another freedom taken away: "Resisting Arrest"

The charge of “resisting arrest” is a funny thing. One may imagine that it was devised so that murderers, rapists or robbers who tried to escape from the clutches of the law are punished additionally for resisting against police officers.

In practice, the effects of this charge disturbingly fall on undeserving victims. Strangely, people can be charged with nothing else but resisting arrest – meaning that there only crime was resisting arrest. This makes little sense. In essence, there was no reason to arrest them, but since they resisted their wrongful arrest, they are now criminals.

The California Penal code (§148 ) defines Resisting/Delaying/Obstructing an Officer or Emergency Medical Technician as follows:

“Every person who willfully resists, delays or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician…in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment….”

This law is somewhat vague, and assumes that officers “in the discharge or attempt to discharge” their duty are always doing the right thing. Herein lies the problem. In fact, sometimes officers do harass people for absolutely no reason, and when people rightfully resist, the officers use the “resisting arrest” charge as a subjugation or punishment for resisting their authority.

An interesting case is that of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer who stopped an ambulance transporting a patient because the ambulance driver did not yield for the officer. The officer pulled the ambulance over, and when the paramedic tried to explain the emergency situation, the officer went into a rage and assaulted the paramedic. The officer was
given 5 days suspension without pay.

In California, this officer ironically would have fit the definition of “resisting arrest” because he was delaying a medical technician in the course of his duties. Strangely enough, in California, the medical technician would have also been “resisting arrest” because he was delaying or obstructing an officer from the performance of those duties. This completely absurd result only highlights one of the many problems with this law and its underlying assumption that a certain class of people (emergency personnel, police, firefighters) are always doing the right thing.

It is unfortunate that Oklahoma highway patrol did not seem to have too much a problem with their officer assaulting paramedics – a 5 day suspension seems like a very light punishment. Most people who assault someone in the course of the job are probably fired.

However, it is fortunate in Oklahoma that the state still recognizes the right to resist unlawful arrest. Years ago, almost every state recognized this right. Today, only a minority do. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming recognize the right of an individual to fight off unlawful arrest.

California, in erasing such an important individual liberty, is now seeing the effects of this foolish law. One recent study of the San Jose Police Department found that more than a dozen San Jose officers were repeatedly using force in resisting arrest cases.

In the course of one year, Officer John Marfia committed many acts of aggression against civilians. He knocked Camille Monet Fisher to the floor, ground her face into the asphalt, and caused a miscarriage. Marfia later struck Carlos Duran in the chest, knocked him down, and pinned his head to the ground. In the same year, Marfia pulled Hai Tran the the ground, and punched a bystander who Marfia alleged was trying to intervene. All three of these people were booked only on charges of “resisting arrest.”

All three of these people prevailed in the charges against them, but Marfia saw no discipline. Instead, he was promoted. People who filed complaints to the departments Internal Affairs division were ignored (is that any surprise? What do you think an “internal” investigation is?).

Another Officer Ordaz has been implicated in several excessive force cases in connection with resisting arrest charges also. Ordaz alleged that Bennett Walden charged at him with a clenched fist, and that Ordaz had to knock him down and strike him repeatedly with a baton as a result. Walden produced two witnesses that supported his version of the story, that the attack was unprovoked.

The study found that one Officer Marin had used a taser three times in the first two months she was given a taser. A few months after that, she shocked a teenager with a taser.

The study, and sometimes the justice system, has found all these officers to have used excessive force and wrongfully arrested innocent citizens. However, while the citizens had to pay for lawyers, go through the legal system, and suffer physical injuries, these officers have met little if any discipline.

Those who do not have the resources to hire a good lawyer undoubtedly receive a far worse outcome. Resisting arrest is a law that defaults to assuming that the citizen is a criminal, since anyone can be arrested for anything, whether lawful or not. It allows police officers to arrest people for absolutely no justification. The determination of right and wrong lies completely with the police. The law justifies and perpetuates arbitrary arrests, since police who do so suffer no punishment.

The result is that the citizen is actually guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around as our legal system purports to operate.
In other words, our politicians have made laws that allow anyone to be arrested without doing anything illegal, and those who do not comply and go along with it will be punished.

 

related story: Woman convicted of felony for not complying with police, leaving after eviction notice

In that story the two women did not even really actively do anything to resist arrest, yet one of the women was convicted of two felony counts for resisting arrest.
The only things they did is not open the front door, not immediately go outside of their house, waiting several hours, and then they left their home from the back door, and when approached by an officer just stood for several minutes. Until they were attacked by police.
The home invasion by police was all supposedly based on some calls from neighbors reporting hearing gunshots in the vicinity.
Seems like they were sent to prison for not following police orders, which were barked at them from a distant megaphone from outside the home they were in.

