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.
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.