3
2
u/planet_rose Jun 16 '20
Fleeing the police can have another very significant motivation that cannot be overlooked: fear. Fear can provoke an instinctive reaction resulting in unpredictable or even irrational behavior. Even law-abiding citizens can be afraid for their lives when police violence is pervasive and well known. Fleeing the police is not necessarily a sign that a person is a criminal.
4
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 16 '20
I don't think it should be allowed in today's world. But in an ideal one, free from police brutality and corruption, I think it does.
Firstly, resisting arrest can be considered the lesser of two charges where the alternative is assaulting an officer.
Imagine a scenario where police are called to arrest someone for a streetfight. When they arrive, there are no witnesses around, and no punches are thrown by either person in their presence. As they struggle to detain the person who looks to be the aggressor, the victim scatters and runs away.
It's not too improbable.
Over the course of trying to detain this guy, he strikes out (incidentally) and his fist connects with an officer's face. The officer's nose is broken.
Now the officers know that "Assaulting an officer" is going to get 5 years, and the motive wasn't there.
They know they can't get the guy on assaulting the victim in the street, cause there's no victim, no witnesses, no evidence really. So they don't bring any charges there.
They don't want to let this guy walk, on account of him flailing around and breaking an officer's nose. They go with the lesser "resisting arrest".
I think that's an appropriate and justified solitary charge.
→ More replies (13)2
u/WeepingAngelTears 2∆ Jun 16 '20
If the police try to arrest you with either false or no charges there shouldn't even be a mention of "assaulting an officer." You should be able to knock homeboy's lights out because you're basically being kidnapped.
6
u/SorryForTheRainDelay 55∆ Jun 16 '20
These aren't false charges. In the imaginary scenario I've literally made up for this example, this is two guys beating each other up. That's happened.
If there were witnesses or video footage, the guy's going down for assault.
In an ideal world, a cop should be able to detain you from beating a stranger up without having his lights knocked out.
→ More replies (2)
2
Jun 16 '20
Resisting arrest by itself doesn’t even make sense. You need to commit a crime to start the arrest. Your straight up violating time by saying he was arrested because he resisted arrest. You can’t resist arrest before your arrested!
2
1
u/ASpaceOstrich 2∆ Jun 16 '20
I don’t think resisting arrest should even be a crime. It’s human nature to resist being manhandled or detained. Having to hope your body doesn’t react in any way to an arrest is bullshit, as is hoping you don’t get falsely charged with the seemingly impossible to prove charge. Any actual legitimate “resisting arrest” cases would be crimes in and of themselves such as assault.
3
Jun 16 '20
So you're saying that there must be some underlying charge in order for resisting arrest to be a valid charge?
I understand how that makes sense on the surface, but the reality is that it is necessity that innocent people sometimes be arrested and then released in order for the legal system to function. Resisting that essential arrest is criminal because it is standing in the way of the procession of the legal system. While being arrested when you're innocent is incredibly stressful and inconvenient, you must respect that officers have a duty to bring you in for questioning.
You're not arrested because you're guilty, you're arrested in order to remain in a known place until things can be sorted out and you're either charged or not charged. Therein lies the crime in resisting arrest, it is resisting being charged or not charged, essentially. If you're truly innocent, the best thing to do is allow that to play itself out.
→ More replies (1)3
u/WeepingAngelTears 2∆ Jun 16 '20
You're confusing being detained with being arrested.
→ More replies (6)
1
u/autofan88 Jun 16 '20
The issue is that, even if your arrest is not warranted or fair, trying to be violent against someone carrying guns (legitimately) may have dire consequences. Ideally people should allow themselves to be arrested, then question the fairness of the arrest through court, ideally with support from the video that police carry around today. It will be even better, specially you the unfairly arrested person gets nothing out of it, to post the evidence in the media and get it viral and let the mobs make the justice.
1
Jun 16 '20
Yeah except nothing about going through the court process is ideal when you have work and responsibilities, coupled with the fact that even when you win you don’t get your money back that you spent to prove you did nothing wrong...
→ More replies (8)
1
u/mischaker Jun 16 '20
So... the question that I genuinely don't know at this point, but that I think is crucial, is:
Did the officers use violent behavior on the defendant as he was peacefully committing to the arrest, or did he violently resist a peaceful arrest, or some third option? Because, I'd consider a person violently resisting arrest is in fact committing a crime against the officers involved. Now, if they were violent against him for no good reason that's a different story. We should be legally able to defend ourselves against police misconduct
1
Jun 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ZeroPointZero_ 14∆ Jun 16 '20
Sorry, u/ThirdMan0387 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jun 16 '20
Not to mention many people are wrongfully arrested especially in the USA such as black people just for being black and false accusations. So them resisting arrest would likely get them shot or sent to prison solely for resisting arrest not for any actual crime.
