• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Court rules: No Right to Resist Illegal Entry by Police

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I will know a tyrant when I see one. Looking around, I do not see a tyrant. As long as we can vote, tyranny is kept a bay. When I can no longer vote then I will take up arms to defend the Constitution.....and you can take that to the bank.

There are bits of tyranny at all level of governments today. While you may see no tyrants, I see these tyrannies and want to fix them. Through elections, court cases, advocacy, and other exercises of our rights and privileges, we have fixed several of them. There are more to fix, and new ones (such as this ruling) crop up from time to time.

But, no, you are right, this nation is farther removed from tyranny than any other nation on Earth. Though, I do see individual petty tyrants trying to exercise their tyranny. What I see the current president doing as tyrannical--even though he hasn't created a tyranny.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I used to believe that this is true... I no longer do... There are too many that are willing to abdicate their rights to others, in exchange for taking responsibility... Our rights will be LONG GONE before your right to vote is...

The vote is only one tool to protect our rights. If it is the only tool used, it can either be used to protect rights or to take the rights of others away. We must use all the tools we have to constantly remind our government that we are a nation of laws and not of men.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I used to believe that this is true... I no longer do... There are too many that are willing to abdicate their rights to others, in exchange for taking responsibility... Our rights will be LONG GONE before your right to vote is...

Voting in itself has become a form of tyranny. We are not supposed to be a democracy where others can vote your rights away. Or vote to take your money/property.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I used to believe that this is true... I no longer do... There are too many that are willing to abdicate their rights to others, in exchange for taking responsibility... Our rights will be LONG GONE before your right to vote is...

Which communist country had elections? USSR? Of course, there was only one party to vote for. And, they always won.

Kinda like us. Oh, suuuuure, there are supposedly two parties, but that's just a lie. They're really just two wings of the same party--The Government Party. No matter which is "in power" (like the other is ever really out of power), the national debt keeps ballooning, freedoms are chiseled, regulations are added by the ream.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“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).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

DETAIN: To retain as the possession of personalty. First Nat. Bank v. Yocom, 96 Or. 438, 189 P. 220, 221. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to re strain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438. (Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 535)

ARREST: To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex.App. 334, 15 S.W. 812. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officer's authority and control is necessary to constitute an "arrest." Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 189 N.E. 210, 213. It is a restraints however slight, on another's liberty to come and go. Turney v. Rhodes, 42 Ga.App. 104, 155 S.E. 112. It is the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. U. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed.Cas.No.14,568; State v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County, 70 Mont. 378, 225 P. 1000, 1001; Hoppes v. State, 105 P.2d 433, 439, 70 Okl.Cr. 179.(Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 140)

So by definition is an illegal entry into your home, a detainment, or arrest?
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Resisting unlawful arrest and resisting unlawful entry by a LEO are different (but related) issues. That the courts have ruled that resisting unlawful arrest is lawful does not mean that resisting unlawful entry by a LEO is lawful.

Though it is a compelling argument that those cases support the idea that resisting any unlawful actions by LEOs is resisting a criminal act outside the LEO's authority and would be as lawful as resisting the same act committed by anyone else.

However, those judges did not "miss" the cases enumerated above. They likely just thought that the cases weren't on point enough.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
I agree with the court's rationale that "allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest—as evident by the facts of this instant case."


Ind. Sheriff: If We Need to Conduct RANDOM HOUSE to HOUSE Searches We Will

May 16, 2011 at 1:15 pm
by: Allison Bricker

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

http://smargus.com/indiana-sheriff-i...rches-we-will/
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
There are bits of tyranny at all level of governments today. While you may see no tyrants, I see these tyrannies and want to fix them. Through elections, court cases, advocacy, and other exercises of our rights and privileges, we have fixed several of them. There are more to fix, and new ones (such as this ruling) crop up from time to time.

But, no, you are right, this nation is farther removed from tyranny than any other nation on Earth. Though, I do see individual petty tyrants trying to exercise their tyranny. What I see the current president doing as tyrannical--even though he hasn't created a tyranny.

how does one fix tyranny by voting, when the people committing tyranny are not running for elected office? How do elected representatives fix tyrannical actions when those committing them 'interpret' things the way they want to?
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
Resisting unlawful arrest and resisting unlawful entry by a LEO are different (but related) issues. That the courts have ruled that resisting unlawful arrest is lawful does not mean that resisting unlawful entry by a LEO is lawful.

Though it is a compelling argument that those cases support the idea that resisting any unlawful actions by LEOs is resisting a criminal act outside the LEO's authority and would be as lawful as resisting the same act committed by anyone else.

