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.
Lots of the big Leftist PDs use IQ tests as part of the decision who to accept into the training academy.
If you think that's because they don't want dumb officers, you would be incorrect.
Sociologists have shown that the more intelligent the individual, the less likely they are to follow authoritative instructions exactly. Also in litigation the PDs that used this system were able to show that higher IQ individuals more quickly became bored with the repetitive nature of police work. As a result the higher the IQ the les likely they were to remain a LEO after training. If a cadet applicant scores above a certain level, they will not accept that individual into the training academy.
On the one hand, I can see their point. They want someone who is just going to apply the law and not their own personal standards. On the other hand, the fact that a more intelligent person would easily see the built-in paradoxes existing within any given legal definition means that our laws have perhaps become too complex.
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.
Lots of the big Leftist PDs use IQ tests as part of the decision who to accept into the training academy.
If you think that's because they don't want dumb officers, you would be incorrect.
Sociologists have shown that the more intelligent the individual, the less likely they are to follow authoritative instructions exactly. Also in litigation the PDs that used this system were able to show that higher IQ individuals more quickly became bored with the repetitive nature of police work. As a result the higher the IQ the les likely they were to remain a LEO after training. If a cadet applicant scores above a certain level, they will not accept that individual into the training academy.
On the one hand, I can see their point. They want someone who is just going to apply the law and not their own personal standards. On the other hand, the fact that a more intelligent person would easily see the built-in paradoxes existing within any given legal definition means that our laws have perhaps become too complex.