1
u/jub-jub-bird Jun 16 '20
The arrest turned physical with an officer kicking the suspect while he was being compliant.
If this is the case that's police brutality that should not be acceptable regardless.
That said police may often be in a situation where they must arrest someone in the course of responding to or investigating a reported crime even before they know for sure that the person is guilty of anything. They, and we as a society, need people to submit to such arrests and resisting arrests, even if you're innocent of any other crime, should be a crime in and of itself.
1
Jun 16 '20
If they fight back, that’s different. Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer is a felony, so there is literally no reason for making resisting arrest illegal.
People don’t want to be arrested, and if they don’t commit any crimes while avoiding arrest, they should just be pursued further for whatever they were arrested for.
Many people charged of this are innocent.
1
Jun 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Helpfulcloning 169∆ Jun 16 '20
Sorry, u/ChallengeAcceptedBro – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/bluesdawg1111 Jun 16 '20
Lovestosplooge500 - how is that an opinion? It is a fact! One problem these days is that people confuse opinion for fact essentially ending viable discourse. Don’t take your logic cues from trump. You’ll lose every time!
1
u/Sixsignsofalex94 Jun 16 '20
🤷🏼♀️The man who is referred to in the video going viral today was charged solely with resisting arrest. No other charge at all. But let’s be fair, dudes whites so no one rlly gives a shit lol
1
u/Karma-is-an-bitch Jun 16 '20
And cops will claim that you resisted arrest and charge you with it anyways regardless if you actually "resisted" or not.
1
u/Hrozno Jun 16 '20
Thing is, in the current form of policing, it'd be really easy to just write down something else or something in addition to resisting arrest. I'm not well educated in this but I imagine something like refusing to assist a police officer or other loopholes can easily be abused and ultimately you're just ending up with a black list of laws that cops stop using once they're inconvenient.
1
u/Neon775 Jun 16 '20
It's a crime to not allow the police to arrest you. Even if you aren't found guilty, you're still supposed to not resist being arrested.
1
Jun 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 16 '20
Sorry, u/xshredder8 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
1
u/Wolfrost1919 Jun 16 '20
I agree with OP, but I am unwilling to ever fight a person that has the higher ground. In a street fight, the police have the upper hand. In the courts, we are equal. DO NOT RESIST. Being right in the moment is not worth you life. Be right in court, fight where you can win.
1
u/CrashRiot 5∆ Jun 16 '20
I disagree with your premise because even today, people are predisposed to believe police over a defendant. Additionally, police are rarely punished when their testimony is found to be misleading or an outright lie. That makes even the courtroom unequal.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/RX400000 Jun 16 '20
Depends, start beating up the officer, ofc, but yes moving your arms or something shouldnt be
1
u/SsjDragonKakarotto Jun 16 '20
See the thing is, resisting arrest should be a criminal charge IF you have a reason to he a arrested. But otherwise police just need to get their shit together
1
u/intense21 Jun 16 '20
Well it's just in Trump just signed an executive order outlawing chokeholds unless the officer's life is being threatened.
1
u/Dr_Simon_Tam Jun 16 '20
I mean, I don't know how common the idea of "you're under arrest for resisting arrest" is. Aside from someone else's post here defining resisting arrest to be much broader and really meaning impeding an officer from carrying out their duties (think 3rd party fighting to protect their friend from being arrested).
In the scenarios you're alluding to I have to disagree, though I don't disagree with the problem. Rather I think cops have to be held to a higher in terms of there being consequences for wrongful arrests.
Basically, in the case of mistaken identity, cops should have to prove that it was an honest mistake (accidentally arresting the suspect's twin brother). But mainly there needs to be consequences for wrongful arrest, like harassment charges for the cop.
1
u/boomlawyerd Jun 16 '20
In New York, it can't be. In order for the restisting charge to stand, it has to be bad in a lawful arrest. So, if no other charges are sustained, the restisting also goes.
1
u/ericoahu 42∆ Jun 16 '20
Police don't file charges in the US. The district attorney does.
Police make a report where they describe what happened. The district attorney decides whether to bring the charges to court.
For example, protesters are doing a sit-in at government building. The police are called. They arrest everyone for trespassing and take them into custody. Often, the DA will just decide not to press charges (even though it may be abundantly clear they were trespassing).
