THIS must end in America!

ib1yysguy said:
Yeah, I agree with Dixie on this one. STY, you are really a dumbass.
Click to expand...

and you can kiss my ass then, because you're just as ignorant as him. that would make you equal to an idiot southern redneck, how do you like that?

is there ANYTHING in the cases that I posted that prove me wrong? or prove me right?
 
Dixie said:
Why the hell does that give me an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach?
Click to expand...

Because you're retarded. Just like you know you're wrong about common descent, and therefore know I'm right about it. Pretending that you still think you weren't pwned is a pretty shallow act.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and you can kiss my ass then, because you're just as ignorant as him. that would make you equal to an idiot southern redneck, how do you like that?

is there ANYTHING in the cases that I posted that prove me wrong? or prove me right?
Click to expand...

You cannot resist lawful arrest. You are not the person who gets to determine if you're innocent. Your innocence, also, is no guarantee that you wont be arrested and investigated if you appear to be guilty.

You are not your own judge and jury.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
No, you don't. You might like to THINK you do, but you don't.
Click to expand...

Well yes, I most certainly do! Now we can go back and forth like a couple of 5th-graders about it, but you haven't demonstrated this in any way.

you haven't shown it yet as you continually are lumping the two categories in to one.
Click to expand...

No, I am the one who is clearly defining a distinction between the two, and you are the one lumping them together.

I DID prove it, you refuse to accept it. The cops job is to enforce the law. If he doesn't KNOW the law, he shouldn't be trying to enforce it. If he tries to enforce a law that doesn't exist or tries to arrest someone who hasn't broken a law, he becomes the criminal.
Click to expand...

Cops arrest people who haven't broken the law EVERY DAY! That is precisely why we have COURTS! If what you claimed were true, we wouldn't need a court or jury to determine guilt or innocence, because the mere fact that a person was arrested, would mean a law had been broken and the suspect was guilty! In fact, we wouldn't even call them "suspects" because the policeman would have already determined they weren't "suspected" or "alleged" to have committed a crime, they were GUILTY of it!

The brilliance of our system is it gives people the choice, and it is the law that people can resist an unlawful arrest as I have shown on this thread. ignore it if you like. it doesn't make it any less factual or real.
Click to expand...

UNLAWFUL!! That seems to be the word you are having trouble with here! It is NOT "unlawful" for an officer to arrest you for a crime you are suspected of committing! If the officer acts in an unlawful manner, does something illegal, or attempts to arrest you for something that is clearly NOT illegal, THEN and ONLY then, does the arrest become "unlawful." Otherwise, the legitimacy of the charges are left to the courts to decide, not the officer!
 
ib1yysguy said:
You cannot resist lawful arrest. You are not the person who gets to determine if you're innocent. Your innocence, also, is no guarantee that you wont be arrested and investigated if you appear to be guilty.
Click to expand...
now YOU'RE retarded. just like Dixie. I said you have the right to resist an UNLAWFUL arrest. let me repeat that.

you have the right to resist an unlawful arrest.

this means that if you're just walking down the street and have broken no law, they cannot arrest you and if they attempt to, you can resist as is your right. It's not about guilt or innocence because you haven't committed a crime.

now what part of that do you mental midgets not understand?
 
And you get to decide apparently if the arrest is lawful or unlawful?

Brilliant. Good luck. Hope that works out for you.

If you're walking down the street and a guy matching your description has just escaped from the local pen, do you get to resist that arrest/detainment? You've broken no laws, you're just minding your own business.
 
Dixie said:
Well yes, I most certainly do! Now we can go back and forth like a couple of 5th-graders about it, but you haven't demonstrated this in any way.
Click to expand...
you're the one that demonstrated you're a retard.

Dixie said:
No, I am the one who is clearly defining a distinction between the two, and you are the one lumping them together.
Click to expand...
you're starting to sound like a liberal who's had their ass handed to them. I lumped nothing together.