 

Resisting arrest is an act of impeding the course of justice. And, that IS an illegal act.

Your acts can impede the course of justice regardless of whether you have transgressed in some other way.

This should be totally obvious.

 

Yes. They impeded the course of justice.

I'm really sick of this idea that citizens should refuse to cooperate with police.

Law enforcement requires the cooperation of the public they police.

 

So...did you not read the post, did you completely ignore it, or are you just a badge bunny?

 

I'm afraid the "freedom to resist arrest" was never in the books

 

So...you didn't read the article, either.

 

The definition for resisting arrest in the OP is pretty much identical with the laws in other States

 

But suppose the arrest was not justice? Suppose someone lied or made a bad decision about carrying out the arrest?
Would you still punish them for that?

What you seem to be saying is that no one has a right to defend themselves or try to escape. (Is that because you believe individuals must surrender all their rights to government?)

Not to mention that in many situations there might be no way to be absolutely sure the other person or persons are actual legitimate police officers carrying out their official job. There is no way for the individual to know if the arrest is legal, or is being done for appropriate legal reasons.

 

In no case is the USSC on site when an arrest is made.

The way our system works is that you work out the legality later.

This isn't the wild west where justice is solved by who has the most capability of violence.

So, ABSOLUTELY. If you do not cooperate with an arrest, that is a crime. And, if the police do something illegal to you, then THAT is a crime.

How come everybody in the USA doesn't seem to know that??

 

That could also still theoretically be done if it was the police officer who was arrested.

But I think in reality, the proper and precise "protocol" of how confrontations should be handled, and which side should be accorded precedence in various different situations is a bit complicated and requires some careful thoughtfulness. (Would probably require a detailed discussion in another thread)
The laws and prevailing public opinions on this can be significantly different in different states and jurisdictions. (And of course it goes without saying any armed confrontation can be very physically and legally after-the-fact dangerous, so I'm not encouraging this, but discussing it from a theoretical political rights standpoint)

Should the criminal justice system also prosecute a police officer if he does not comply and submit to an arrest by a private citizen?

It seems to me very similar logic could apply (if that private citizen has valid reason to take the police officer into custody).

The idea you support wouldn't be intrinsically built-in with inherent double standards, would it?

 

Every time any law enforcement officer enforces a law by carrying out an arrest, detainment, or raid on a private property, it involves an inherent threat of violence.
I don't think you understand, that reality is inherent to how law enforcement carries out their duties. If an individual is being, for all intents and purposes "attacked" by a group, who are presumably law enforcement officers, the individual defers to that group because the group of many armed men have a greater capability of violence.

I think only in some more unusual type of situations will a private party threaten to shoot law enforcement unless their identities as legitimate law enforcement can be verified. One example might be some very large high security bank vault facilities, in which case they will usually have a preestablished communication line to be able to quickly contact the authorities of any apparent law enforcement officers who might show up. Another example might be a prison (some of which you have to remember are run on behalf of the state by private corporations). A group of armed men, whether they are wearing police uniforms or not, cannot just expect to barge into such facilities unannounced and without some sort of verification.

Perhaps in certain big city areas, like New York City or Los Angeles, there might exist a prevalent view that an individual has very little right to resist or defend themselves, and that private citizens, even security guards, must always defer to one or two people who are dressed as police officers. But that is not the view in many parts of the country. That might only be because in big city areas there are practically police officers available on every other corner, and usually always plenty of witnesses around.

 

If I go up to you and want to put you in handcuffs, make you get into my van with one of my friends, and drive you away to an unknown location, should you cooperate with me?

The fact of the matter is, if someone wants to do that to you, or someone else you are watching, you have no idea if they have appropriate legal sanction to do that. Keep in mind that police make arrests all the time without an arrest warrant. Or they can very easily lie to get an arrest warrant, and very likely there will be no way to ever prove the arrest warrant was based on a lie. In fact you really don't even have any absolute way to verify that they are actually employed as real police officers. Sure, they may be wearing a police uniform, have some badge, have a car that appears to be a police vehicle, but all those indicators can be faked.

