And, although I must be invisible (since there are plenty of cites in there), the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest has only been abrogated in these 40 states insofar as no resistance can be made when the only thing one reasonably fears is an unlawful arrest.
If a person fears death or serious bodily harm, he may yet resist, even in those unenlightened states. Likewise a third party can assert the same privilege.
Does the OP really believe that if a police officer had 30 people on their knees, putting a bullet in each of their heads execution-style, that the law would forbid a private citizen from stopping it?
No, but if a cop was that brazen about it, I think that any attempts to physically intervene would just make you 31. Recording and livestreaming to the internet may actually be the only way to get out of that one alive.
I think that the OP was questioning slightly more questionable police antics, where a perp is getting the beating they deserved for daring to make the cop have to run.
True, but point being that confiscating your phone does not get rid of the evidence. If all you were doing was filming, and that got your phone destroyed and you a beating, then the courts may actually take the civilian’s side against a cop’s for once.
First paragraph: Maybe so. Maybe not. If the citizens snuck up behind the officer and tackled him or shot the officer with a legally carried concealed weapon (different debate) he might come out ahead.
Second: Absolutely a bad thing for the citizen. All of my comments are made with the disclaimers made in this thread. If a citizen uses force against a police officer, be prepared to mortgage the family farm hiring a lawyer to get out of the shit storm or the hospital.
But legally, and academically speaking, if a police officer is beating an already submitted arrestee, the arrestee reasonably fears death or serious bodily injury. Therefore, a third party may legally intervene to protect the arrestee from death or serious bodily injury.
How this works out in practice will be a future MPSIMS thread on this board absent the most clear case of police misconduct. But to answer the OP, it is legal.
There’s a lot to be said about being respectful to police officers …
=====
Interesting how these debates always go off the deep end … what, we’re up to the police tying down 30 people and shooting them in the head one-by-one and a half dozen videos won’t stop the courts from automatically acquitting the police officers involved …
Bo-wo-wo-wo-wo-gus …
Surprising that people who don’t even know if it’s legal to interfere with a police officer somehow are complete and total experts when it comes to police procedures … “This officer is in violation of Section 1636(g)(XIX) as interpreted in Whatshisname vs. City of Ichydick (1993) … I wonder if I can legally intervene?” … yeesh … typically the determination of what is legal or illegal is left up to the courts and the jury of the peers … I’m pretty sure we don’t want Wal-Mart stock clerks with that power, on the streets, with no evidence of any kind …
Frankly, I wouldn’t worry about the police officer turning on me … I’d be worried the suspect would … because typically that police officer isn’t guffing up his/her uniform for nothing, that suspect is one dangerous motherfucker and may not appreciate your efforts to help him/her, except maybe using your belly to hide the 6 inch switchblade …
“Interfering with a police officer during the course of his/her official duties” … if you know exactly where the line is, and have your defense to such charges all lined up … then I guess you can interfere … just be advised that the DA will ask you at what point in time did you think it was a bad idea to call 911 …
I believe some jurisdictions have rules about officers who are in the high speed chase don’t make the eventual arrest … if possible, another officer who hasn’t been chasing handles the suspect … someone not max’ed out on adrenaline … and this is meant to prevent police beatings …
I’m sure the police beating didn’t help, but Rodney was a nasty, violent drunk who was on parole for armed robbery, driving drunk, and violently resisting arrest before his video went viral.
No, it’s supposed to point out that King was an asshole long before he was beaten, and therefore the beating can’t have been the cause of his assholery. He was a drunk before, he was a drunk after, he died a drunk. The beating didn’t cause it; the 3.8 million didn’t fix it.
As logical as this sounds I don’t think you’re right. Remember a cop can make up laws at whim like requiring you to provide identification or to stop filming, then arrest you on that made up law, add on “resisting arrest” and even though the original charge gets thrown out because, you know, the law you violated doesn’t exist you are still on the hook for the resisting arrest charge.
I’m sure this happens, but as you said this “made up law” doesn’t get past the DA’s office … and if you did, in fact, resist arrest then you deserve to sit in jail … I’m sure any defense attorney would advise you to co-operate, don’t say anything and call your attorney as soon as possible … we have to follow police orders at all time … and if the orders are illegal then we can sue the police department …
I’m not an attorney so I’m not subject to the rules that apply to them … so I can personally guaranty you a BIG CASH SETTLEMENT
Of course there’s police corruption … it’s still not very bright to mouth off to a corrupt police officer … best not to mouth off to any police officer …
Since it was decided that not following a cop’s orders was against the law, even if the cop is making up the law at the time.
You may not be charged with breaking the law that the cop makes up, but if you break the law that the cop makes up while the cop is there, then you are resisting arrest, and, whether or not the law that you originally broke was real or just in a cop’s mind, you are now getting charged with resisting arrest.
Bullshit, I know, and I didn’t believe it myself, but I was convinced that this is the law of the land by some of our kindly elucidating members on the right side of the political spectrum. (They also tried to indicate that this is the right and proper way for things to be, and while I condeded that they were right in that is how things are, they never manged to convince me that that is how things should be.)
if this is true. i think its a great idea and hope that it becomes a widely adopted policy.
i would prefer that high speed chases be completely eliminated from police procedure as i believe the potential for catastrophe is extremely great and outweighs any potential benefit. . .but i dont see police agreeing with me any time soon.
the only thing in your post worthy of discussion, and you minimze the size of it!