kagedbird: kagedbird:clarknokent:woke-up-on-derse:futureblackpolitician:yourmajestyyy:Uh o
kagedbird: kagedbird: clarknokent: woke-up-on-derse: futureblackpolitician: yourmajestyyy: Uh oh Watch the racists pretend like they can’t read all of a sudden Couldn’t believe it so I found a source, it’s real http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm Man, I can’t imagine a black person getting away with this but it’s legal Yup. 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.“ HMMM Bringing this back For no reason in particular. That is a Maine case from 1950 and is no longer good law.The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine set Robinson aside in 1978, however, holding “Robinson no longer states the law of Maine.” State v. Austin, 381 A.2d 652, 653 (Me. 1978).–State v. Valentine, 935 P.2d 1294, 1298 (1997).The “right” to resist unlawful arrest may have been alive in the early part of the 20th century, but was scrapped either by statute or judicial common sense shortly thereafter. You do not have a right to resist a police officer.I did a quick google search and apparently /r/legaladvice/ has gone over it almost a decade ago now. You need to make sure if this holds true in. your. state. -- source link
#legal advice