thenuanceddebater:kagedbird:kagedbird:clarknokent:woke-up-on-derse:futureblackpolitician:yourmajesty
thenuanceddebater:kagedbird:kagedbird:clarknokent:woke-up-on-derse:futureblackpolitician:yourmajestyyy:Uh ohWatch the racists pretend like they can’t read all of a suddenCouldn’t believe it so I found a source, it’s realhttp://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htmMan, I can’t imagine a black person getting away with this but it’s legalYup. So all those people that were like “just comply even if you did nothing wrong”, hell no! They shouldn’t be arresting you if you did nothing wrong. Especially how rough some of these cops are. More people knowing about this will cut down on these power hungry bad cops.Reblogging again for quotes;“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.)”“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).“As a practical matter one should try to avoid relying on the above in an actual confrontation with law enforcement agents, who are likely not to know or care about any of it. Some recent courts have refused to follow these principles, and grand juries, controlled by prosecutors, have refused to indict officers who killed innocent people claiming the subject “resisted” or “looked like he might have a gun”. Once dedicated to “protect and serve”, far too many law enforcement officers have become brutal, lawless occupying military forces.“HMMMBringing this back For no reason in particular.Alright. Now this? This is where I get PISSED THE HELL OFF that people don’t know law. First, John Bad Elk v. U.S.? That was good law. Emphasis on was. The case is from 1900. That means that there have been 120 years of legal development between that case and now. Women could not vote when that case was decided. Jim Crow was still a thing, and we had yet to even really start dealing with “separate but equal” as decided by Plessy v. Ferguson decided just four years earlier. The idea of a Fourth Amendment exclusionary doctrine ala what Mapp v. Ohio decided, or the almost ubiquitous Miranda warnings that pretty much everyone knows weren’t even an idea put forward by legal scholars. This case is OLD. Now, moving onto whether or not it still represents good law. It doesn’t in almost every single state. Most states now have laws that criminalize resisting an unlawful arrest. Here’s an example of Virginia’s law, Texas’s law, and (just for kicks) South Dakota’s law (where the case takes place)John Bad Elk speaks to a principle of common law. That is to say that there isn’t an inherent right someone has to resist an unlawful arrest, but rather that in the absence of a particular legal statute, a person has the right to resist such an arrest. I know that there’s language in the opinion that seems to speak to some kind of innate right, but that’s really not held to anymore. The hundred-plus years of legal determinations have made other avenues (such as Fourth Amendment exclusion of all evidence under Mapp, or civil remedies under Section 1983) of recompense available. It is highly likely that if you attempt to resist an arrest, let alone if you attempt to resist an arrest with lethal force like some here appear to be suggesting, that you will be charged, found guilty, and go to prison. I cannot stress that enough. Do NOT under ANY circumstances try to resist arrest, and cite to this case in ANY interrogation with police (who you shouldn’t be talking to ANYWAY). It will not work, you will lose, and no one will be able to help you. Seriously, this is exactly why people are not allowed to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Because someone finds an old Supreme Court case that isn’t held to anymore, and then starts encouraging people to resist arrests that they deem to be “unlawful.” That’s…. so fucking dangerous and very, very, VERY wrong. Look, I can’t legally give legal advice. I’m not an attorney, I’m not anyone’s attorney, and, most importantly, I’m not YOUR attorney. I’m just a law student. But SERIOUSLY. Consider this general advice. Ignore everything about John Bad Elk. Pretend the case doesn’t exist. You’ll be in an infinitely better position if you do so. You don’t have to comply with the police if you think that’s going to harm you, but PLEASE. For your own safety. Do NOT do this. And if you decide not to listen, then don’t say I didn’t warn you. Tagging who I received this from because I think he needs to see it @reasonandempathy. Please SPREAD THIS to people who need to see it. TL;DR THIS IS NOT GOOD LAW ANYMORE. IF YOU TRY AND USE IT YOU ARE GOING TO BE ARRESTED AND GO TO PRISON. If you want to make a legal defense, HIRE A GODDAMN LAWYER. -- source link