 

law enforcement priority should be to deescalate if possible and not lie to citizens, go on fishing expeditions for a traffic stop, just run the license for warrants and if none, issue the ticket - job done

the war on drugs has made some cops corrupt and abusive

traffic cams do the same job as the cops, they issue the ticket, job done

 

I remember a story many years ago, they found a police officer shot dead by the side of the highway not far from his car.
Only it turned out the man was not an actual police officer and had a criminal history, including abuse of women.
The detective investigating had a theory that the man may have been a rapist or serial killer who targeted prostitutes, who he conveniently kidnapped using the pretext of an arrest. Apparently one of the prostitutes shot him.
Several women involved in the sex trade had disappeared or been reported missing over the previous couple of years. Found a few suspicious things in the man's rented home but nothing that could prove the theory.
Was in Oklahoma or Northern Texas.

The car was painted black and white and sort of appeared like it could be a highway patrol car from a distance away but not up close.

 

Executing a citizen's arrest against an officer of the law is a far more difficult task.

But, that's not the real topic here.

If an officer arrests you, you comply with the arrest.

You do have rights to object to illegal search and seizures, etc., but when the police do it anyway, that gets worked out in court - NOT by force against the arrest or behavior.

 

This is absolutely true. There is NO question.

I hope it's for drugs. That might be more easily fixed than the police harassment for simply having dark skin.

 

All they have to do is pull the classic..... I smelled marijuana..... And there go your fourth amendment rights, right out the window.

 

Not defending, but I think the amount of citizens that harrass or attack police so often in just about most situations they get involved in. Thus, after years of continually dealing with ******* citizens acting crazy, lying and giving them a hard time, I think police, like any other person, gets more hardened into not wanting to deal with another crazy citizen attacking and snaps. Even the best intentioned police officer will lose it dealing with the dregs of society on a daily basis over time.

If you don't fix the citizens, then crime will spiral out of control due to Police no longer being capable of doing their job. More people will get killed, robbed and raped because you are sitting in your middle or upper clase house out in the burbs thinking they are supporting saving lives while even more peoples lives get ruined and killed instead.

There has to be a happy medium, because taking extreme measures like the Left and Right try to do makes things worse and fixes not a damn single problem. Instead, it just creates worse problems. Because, not penalizing small crimes always leads the perps in all situations to escalate to harder and possibly violent crimes due to them thinking they can get away with it. They are mentally ill and just allowing them to do what they want ends up getting someone else hurt. Maybe, your family someday.

 

cops need to do better, most can... if they can't handle the job... they need to be removed

being a cop is a tough job, not all can handle it... I could not, thus I am not a cop

i agree with much of what you said.... and that includes small and big crimes, even that rich and powerful people like Trump commit

and yes, letting people get away with shoplifting, death threats and the like, are not helping

we have too many people with long rap sheets walking our streets, the prisons are full from the war on drugs... which has made both cops and criminals worse imo

 

Everybody wants policing. But, respect and trust, requirements for successful policing, must be earned.

We've all seen the federal report on Minneapolis policing.

The item in the list that I like best is the one where they interviewed police officers and found many who said they feared being considered racist.

BUT, those police answered the questions using terminology and examples that ARE racist!!

 

FYI. There are not enough cops to be removed. NOBODY wants to be a police officer in Far Left run cities. You have to fix both sides of the law, the good and the bad, not just penalize one side and let the other run rampant. Nothing I see the left doing is fixing anything because they are only creating more crime, thus they are hurting more innocent people (the victims of these crimes) to protect the perpetrators. Why should more innocent suffer for the vanity of Left Wing Elite and their sheep. There has to be a better way as the Right Wing Elite and their Sheep favor oppressive measures.

 

Mankind is corrupt and fallible. There is not a single successful police force on planet earth in urban cities. Not a single one. There is not a human being on earth who is not capable of corruption. Just allowing criminals to commit crimes because a very small fraction of officers lose their cool over time dealing with daily deviant behavior, really only hurts more innocent victims of which someday, your family will become a victim due to the rise in crime.

 

This is NOT an accurate picture of what is happening.

One can see the federal report on the Minneapolis force as an example.

There are multiple clear patters that show that the police murders were expectable and that there is every reason for the public not to trust the force.

NOBODY is asking for reduction in policing. The issue is increasing quality policing that has the trust of those municipalities being policed.

 

Just hiring more people won't fix things if there is no accountability on both sides. In addition, there is not enough qualified people or anyone who wants to work out there, thus the more unqualified people granted positions in a revised police force will just be a cess pool of new type of corruption. We have seen this all before, just actions without a single thought to consequences.