2 votes

Serious question about physically resisting the police

So I have seen a few Youtube vids of citizens legally open carrying and have had their rights violated by the police.

To preface my question I want to state that police are not above the law and are not allowed to violate the law.

To compare my question to a more simplistic and less contentious example, if you were walking down the street drinking a bottle of water and a police officer stopped you, demanded you show your ID, and demanded that he check your water so that he knew you were not drinking, say, vodka, we all know that would be illegal of him to do so as long as you were not violating some other law and he did not have reasonable suspicion that you were drunk. You could resist, and I assume and even physically resist. Say its all on video and your case is easily provable in a court of law.

Now, if you were openly carrying and not violating any laws whatsoever, and a police officer demanded you show your ID, and tried to take your gun for "his security", could you physically resist, even violently resist the officer? Say its all on video and your case is easily provable in a court of law.

My question is would this violent resistance be legal? I've never heard of this type of resistance occur before.

Please stay within the given hypothetical and not post comments such as, "Well, the officer would lie and make something up and you'd be screwed" or something to that effect.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is how it works in

This is how it works in NJ:

The use of force is not justifiable to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest.

Here is full text:

2C:3-4. Use of force in self-protection.

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

b. Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or

(b) To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(i) The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(ii) The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or

(iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

(a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

(ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

(2) A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and:

(a) The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or

(b) The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

(3) An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

Washington

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

You can even be on your own

You can even be on your own property, on video, and in the right, but if you are armed and physically resist an officers assaults(attempting to disarm you) the officer will just shoot you dead.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277010/70-year-old-austin-man-kille...

The officer will then get some paid vacation for a couple weeks while other police cover for his actions and the taxpayers will be held accountable for any monies needed to be doled out to victims family.

Personally I try to avoid police at all costs. I look at them as very dangerous well funded criminals that have no fear of being held accountable. Police actively hunt down individuals, that have harmed no one, to do harm to them.

yes it's lawful.

it's constitutional. if they initiate force upon you, meaning you have not violated any one elses unalienable rights (committed no crime), then you have the right to defend yourself using equal or greater force...

just like it was deemed constitutional in Indiana to shoot a police officer who wrongfully enters your home.

it's accountability... most people should be willing to defend their rights using force, honestly... it's the same as the theory of everyone carrying guns... who would rob a store when everyone has a gun standing around them? etc... what cop is going to violate someone's constitutional rights if people are willing to stop them with force. just make sure you finish the job, then there is only one side of the story. those cops are crafy liars... ;)

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.