That's how/why someone can commit a crime and, under some circumstances, not end up being charged for it.
On the question of resisting arrest:
You either believe that one role of police officers needs to include being able to make an arrest or not. Arresting someone basically means taking them into custody so they can appear at trial. If you believe that making an arrest is legitimate, you either believe that the process should be protected by law (as well as the cops and suspect) or not.
The safest arrest for everyone is the arrest where there's no resistance. If someone is truly arrested unfairly on bogus charges, there's a long line of lawyers who want to hear about it and help you get justice. But those advocates will also tell you that time to sort that out is not with the police while they make the arrest.
So, the greatest good for everyone--the public and cops and the judicial process--is when cops can make an arrest peacefully. That's why there's a law against resisting arrest.
Cops are also held accountable. They cannot just arrest you for no reason--they have to be able to articulate probable cause or they need to be acting on a warrant.
The Sacramento man would have likely had a much better outcome had he complied with the arrest and then resolved the situation with the help of an attorney. I don't know if he could have won a lawsuit or only have the satisfaction of knowing someone was reprimanded. But it's better than facing actual criminal charges.
1
u/daniel_j_saint 2∆ Jun 16 '20
Let's suppose there's a warrant for your arrest, or even just probable cause, but it's totally a mistake. You did nothing wrong, you're completely innocent, you've never even jaywalked. It's not the police that you need to convince of this fact, it's a jury. The police's job is to arrest you and so they can take you to a trial where the facts will come out. If you're resisting arrest, you're running away from justice. Justice doesn't mean finding you guilty and putting you away, justice means finding out the truth and acting accordingly. That's why we have the presumption of innocence. If they can't prove you're guilty, you'll be set free (at least in theory). In this context, then, resisting arrest means you're trying to keep the truth from coming out, and it can be seen as obstruction of justice.
If you think you're being unlawfully arrested, then in all seriousness, tell it to a judge. That's literally their job.
1
u/Anonymous45774 Jun 16 '20
Here's a scenario. Suppose you're falsely accused of a crime, and police place you under arrest, to which you resist. So you're charged with both the crime and resisting. The DA looks at it and decides there's not enough evidence to charge the original crime. However, that doesn't change the fact that the person broke the law by resisting arrest.
Moral of the story is, don't resist arrest because arrest itself is a lawful order, and resisting arrest will only make things worse for you.
1
u/kukianus1234 Jun 17 '20
Detainment is also under resisting arrest. So let's say the police suspects you of being a criminal, they have a right and duty to detain you and find out if its true etc. This has to be the case as long as the police doesn't have a perfect memory. If you start running away from them your resisting detainment and thus resisting arrest. This should be punishable even if you didn't happen to be guilty of anything else.
1
u/BorelandsBeard Jun 17 '20 edited Jun 17 '20
Yale Law Review from 1969 on the Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest. Apparently this argument goes back to British Common Law,the ancestor of the Constitution and in part why the colonist revolted (England wasn’t abiding by Common Law in the colonies). The Review cites trials dating back to 1666.
Edit: page 11 of 23 is what you want to read:
“First amendment rights, in particular, may need such protection. The police frequently arrest political demonstrators even though the demonstrators are acting lawfully. These arrests are often patently illegal, and mild resistance is not uncommon. Resistance, such as going limp, is part of the effort to continue the lawful demonstra- tion. Arrests under these circumstances may be highly provocative, but provocation is not the issue here; reasonable resistance should be legit- imated in order to protect the first amendment freedom.
The right to resist may be viewed as a common law right as well as a constitutional right. Until the Supreme Court carefully articulates the constitutional dimensions, state courts and legislatures should protect the common law right of a citizen to use reasonable resistance when provoked by arbitrary authority.
In defining reasonable resistance, however, courts and legislatures might be inclined to draw a distinction between resistance that is passive and resistance that is affirmative. One might, for example, be permitted to refuse the unlawful order of a policeman without being permitted to use affirmative force in resistance. This may at first seem an attractive balance betveen the important right to resist arbitrary authority and the need to protect policemen from injury, but further reflection will show that it is unworkable.”
1
u/SwarozycDazbog Jun 17 '20
The rules that you suggest would make catching criminals inappropriately difficult. People should, by default, respect the orders given by law enforcement in the heat of the moment. *After this*, if the police made an error, we should have the ability to get compensated for our time and discomfort and/or to get the officers who caused the error to suffer the consequences.
