Police are a necessary part of the equation. We don’t live in a society of unlimited freedom. We impose our collective will on everyone through laws, and must have the ability to enforce compliance, or some wouldn’t comply.
The fact we’ve allowed non-compliance to become the rule, not the exception, is the problem. No criminal’s life is important enough that the cop should have to risk their life or injury to arrest you. It’s not worth a paper cut. You’d be surprised how quickly the resisting, running, etc would stop if they knew there would be no warnings, no tasers, no chase.
It's not non-compliance that is the core at the problem. It's Marxism and Socialism and the subversive process that progresses towards them. People become degenerate, commit more crime, become more violent, or just generally get a lot of societal support for their bad behaviors.
No criminal’s life is important enough that
But the police doesn't know who is criminal or not. Knowing that with certainty is a luxury many do not have. There are also plenty of instances where people are treated unlawfully, are innocent, were just pranked or where cops are actually corrupt or intentionally abusive. Power corrupts, and that is true on ALL levels in society.
What you describe sounds almost like a Soviet Union type police state nightmare, where 100% obedience is demanded by default to the police and all authorities, even if they exert unconstitutional or unlawful actions. Resistance - be it passive or active - is an important concept, and also the reason why the 2A exists in the first place. The Democrat controlled states are TYRANNICAL right now. If you are part of their little group (BLM, Democrat, Antifa), you can do whatever you want. If you resist, you get persecuted. The police are ordered to stand back and let the Bolsheviks do whatever they want.
Police don’t need to prove their case for an arrest. That’s for the courts. They only need probable cause. You don’t get to “opt out” and decide when arresting YOU, they have to have a jury there ready to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
a handful of states have laws that allow citizens to use reasonable proportional force to resist an unlawful arrest.
But in reality, the usefulness of that law would be primarily as an affirmative defense. If the officer doesn't believe that her arrest is unlawful any such law granting citizens the right to resist an unlawful arrest doesn't grant the Defendant a magical shield of nonarrestability.
The Defendant is still potentially deceased with the cold comfort of a civil suit to provide future financial support for his family.
What a nebulous law. I don't like it. "Proportional force" may mean use of a firearm, since a police officer has a firearm, right?
In my opinion, the only way to legally and reasonably deploy the law would be to require that the LEO to identify the exact section of the law that the person is believed to have violated prior to transporting them for booking.
Police are a necessary part of the equation. We don’t live in a society of unlimited freedom. We impose our collective will on everyone through laws, and must have the ability to enforce compliance, or some wouldn’t comply.
The fact we’ve allowed non-compliance to become the rule, not the exception, is the problem. No criminal’s life is important enough that the cop should have to risk their life or injury to arrest you. It’s not worth a paper cut. You’d be surprised how quickly the resisting, running, etc would stop if they knew there would be no warnings, no tasers, no chase.
It's not non-compliance that is the core at the problem. It's Marxism and Socialism and the subversive process that progresses towards them. People become degenerate, commit more crime, become more violent, or just generally get a lot of societal support for their bad behaviors.
But the police doesn't know who is criminal or not. Knowing that with certainty is a luxury many do not have. There are also plenty of instances where people are treated unlawfully, are innocent, were just pranked or where cops are actually corrupt or intentionally abusive. Power corrupts, and that is true on ALL levels in society.
What you describe sounds almost like a Soviet Union type police state nightmare, where 100% obedience is demanded by default to the police and all authorities, even if they exert unconstitutional or unlawful actions. Resistance - be it passive or active - is an important concept, and also the reason why the 2A exists in the first place. The Democrat controlled states are TYRANNICAL right now. If you are part of their little group (BLM, Democrat, Antifa), you can do whatever you want. If you resist, you get persecuted. The police are ordered to stand back and let the Bolsheviks do whatever they want.
Police don’t need to prove their case for an arrest. That’s for the courts. They only need probable cause. You don’t get to “opt out” and decide when arresting YOU, they have to have a jury there ready to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
a handful of states have laws that allow citizens to use reasonable proportional force to resist an unlawful arrest.
But in reality, the usefulness of that law would be primarily as an affirmative defense. If the officer doesn't believe that her arrest is unlawful any such law granting citizens the right to resist an unlawful arrest doesn't grant the Defendant a magical shield of nonarrestability.
The Defendant is still potentially deceased with the cold comfort of a civil suit to provide future financial support for his family.
What a nebulous law. I don't like it. "Proportional force" may mean use of a firearm, since a police officer has a firearm, right?
In my opinion, the only way to legally and reasonably deploy the law would be to require that the LEO to identify the exact section of the law that the person is believed to have violated prior to transporting them for booking.