Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This same Common Law right still exists in America today. Until 1942, when the Interstate Commission on Crime published the Uniform Arrest Act, every state recognized and protected the right to resist. The first major case regarding the right to forcefully resist unlawful arrest was decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana in 1893. In Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893) the defendant Plummer was convicted in trial court of manslaughter of a police officer. The Supreme Court of Indiana ruled that, by the judge not giving adequate instructions to the jury regarding self-defense and the alternatives of conviction on a lesser charge or even acquittal, the trial court erred; and Plummer’s manslaughter conviction was reversed. The Supreme Court of Indiana stated that, although the police officer may or may not have held the authority to make a lawful, warrantless arrest of Plummer for a misdemeanor not witnessed by the police officer, for purposes of argument in reaching a decision the court would assume the worst-case scenario possible for this defendant – that is, that the police officer had the lawful authority to make the arrest. The court then stated that a police officer, in effecting an arrest, is allowed to use force, but only that force which is necessary. The defendant Plummer had not resisted or behaved violently, as he had not even been told by the police officer that he was under arrest. Plummer had merely walked toward his home with a revolver in his hand and told the officer to keep away. Since the police officer (specifically, the marshal of the town) shot a pistol and then struck the defendant Plummer a with a nightstick before even telling Plummer he was under arrest, the police officer had committed a battery by the use of excessive force. Pistols shots were exchanged resulting in the death of the police officer. Plummer was indicted and convicted of manslaughter. The Supreme Court of Indiana concluded that defendant Plummer had “a clear right to defend himself, even to taking the life of his assailant.”
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I've always had the thought that if we have "Constitutional Rights", then there should be no circumstance in which we tolerate their being taken away. Because once it's determined that a Right can be taken away, then it becomes a privilege, and not a Right.
One specific scenario I have in mind (there's plenty current ones), was a story of a man from New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina. He was with his family and had his firearm on him. He was stopped by the police and they confiscated his gun leaving him and his family unprotected. This is violation of both his 2nd and 4th amendment.
I believe that if these were truly Rights, he would be lawful in resisting, with deadly force. I would also argue that other citizens would have the Right to assist a person whose Constitutional Rights are being violated. We have put the burden on proof on the citizens and bog them down with a convoluted "justice" system, where you comply now, and sue later.
How about do what civilized societies do, and go through the justice system?
No, instead you think everyone should just determine themselves to be in the right or not, then react up to and including deadly force.
You do realize that even the most violent criminals think they are not guilty? I guess it is ok that those two guys killed the two prison guards because hell, they probably just thought they are not guilty, and are resisting an unlawful arrest and detainment.
Many people have used deadly force to protect their rights, and wound up in prison because those "rights" did not apply to them in their circumstances.
Deadly force to stop a cop from confiscating your gun is not an appropriate response.
As a pedestrian I may have the right of way at a crosswalk but won't stand up for that right if it means getting creamed by a car.
Dead is dead, doesn't matter if you were "right".
I've always had the thought that if we have "Constitutional Rights", then there should be no circumstance in which we tolerate their being taken away. Because once it's determined that a Right can be taken away, then it becomes a privilege, and not a Right.
One specific scenario I have in mind (there's plenty current ones), was a story of a man from New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina. He was with his family and had his firearm on him. He was stopped by the police and they confiscated his gun leaving him and his family unprotected. This is violation of both his 2nd and 4th amendment.
I believe that if these were truly Rights, he would be lawful in resisting, with deadly force. I would also argue that other citizens would have the Right to assist a person whose Constitutional Rights are being violated. We have put the burden on proof on the citizens and bog them down with a convoluted "justice" system, where you comply now, and sue later.
I agree in theory but thinking like that will get you killed.
So you you want someone under arrest for a possible crime to arbitrarily decide they are not guilty without the judgement of their peers in a court of law and resist with deadly force? Sounds like anarchy to me.
There is some sort of bizarre irony that you are using Caleb Foote to argue for violent resistance of an unlawful arrest.
I don't even have to read the rest of the article to know that you have absolutely completely misinterpreted it if that is the conclusion you draw from it.
There is some sort of bizarre irony that you are using Caleb Foote to argue for violent resistance of an unlawful arrest.
I don't even have to read the rest of the article to know that you have absolutely completely misinterpreted it if that is the conclusion you draw from it.
I suppose I wasn't clear but the Uniform Arrest Act was the attempt to address the thread topic. I thought his paper was an thoughtful discussion on the Act and the Amendment. Especially on the topic of "reasonable suspicion".
Once upon a time, people held their Constitutional privileges in high regard. That there was a time when it was lawful to resist a wrongful arrest. I was taught in my youth to fear and yield to the police. I think it's kind of amazing that the Constitution is radical in relation to our contemporary norms and laws.
The OP is trying to segue into something like since we give up this or that right, or it was amended away, why not give up the first or second amendment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
