SmarterthanYou
rebel
this is what assistant prosecuting attorney Greg Babbitt is arguing to the michigan court of appeals in the case of people v. moreno. At issue in that case is the question of whether a citizen has a legally protected right to resist an unlawful search or unjustified arrest by a police officer.
During a question and answer session, associate justice Cavanaugh described a scenario in which a woman in police custody was sexually assaulted during a body search. In that situation, Justice Cavanaugh inquired, could the victim be charged under the states 'resisting and obstructing' statute? “Technically, you could do that,” Babbitt grudgingly replied, while insisting that “as a prosecutor, I wouldn’t do that.” Rather than putting up physical resistance and thereby risking criminal prosecution, the victim should simply endure the assault and then file a civil complaint after the fact. That approach, of course, this would most likely result in a settlement that protects the offender at the expense of the local tax victim population.
If citizens have no right to resist illegal violations of their property and persons by the police, “What is left of the Fourth Amendment?” one of the judges asked Babbitt.
“Well, life isn’t perfect,” Babbitt replied with a shrug – which to people of his ilk means that in any conflict between individual liberty and institutionalized power, it is the former that must yield. Otherwise, mere Mundanes “will be able to make the determination as to whether the police officers [are] acting properly or not,” he said, his voice freighted with horror over the prospect. “We can’t have individuals ... making that decision in the heat of the moment.”
Of course, that is precisely what Babbitt insisted must be done – as long as the “individuals” in question are emissaries of the State.
During a question and answer session, associate justice Cavanaugh described a scenario in which a woman in police custody was sexually assaulted during a body search. In that situation, Justice Cavanaugh inquired, could the victim be charged under the states 'resisting and obstructing' statute? “Technically, you could do that,” Babbitt grudgingly replied, while insisting that “as a prosecutor, I wouldn’t do that.” Rather than putting up physical resistance and thereby risking criminal prosecution, the victim should simply endure the assault and then file a civil complaint after the fact. That approach, of course, this would most likely result in a settlement that protects the offender at the expense of the local tax victim population.
If citizens have no right to resist illegal violations of their property and persons by the police, “What is left of the Fourth Amendment?” one of the judges asked Babbitt.
“Well, life isn’t perfect,” Babbitt replied with a shrug – which to people of his ilk means that in any conflict between individual liberty and institutionalized power, it is the former that must yield. Otherwise, mere Mundanes “will be able to make the determination as to whether the police officers [are] acting properly or not,” he said, his voice freighted with horror over the prospect. “We can’t have individuals ... making that decision in the heat of the moment.”
Of course, that is precisely what Babbitt insisted must be done – as long as the “individuals” in question are emissaries of the State.
