Thread: Governor signs bill to allow citizens to resist police

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Let me try to translate Mayberry PD to English for you guys. Criminal reads law that says "I can resist cops if they are illegally trying to search myself or my property." Cop legally tries to search said person or property. Criminal ASSUMES because there is no warrant that the search is illegal, and as such tries to resist. Guns are drawn, bullets fly, and one or more people wind up wounded and/or dead.

Kraker is not saying he should be able to do whatever he wants, as a cop, with no regard for the law. He is saying that because of this law some citizens that are already acting outside of the law MAY get the idea that they can resist police WITHIN the law.

Exactly

Sent from my phone, because obviously I am not at home...using TapaTalk

he is saying that because of this law some citizens that are already acting outside of the law MAY get the idea that they can resist police WITHIN the law.

That's the point though if they are already outside the law then there is no grounds to justify the actions. They May even believe their doing gods work by cooking meth. Doesn't matter. You're still breaking the law to begin with, means the law doesn't apply to them anyways. Anyone who thinks they are not breaking the law in which they clearly are, aren't usually the ones who give up right away anyway.

There is a little bit of a difference in say smoking a little pot, or even doing a little meth, and attacking a cop, wouldn't you agree?

And I disagree. Just because you break one law doesn't automatically mean you break every law. However, if you think you are within your right to fight a cop when you otherwise might not if you knew you were screwed if you did.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

Obviously there is still going to be a danger. I'm not saying that cops have had a free ride and never worrying about people resisting. What this law does, and what I explained in my OP, is gives people a sense of "If they come in my house, I can resist." Believe it or not, people are not law scholars. They do not understand every situation that a police officer can enter thier property without a warrant. Just like YOU yourself said earlier DG...No warrant I'm acting illegally. That statement right there proves my point. LEO's do NOT have to have a warrant in every single situation to enter your house. It's called exigent circumstances, and as long as a reasonable and prudent person can articulate the facts to show that entering that house warrant-less was to protect life or property, then it will fly every time in court.

Ordinary people will also imply that this law says "If a cop is acting illegally, I can reisist." People do not understand that the standard of proof to stop you on the sidewalk, and search you is VERY low. If you read Terry v. Ohio case law, it outlines that police officers can search and frisk you for officer safety...which is pretty much any reason what-so-ever if you articulate it correctly.

Bottom line DG, this law will end up getting either an officer, or civilian killed, because that ONE call you take on a "sovereign citizen" that believes cops can not enter thier property without a warrant, and no time, no matter what, and decides to pull a gun.

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

Obviously there is still going to be a danger. I'm not saying that cops have had a free ride and never worrying about people resisting. What this law does, and what I explained in my OP, is gives people a sense of "If they come in my house, I can resist." Believe it or not, people are not law scholars. They do not understand every situation that a police officer can enter thier property without a warrant. Just like YOU yourself said earlier DG...No warrant I'm acting illegally. That statement right there proves my point. LEO's do NOT have to have a warrant in every single situation to enter your house. It's called exigent circumstances, and as long as a reasonable and prudent person can articulate the facts to show that entering that house warrant-less was to protect life or property, then it will fly every time in court.

Ordinary people will also imply that this law says "If a cop is acting illegally, I can reisist." People do not understand that the standard of proof to stop you on the sidewalk, and search you is VERY low. If you read Terry v. Ohio case law, it outlines that police officers can search and frisk you for officer safety...which is pretty much any reason what-so-ever if you articulate it correctly.

Bottom line DG, this law will end up getting either an officer, or civilian killed, because that ONE call you take on a "sovereign citizen" that believes cops can not enter thier property without a warrant, and no time, no matter what, and decides to pull a gun.

There are plenty of laws that the majority of the populace is ignorant to already. Some of those laws require No-Knocks, or the Lesser.
We should take this logic then to the Other laws, just because it will one day end in another Black sash over a shield or star.

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

Obviously there is still going to be a danger. I'm not saying that cops have had a free ride and never worrying about people resisting. What this law does, and what I explained in my OP, is gives people a sense of "If they come in my house, I can resist." Believe it or not, people are not law scholars. They do not understand every situation that a police officer can enter thier property without a warrant. Just like YOU yourself said earlier DG...No warrant I'm acting illegally. That statement right there proves my point. LEO's do NOT have to have a warrant in every single situation to enter your house. It's called exigent circumstances, and as long as a reasonable and prudent person can articulate the facts to show that entering that house warrant-less was to protect life or property, then it will fly every time in court.

Ordinary people will also imply that this law says "If a cop is acting illegally, I can reisist." People do not understand that the standard of proof to stop you on the sidewalk, and search you is VERY low. If you read Terry v. Ohio case law, it outlines that police officers can search and frisk you for officer safety...which is pretty much any reason what-so-ever if you articulate it correctly.

Bottom line DG, this law will end up getting either an officer, or civilian killed, because that ONE call you take on a "sovereign citizen" that believes cops can not enter thier property without a warrant, and no time, no matter what, and decides to pull a gun.

The police will have to be more careful. I don't see how this is effectively any different than any other "stand your ground" type law - both invite danger in grey areas, so the only solution is for all parties to avoid grey areas.

I would much rather not resist a police officer, follow his orders, then sue later in court if he indeed was unjust in his duties....just sayin...