However, those judges did not "miss" the cases enumerated above. They likely just thought that the cases weren't on point enough.
If a judge, of all people, cannot see how on point those cases are, then they have no business being on a bench. The fact of the matter is, they chose to overturn that precedent, basically saying that if a police officer is going to arrest you or enter your home, nothing you do is going to prevent them, eventually leading to major injury or death to one or more people, therefore, they will just remove that right from history and they alone will decide if the cop did right or wrong.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
how does one fix tyranny by voting, when the people committing tyranny are not running for elected office? How do elected representatives fix tyrannical actions when those committing them 'interpret' things the way they want to?

Try to read and reply to the sum total of my post, not to one point that I did not make, and certainly did not make in a vacuum of context.

I will be happy to reply to such a rational reply. I will move on from this one.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If a judge, of all people, cannot see how on point those cases are, then they have no business being on a bench. The fact of the matter is, they chose to overturn that precedent, basically saying that if a police officer is going to arrest you or enter your home, nothing you do is going to prevent them, eventually leading to major injury or death to one or more people, therefore, they will just remove that right from history and they alone will decide if the cop did right or wrong.

These cases are NOT on point. They relate to resisting unlawful arrest. They do not relate to unlawful entry. That is not to say that they cannot be considered. They MAY be considered, as they might assist the judge in reasoning--and these judges needed all the help in reasoning they could get.

That a sheriff wants to use this ruling to justify random searches illustrates the folly in this ruling. Yeah, it is unfortunate if a cop making a good faith error gets hurt when a homeowner who knows his house should not have been entered, but it is more unfortunate when a cop thinks he can get away with unlawfully invading homes because the homeowner cannot defend his home and probably will not seek redress in the courts. The point of the 4A is to stop the latter, even if it happens to result in the former.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
These cases are NOT on point. They relate to resisting unlawful arrest. They do not relate to unlawful entry. That is not to say that they cannot be considered. They MAY be considered, as they might assist the judge in reasoning--and these judges needed all the help in reasoning they could get.
I've heard this before. You sound like the Maryland supreme court saying that if the supreme court intended the 2nd Amendment to apply outside the home, they should have specifically stated so. you like very specific wordspeak when it suits you. The totality of the cases cited reside on one very basic fundamental right to liberty. An unlawful arrest OR an unlawful entry in to a private home violates the fundamental right to libery of movement. end of story. If you choose to get stuck on the very specific wording between unlawful ARREST and unlawful ENTRY, well nobody here can help you.

That a sheriff wants to use this ruling to justify random searches illustrates the folly in this ruling. Yeah, it is unfortunate if a cop making a good faith error gets hurt when a homeowner who knows his house should not have been entered, but it is more unfortunate when a cop thinks he can get away with unlawfully invading homes because the homeowner cannot defend his home and probably will not seek redress in the courts. The point of the 4A is to stop the latter, even if it happens to result in the former.

curiously, you completely avoided whatever consequences might have been incurred by the owner of the home. I thought the 4th Amendment applied to restrictions of government, not restrictions on the people.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
Try to read and reply to the sum total of my post, not to one point that I did not make, and certainly did not make in a vacuum of context.

I will be happy to reply to such a rational reply. I will move on from this one.

could care less if you're happy or not, or you reply or not. you want a reply post based on your exact wording of 'something', yet you refuse to see what it is you really said. If you made an erroneous or wrong point, maybe you need to take better care in how you word or explain things.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I've heard this before...

Apparently not. Because it it simple logic, and you did not seem to know it.

Moving on from this one too.

curiously, you completely avoided whatever consequences might have been incurred by the owner of the home. I thought the 4th Amendment applied to restrictions of government, not restrictions on the people.

No, I haven't. Please read everything I write before you jump to your incorrect conclusions. I have specifically mentioned that the homeowner should suffer legal consequences for resisting a lawful entry. I have also expressed the idea that the very reason that this ruling is wrong is that homeowners will be forced to suffer consequences of illegal entries without being able to lawfully stop them. Not all violated homeowners can or will go to court to seek redress.

Moving on from this too.

RIF.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I've got it! You don't resist them "entering" the house but once they are inside they are now ARMED intruders and imo should be treated as such.
 

mousegurl

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
17
Location
Pacific Northwest
If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will jump right back out.

If you throw a frog into a pot if lukewarm water and slowly heat it to the boiling point, the frog will stay in the pot - and die.

Such is the erosion of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights!

And I'm starting to feel more froggy every damn day...
 
Top