I’m not clear on why the ruling can’t be appealed. If he was found guilty, defense could certainly appeal and base their argument that the judge decided wrongly for whatever reason. Why isn’t prosecution afforded the same?
No, I’m not, quite the opposite. These killings, whether legal or otherwise, are not executions are not performed by the state, so they are not executions.
Nope. The killings are either legal in self defence or defence of another, or illegal. In neither case are they an execution, an illegal execution being a contradiction in terms. Much like a legal murder.
The police are not allowed to kill people as punishment, ever, so no killing by them can be an execution.
If it’s condoned and legal, it’s by definition not murder.
If it’s the case I’m thinking of, I don’t know where you get the idea they weren’t trying to ram the cops… Did they have some other reason for driving towards them and not stopping?
Double jeopardy laws. But the obvious reason not to appeal is that the police actually did nothing wrong in shooting at the people trying to kill them.
Yes, which is why the terms should not be used interchangeably, as I said.
Not every killing by a state agent is an execution. Not every killing by a state agent is justifiable.
The weird thing is that in the US they lock people up for murder who were at the scene but didn’t actually commit the murder. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I don’t see how it’s double jeopardy if he was exonerated through misapplication of law. If that’s the case, he wasn’t exonerated, but let off by a rogue or misguided judge. Here is a list of appeals the prosecution is attempting to make to the record:
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/05/cuyahoga_county_prosecutor_say_1.html
Umm…they weren’t trying to kill anyone. You’re inventing facts to confirm your own biases.
To combat ignorance, here’s what happened:
They fled from a traffic stop. As they were driving by a police station, their car backfired causing other cops to think it was a gunshot (at that time unknown to the officers that the couple fled a traffic stop) which fueled the chase. As the couple attempted to flee in their car, they sideswiped a cruiser, then came to a stop. At that point police opened fire. It can be argued that at no point did that couple attempt to kill an officer. They attempted to flee at one point and it’s possible they would have again, perhaps putting any officers in the way in peril, but there was no imminent threat to the officers’ lives.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/05/cleveland-officer-michael-brelo-137-shots-trial
The judge disagreed. Do you have access to some secret evidence that the trial judge was not privy to?
Is this the “Belo” case? Did the evil and felonious perpetrators have police permission to die, or were they simply hoping to cast the noble officers in the worst possible light? We may note that they were encouraged to die, by the introduction of multiple bullet wounds onto their person, but did they apply for and receive any direct authorization to do so? Of course, emptying one clip and then inserting another might be tacitly understood as a firm suggestion…
Iirc, emptying the gun a second time was in response to the perps dying w/o permission.
Ah! So, sort of a very direct form of a “cease and desist” order? Sounds perfectly legit to me, but I will defer to our resident legal experts.
This is not a trivial question.
As a general principle, the police have the right to approach you and talk to you for any reason they please, and you have the right to ignore them and go about your business. So if that happens, there are no orders involved.
An order implies an interference with your liberty, and for the police to do that, even slightly, generally requires that the police have at least a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
There are some variations to this general rule, however. In some federal circuits, if a completed misdemeanor is the criminal activity in question, and the police did not see the misdemeanor take place, they may not detain you. Other federal circuits permit a detention for reasonable suspicion of a completed misdemeanor. A brief detention of a car and driver to enforce DUI laws is permitted even without reasonable, articulable suspicion.
But your question goes to a slightly different place: are you obliged to obey an order that seizes you even if the police do not have the requisite level of suspicion. Put more simply: do you have the right to resist an unlawful seizure or an unlawful arrest?
There are fifty states with fifty nuanced answers, but the trend is: no. You have the right to self-defense against a police officer’s illegal attack, but not his use of the level of force legally acceptable to accomplish an arrest…even if the underlying arrest is illegal.
Cites for any of the above specific propositions are available on request.
Bricker, did you happen to look at the video liked in post #3085 ? A man is in sitting in his car in a motel parking lot and LEO’s ask him for ID. I thought somewhere in the discussion of the Daniele Watts case it was claimed that there are differences between Terry Stops while in a car and not in a car.
Was this man required to show the LEOs a DL ?
Thank you for the answers, Bricker. I defer to your professional knowledge, but as a layman I don’t agree that I have to abide by unwarranted or unreasonable orders from the police and that resisting an illegal arrest shouldn’t be a violation. That’s just my opinion and it may be at odds with the law but if a cop comes up to me and says I’m taking you in because you’re got blue eyes then I should be able to resist that arrest.
Bingo.
The idea that you should be able to physically resist arrest just leads to violence and madness.
You can make the arrest easy on yourself or hard. But is there some underlying logic that if you fight hard enough or bitch and moan enough that maybe the cop should let you go?
The place to “resist” an illegal (in YOUR opinion) arrest is in the legal system, not the streets.
No, you shouldn’t. You should be able to challenge that arrest in court later. The fact is, you simply don’t know at the point of arrest whether it’s valid or not - indeed, you can’t know.
You can, of course, resist unreasonable force - such as, to use a lovely example people on this board like making, the cop tries to force you to give him a blow job. But if he tries to restrain you to make an arrest, or orders you to get out of his way so he can do his job, you may not, and should not be allowed to, refuse.
I don’t really get why anyone would have a problem with this, either. They are going to arrest you whether you resist or not, even if that arrest is illegal. Why would you want to make things worse for yourself?
No one’s mentioned the case of Nehemiah Fischer, shot dead two weeks ago in Oklmulgee, Oklahoma. Apparently police were eager to counter allegations they only kill sassy hos and thugs wearing hoodies, so they killed a gentle white-skinned pastor. Details seem sketchy; AFAICT police haven’t yet remembered whether the victim was brandishing a gun.
In the video you can hear troopers shouting “Come on, get out of that water, Let’s go” over and over and over. I know that would irritate me. Perhaps it was the inane incessant shouting that irritated Nehemiah or his brother Brandon so much they needed to be shot. In another twist of post-rational American Exceptionalness, the original purpose of cops’ intervention was to save the brothers’ life!
There is certainly the right to resist an unlawful arrest in the USA.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
Of course, as they say,
In the real world, even if an arrest is completely unlawful, resisting in any manner most likely means the innocent party will be dead or seriously injured, and the criminal will go free.
Your own quote says otherwise, unless you think that driving into someone’s car isn’t potentially lethal. Which would be a silly thing to think.
While your sarcasm is evident, police have always killed any color of person when they resist. Age, sex or mental state, race, religion or appearance, it really doesn’t matter. If you don’t submit, you will die, or be seriously injured.