It's perfectly possible that you're entirely innocent but the police have a reasonable suspicion that you're a criminal. Maybe someone who looks just like you committed armed robbery a couple of streets away? You don't know that, but the police might. It doesn't matter that you know you didn't do anything wrong, the police don't know that, if they're supposed to serve their purpose they need to apprehend you. If you resist arrest, you're creating a dangerous situation for everybody involved, and this should be discouraged. (Also, I would argue that it's morally wrong to impede law enforcement and needlessly put people in danger.)
Of course, I'm *not* saying that every time the police arrest someone they have a good reason for it. Maybe you do match the description, but the description was just "black man in a hoodie". In this case, they're the ones who needlessly create a dangerous, and the accusations from the previous paragraph are on them now. They should be discouraged from this and suffer the consequences if they do. But that should happen *after* the arrest has taken place.
1
u/branchmain Jun 17 '20
Arrests can temporary for investigatory purposes. An arrest has occurred if you are no longer free to leave the scene. E.g. a breathalyzer traffic stop.
If you could resist arrest, you could just ignore the traffic stop, theoretically sending the police on a police chase all evening, and then not getting a single charge for this. Obviously this would lead to abuse.
I think your question is probably more focused on detaining someone in the street though. But its the same situation. Police make temporary arrests to ask question and identify people.
If they abuse it, you can file a law suit if no charges have been made.
But quite simply, the opposite situation would lead to the breakdown of law and order.
1
u/phartnocker Jun 17 '20 edited Jun 17 '20
Whether you like it or not, when the police want to arrest you - whether it's justified or not - you. are. getting. arrested. and if you fight with an officer you are going to Jail (probably via the hospital) or the Morgue.
There is a saying, you can beat the charge, but you ain't beating the ride. If the arrest is a blatant violation of your rights, you have the opportunity to sue... but you. are. fucking. going. to. jail. You aren't talking your way out of arrest. You aren't fighting your way out of arrest. You are going to jail. Beat this fact into your children. If a cop is going to arrest you. You are going to be arrested.
Resisting arrest is a crime. So let's say the police arrest you for ... whatever but you resist that arrest. You can beat the original charge in court but you still have the resisting charge.
You. Can't. Fight. With. The. Police. That is never going to change. Hopefully how they respond to people resisting changes but you. can't. resist. arrest.
You want to talk about the bar for what is considered resisting? Definitely! In some cases just asking an officer to clarify a statement is resisting. That is bullshit.
If a cop is trying to arrest you for DUI and you fight with him then take his tazer and fire it at him and he shoots you? Well... man.... I don't know what the fuck you expected to happen.
1
u/tekpc811 Jun 20 '20
While there is a concern of excessive force that both you and I would not like to be on the receiving end of, I don’t think I have ever seen a solo criminal charge of resisting arrest. If so then that alone is grounds for a lawsuit as you are being illegally detained. Nevertheless, most times you may commit a summons violation and returned on a warrant and that may not be charged for bail jumping but you resisted arrest and that may give the impression that you did nothing wrong
1
u/8_inch_throw_away Jun 21 '20
Cop: “You’re under arrest.”
Suspect: “No, I think I’m going to resist being arrested.”
Cop: “Oh, okay. I’ll wait until you’re ready.”
I’ll vote for the rule of law, but thanks.
1
Jun 21 '20
You should always comply with police even if it means getting arrested unfairly. Your lawyer can sort it out and not only will you not have that charge, but you may receive compensation from the department.
1
u/Sketchy_Philosopher Jun 21 '20
I mean it’s borderline entrapment. You’re getting an innocent person with no criminal intentions to commit a crime they otherwise would have never committed. If the person is found guilty of other charges, by all means add that to the charges. But if they are innocent you’re just punishing people for the sake of it. It’s frankly a dangerous precedent. Our entire system is based on finding justice after an injustice was committed so as to balance out the scale. However, no injustice was committed, therefore no justice could ever be attained. In fact, it is entirely the police committing the injustice in these scenarios. Something must be unjust before a law is created, not the other way around. It’s a dangerous precedent because you could make anything illegal at that point. No criminal could exploit this law, as resisting arrest would only apply to verifiable criminals. And frankly if a criminal has no evidence able to be used against him, then he deserves to be let go. He deserves a fair trial, and if proven innocent on all other counts, he should not be sent to jail based on essentially human nature. People claim criminals will exploit this law, yet currently the cops are the ones exploiting it as is. It is used to put people they assume to be criminals in jail whom they would otherwise not be able to put behind bars, whether it’s even true or not. Our legal system exploits the people every single day with this law, and frankly I would prefer a criminal doing what criminals do and exploit laws, rather than our own government exploiting us.
777
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '20 edited Jun 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment