Handcuffed, disarmed for obeying the law

[lklawson]

Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?

Understand this. If a cop wants to arrest you, YOU WILL BE ARRESTED. Period. End of Statement.

I am always amused when, on the rare occasion it happens, some new SD/Firearms advocate finally notices that it's not illegal to resist arrest if it would legally be considered "False Arrest." That includes all the way up to Deadly Force.

The problem is, cops have guns. "I got guns too" sez they. Great. How many of your friends with guns can you call to be there beside you, legally resisting arrest, within 5 min.?

Yeah. If a cop wants you cuffed, you're gonna be cuffed. If a cop wants you arrested, you're gonna be arrested. Or you will be dead. Do you grok this yet?

So, if you think it's a bad arrest, then get a lawyer. Cuz "he was legally resisting false arrest" is probably not going to be much consolation to the widow. The ONLY time it makes any sense at all to resist is if you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're gonna end up dead because of the "False Arrest."

To combat the potential of abuse of authority is specifically why we have SO MANY systems in place such as Internal Investigations, External Review Boards, Watchdog groups, pre-training, post-training, continuing training, Mentoring programs, etc. Notice that "private citizen resisting arrest" isn't in that list. This is primarily because it doesn't work very well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Carol]

Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?

State laws may vary...mine just happen to be easy to look up :lol:

I wouldn't be surprised if other states have a law that looks like ours...there is verbage for "arrest or detention" of a subject.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/642/642-2.htm

NH RSA 642:2 Resisting Arrest or Detention. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a law enforcement official, including a probation or parole officer, seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the person or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the act of resisting arrest or detention causes serious bodily injury, as defined in RSA 625:11, VI, to another person. Verbal protestations alone shall not constitute resisting arrest or detention.

 

[thardey]

I don't know, I personally think the guy should have thicker skin. You've gotta know that when you make the decision to carry a gun, people are going to respond in strange ways, including a rookie cops.

A cop want's to handcuff me? Whatever, as long as I know the key is there with him. Do they want to hold my gun while the interview is taking place? Fine, there's stories all the time of that. Being handcuffed doesn't prohibit me from the reason the police were called in the first place. So it's "insulting"? Get over it.

If we're really talking about a place of danger, my gun would be out already, and guess what I expect would happen? The police would probably draw thier own guns, take mine by force, and handcuff me anyway until they figured out what is going on.

Now, if the officer wants to charge me for having a gun, then I call the NRA, and they sponsor a lawyer for me in the biggest heyday of their career.

But handcuffs are temporary restraints -- they are a form of "force equalizer". They are not a mark of judgment, or condemnation. Getting uspset over it isn't going to help anyone.

 

[Cryozombie]

Do you grok this yet?

First off, I don't need to "Grok this". I get how it works, my dad was a cop for years. That doesn't preclude me from pointing out the obvious disparity in how these things work. Personally, whenever I have run "Afoul" of the cops I have been polite and friendly, you just get more mileage that way.

So, if you think it's a bad arrest, then get a lawyer. Cuz "he was legally resisting false arrest" is probably not going to be much consolation to the widow. The ONLY time it makes any sense at all to resist is if you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're gonna end up dead because of the "False Arrest."

To combat the potential of abuse of authority is specifically why we have SO MANY systems in place such as Internal Investigations, External Review Boards, Watchdog groups, pre-training, post-training, continuing training, Mentoring programs, etc. Notice that "private citizen resisting arrest" isn't in that list. This is primarily because it doesn't work very well.

This becomes a grey area, as far as I am concerned. Yes, this is HOW it works...again, I understand that completely, but you should observe this from another perspective. Let me give you an example. (this may be long, pardon me)

Illinois has no carry provisions. We cannot carry a weapon, Period. HOWEVER... we can TRANSPORT a weapon in a case. So someone came up with the idea that you can transport your gun in a fanny pack, and that is considered "in a case" and is therefore legal. However, knowing Law enforcement would not see it this way, he worked with a laywer and drew up a letter designed to be carried when doing the "fanny packing" (also known here as the "six seconds to saftey" rule) that explained the law in detail, why the transportation was legal, etc...

Why the letter? Because in Illinois, L.E. are not responsible for "False Arrest" if they believe they are acting in accordance with the law.

So, lets say you are legally fanny packing, and get stopped for "matching the description of a suspect we are looking for" (not fictional, happed to me 3 times since I moved here, white guy in a predominatly hispanic neighborhood known as a place suburban white kids come to buy drugs... they stop me to find out why I'm here) and they pull you and find the gun being legally transported... but beliveing you are carrying Illegally, they haul you in. You get put into the system, detained, somtimes as long as 48 hours, you have the potential to lose your job, it goes in the paper and everyone can see that you are a "criminal" even if you are not... and your only recourse is to suck it up and pay for an overpriced lawyer (that you might not be able to afford if the cop, unknowing of the law hauls you in and you lose your job) and hope that you draw a sympathetic Judge who doesnt toss your false arrest case because the cop believes he was acting in accordance with the law.

NOW... I'm no way citing that example of why we should be allowed to resist. It's stupid to do so, just like its stupid to get upset and argue with a cop. However, this does highlight an example of how the ignorance of the officers attempting to enforce the laws can have a profound effect on the innocent, (and Im not calling cops ignorant, don't assume that) well before court even comes up, and that I feel that needs to be recognized, and addressed in some way... Either a way to redress a grievance like that with a more knowlageable supervisor AT THE SCENE, or a possibly a penalty of some sort if the officer is wrong, not so that we can punish cops, but rather to make them take the time to listen to the person/think thru what they are doing/know they are correct before subjecting someone to the above, or maybe an automatic rembursement by the courts for any *Real* financial hardship caused by the wrongful arrest (such as a re-embursement of legal fees)


I'll cite a personal example that is not quite as drastic as the above, but in all fairness, had the officer either a) been aware, or b) if he was aware had cared more about doing the right thing than writing the ticket, would have saved me time and money that I didn't have to spare...

I took my roommates car to work one day, as mine was not running, and was stopped. The reason? The officer ran the plates, saw my roomate had a suspended licence, and assumed I was him. That's a fair stop, IMO, so I was polite and friendly when I explained the situation. I provided my Licence and proof of insurance, and the officer promptly told me he wanted the insurance for the vehicle I was driving. I explained (still politley) that the insurance I gave him was mine, and it covered me regardless of what vehilce I was driving to which he responded "No, it doesnt work that way." He cited me for no insurance, and I had to go to court. I had to use a vacation day from work to go to court, and took my copy of my policy and my ticket, pled not guilty, and was assigned a new court date. I was also informed that it was in my best interest to come back with a lawyer, if I didnt want to lose my licence. SO... I pay 750.00 out of my own pocket for the lawyer (which you have to understand was almost an entire paycheck for me at the time) and another Vacation day from work... to go in, have my lawyer present the copy of my policy and a letter from my carrier stating I was covered in that vehicle at the time, and be told, go home, have a nice day!

So, 80 hours of my life *GONE*, a hit on my Credit rating because I couldnt make my Mortgage payment on time plus the loss of 2 vacation days because 1 officer either didn't know or wouldnt listen... and I had no recourse. Should I just have had thicker skin about that? *shrug* I recognize that it's "just how it is" but wonder aloud if there shouldn't be a better way?

 

[shesulsa]

Understand this. If a cop wants to arrest you, YOU WILL BE ARRESTED. Period. End of Statement.

I am always amused when, on the rare occasion it happens, some new SD/Firearms advocate finally notices that it's not illegal to resist arrest if it would legally be considered "False Arrest." That includes all the way up to Deadly Force.

The problem is, cops have guns. "I got guns too" sez they. Great. How many of your friends with guns can you call to be there beside you, legally resisting arrest, within 5 min.?

Yeah. If a cop wants you cuffed, you're gonna be cuffed. If a cop wants you arrested, you're gonna be arrested. Or you will be dead. Do you grok this yet?

So, if you think it's a bad arrest, then get a lawyer. Cuz "he was legally resisting false arrest" is probably not going to be much consolation to the widow. The ONLY time it makes any sense at all to resist is if you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're gonna end up dead because of the "False Arrest."