Dixie said:
Cops arrest people who haven't broken the law EVERY DAY! That is precisely why we have COURTS! If what you claimed were true, we wouldn't need a court or jury to determine guilt or innocence, because the mere fact that a person was arrested, would mean a law had been broken and the suspect was guilty! In fact, we wouldn't even call them "suspects" because the policeman would have already determined they weren't "suspected" or "alleged" to have committed a crime, they were GUILTY of it!
Click to expand...
read the USSC cases, you're wrong. i'm right.


Dixie said:
UNLAWFUL!! That seems to be the word you are having trouble with here! It is NOT "unlawful" for an officer to arrest you for a crime you are suspected of committing! If the officer acts in an unlawful manner, does something illegal, or attempts to arrest you for something that is clearly NOT illegal, THEN and ONLY then, does the arrest become "unlawful." Otherwise, the legitimacy of the charges are left to the courts to decide, not the officer!
Click to expand...

well no shit you dumb ass sherlock, that is what i've been on here saying. one has to be SUSPECTED or have committed a crime and it has to be stated with REASONABLE ARTICULATE SUSPICION!!!!!! If they can't do that, they are breaking the law and are then the criminals.
 
ib1yysguy said:
And you get to decide apparently if the arrest is lawful or unlawful?
Click to expand...
yes, and if i'm wrong, i get to pay the price every bit as much as the officer would if he's wrong. duh.


ib1yysguy said:
If you're walking down the street and a guy matching your description has just escaped from the local pen, do you get to resist that arrest/detainment? You've broken no laws, you're just minding your own business.
Click to expand...
the officer can detain me for identification purposes. Once my identity has been established, he must let me go. To detain me for that identification, he must state WHY he's detaining me. This provides his legal justification for detaining me and my legal requirement to abide by the law of providing my ID at that time. If the officer does not do the above and chooses to play a little NFL linebacker action, I have the right to resist that unlawful assault.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you're starting to sound like a liberal who's had their ass handed to them. I lumped nothing together.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are equating "unlawful" with "undeserved" and trying to maintain they are one in the same. I am pointing out that "unlawful" doesn't mean the same thing as "undeserved" and the SCOTUS never said such a thing.

read the USSC cases, you're wrong. i'm right.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. You've completely misinterpreted the law, and I have demonstrated how your argument epically fails.

well no shit you dumb ass sherlock, that is what i've been on here saying. one has to be SUSPECTED or have committed a crime and it has to be stated with REASONABLE ARTICULATE SUSPICION!!!!!! If they can't do that, they are breaking the law and are then the criminals.
Click to expand...

Now that's not what you said at all! You are trying to spin around and claim you said something completely different, but the posts are there for all to read. True, an officer can't arrest you for something that isn't a crime, that is "unlawful", and the officer can't break the law in making such an arrest. But an officer is not charged with determining your guilt or innocence of a crime, and it's not your right to determine whether the charges are justified, and resist arrest if you are innocent! You can be arrested on SUSPICION... you do NOT have to be guilty of committing a crime!
 
Dixie said:
Yes, you are equating "unlawful" with "undeserved" and trying to maintain they are one in the same. I am pointing out that "unlawful" doesn't mean the same thing as "undeserved" and the SCOTUS never said such a thing.
Click to expand...
douchebag, YOU were the one that brought up 'undeserved'. I maintained the distinction between lawful and unlawful.

Dixie said:
No, you are wrong. You've completely misinterpreted the law, and I have demonstrated how your argument epically fails.
Click to expand...
well they better nominate your ass for the supreme court then because they must be wrong also. I had no idea you were such a constitutional genius. :rolleyes:


Dixie said:
Now that's not what you said at all! You are trying to spin around and claim you said something completely different,
Click to expand...
i've maintained the same stance the whole time. It's not my fault you can't read.

Dixie said:
but the posts are there for all to read. True, an officer can't arrest you for something that isn't a crime, that is "unlawful", and the officer can't break the law in making such an arrest. But an officer is not charged with determining your guilt or innocence of a crime, and it's not your right to determine whether the charges are justified, and resist arrest if you are innocent! You can be arrested on SUSPICION... you do NOT have to be guilty of committing a crime!
Click to expand...
whats your line dix? the cops can't arrest you for not breaking a law, but I am not allowed to resist if they do it anyway? thats some real bullshit thinking there which makes you all fucked up wrong.

Let me say this again, a police officer cannot arrest me if I have not committed a crime. If they attempt to do so anyway, I have the right to resist as USSC case precedence has shown and confirmed that I am right. If an officer is going to make an arrest, he must have 'reasonable articulate supsicion' that I have committed a crime, am committing a crime, or am about to commit a crime. If he doesn't have 'RAS', he cannot arrest me. THAT would be an unlawful arrest. Something that I have been consistent on throughout this thread.
 
THEY CAN ARREST YOU IF YOU ARE SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A CRIME EVEN IF YOU ARE INNOCENT BUT NOT KNOWN TO BE SO BY ANYONE BUT YOURSELF.

The end.

You cannot resist an arrest merely because you proclaim your innocence.
 
ib1yysguy said:
THEY CAN ARREST YOU IF YOU ARE SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A CRIME EVEN IF YOU ARE INNOCENT BUT NOT KNOWN TO BE SO BY ANYONE BUT YOURSELF.
Click to expand...
again, Reasonable Articulate Suspicion MUST BE AVAILABLE. If their suspicion isn't reasonable or articulate, it's an unlawful arrest that may be resisted.

The real end.
 
Dixie said:
No, I am sorry, you do not have the right to resist arrest. There is a legal process for wrongful arrest, and you have the right to prosecute that, but you do not have the right to resist arrest, and if you do, the police have the right to use necessary force. That is what appears to have happened here.
Click to expand...
This is just plain wrong. MOST states have case law that says you have a right to resist unlawful arrest. Even with deadly force if need be.
 
Last year there was a guy here in Las Cruces that was cut off by a woman in a parking lot. As he drove by her he told her "fuck off cunt!" This was overheard by a police officer who arrested him for disorderly conduct. The problem is, it is not disorderly, it is just rude. And the police department paid a large sum for false arrest. Now, had that same guy KNOWN the law, he could have resisted the arrest because it was unlawful. He violated no law, and using the reasonable officer standard he could not have said he misapplied the law. You are right, people are arrested all the time for things they did not do, but they were actually arrested for violations of the law, even though they themselves did not commit the violation. In this instance the guy was arrested for NOT violating the law, and had he wanted to, he could have resisted and NOT been guilty of resisting arrest.
 
Socrtease said:
Last year there was a guy here in Las Cruces that was cut off by a woman in a parking lot. As he drove by her he told her "fuck off cunt!" This was overheard by a police officer who arrested him for disorderly conduct. The problem is, it is not disorderly, it is just rude. And the police department paid a large sum for false arrest. Now, had that same guy KNOWN the law, he could have resisted the arrest because it was unlawful. He violated no law, and using the reasonable officer standard he could not have said he misapplied the law. You are right, people are arrested all the time for things they did not do, but they were actually arrested for violations of the law, even though they themselves did not commit the violation. In this instance the guy was arrested for NOT violating the law, and had he wanted to, he could have resisted and NOT been guilty of resisting arrest.
Click to expand...

Had he resisted arrest, he'd have been arrested for resisting arrest and he'd have needed to fight it out in court anyhow. It doesn't get you anywhere.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Had he resisted arrest, he'd have been arrested for resisting arrest and he'd have needed to fight it out in court anyhow. It doesn't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...
But under US Supreme Court law and NM Law he has the right to resist. We have several cases in NM including one where a cop was shot to death and it was ruled self defense based on the resisting of an unlawful arrest where the cop used deadly force.
 
Socrtease said:
But under US Supreme Court law and NM Law he has the right to resist. We have several cases in NM including one where a cop was shot to death and it was ruled self defense based on the resisting of an unlawful arrest where the cop used deadly force.
Click to expand...

STY's contention was you can resist arrest if you are innocent, which of course is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top