To combat the potential of abuse of authority is specifically why we have SO MANY systems in place such as Internal Investigations, External Review Boards, Watchdog groups, pre-training, post-training, continuing training, Mentoring programs, etc. Notice that "private citizen resisting arrest" isn't in that list. This is primarily because it doesn't work very well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

THIS is how you represent police, by saying essentially, 'we are the police and you will comply or you will be dead?' You're hoping to get what from this? Respect? Figurative prostration?

Does this little tirade mean you're on the side of the cop? IA? The journalist? The business owner?

So, 80 hours of my life *GONE*, a hit on my Credit rating because I couldnt make my Mortgage payment on time plus the loss of 2 vacation days because 1 officer either didn't know or wouldnt listen... and I had no recourse. Should I just have had thicker skin about that? *shrug* I recognize that it's "just how it is" but wonder aloud if there shouldn't be a better way?

This officer was ignorant about motor vehicle insurance policies in that many have the option to cover the driver when operating vehicles not owned by the driver. But to ticket YOU for no insurance is ... well, illogical. There is a better way; carry the policy summary with you and you can prove precise coverage to the officer - nevertheless, the judge in your first appearance seems "illogical" as well. Requiring you return with a lawyer or lose your license sounds like bullying to me - not a surprising match, unfortunately, with the officer's attitude and ... well, the tongue-lashing you were given above.

*You* need to move the hell out of Illinois, Cryo.

 

[Archangel M]

Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?

Actually he could then be charged with obstruction (for obstructing you in the course of your investigation) THEN he could be charged with resisting arrest for the charge of obstruction.

 

[Archangel M]

Sorry Cryo but I think you were in error regarding the officer "being ignorant". Typically liability coverage may come into play if you unknowingly drive a borrowed vehicle that is uninsured, or under-insured. However, you will not have any damage insurance on the vehicle unless you have a rider for non-owned vehicles, which the officer wouldn't have proof of unless you had the rider paperwork on you. If you did have the rider then perhaps the officer was just undereducated, but in his defense it is extremely rare to see. It's the same thing as when you forget to put a new insurance card in your vehicle. You probably DO have a valid one at home but I will write you the ticket anyway because I have no proof of that.

Insurance rules could depend on your state law so maybe I'm wrong in your case, but the VEHICLE in this state HAS to be insured. If you are driving a friends car you better be sure he has it insured. If the vehicle is suspended for no insurance then YOU can be arrested for driving it. So here that ticket would have been perfectly valid.

I don't know why the court would suggest you needed a lawyer for that though. Here our ADA just tells them to come back with the letter.

 

[Cryozombie]

Sorry Cryo but I think you were in error regarding the officer "being ignorant". Typically liability coverage may come into play if you unknowingly drive a borrowed vehicle that is uninsured, or under-insured. However, you will not have any damage insurance on the vehicle unless you have a rider for non-owned vehicles, which the officer wouldn't have proof of unless you had the rider paperwork on you. If you did have the rider then perhaps the officer was just undereducated, but in his defense it is extremely rare to see. It's the same thing as when you forget to put a new insurance card in your vehicle. You probably DO have a valid one at home but I will write you the ticket anyway because I have no proof of that.

Insurance rules could depend on your state law so maybe I'm wrong in your case, but the VEHICLE in this state HAS to be insured. If you are driving a friends car you better be sure he has it insured. If the vehicle is suspended for no insurance then YOU can be arrested for driving it. So here that ticket would have been perfectly valid.

Here, you are only required to carry liability insurance. My liability insurance (at the time, I have no idea about the clowns Im with now) covered me on my Primary vehicle as well as vehicles I rent or borrow. I would not, however, cover me on other Vehicles I own.

I don't know why the court would suggest you needed a lawyer for that though. Here our ADA just tells them to come back with the letter.

With the "I didnt have my card with me" tickets, you can show up at the courthouse any time in the 30 days prior to your court date, show the clerk, and the case is dismissed. I had that happen a couple times, no big deal... This did not qualify because the insurance was not for the vehicle in question... here the insurance follows the vehicle as well, but I was unaware that the coverage for rented and borrowed vehicles was somthing special, its just somthing I had with my policy most of my adult life, and I assumed thats how it was. It does make me need to check my new policy since I changed carriers recently, but as I was saying, I had to go to court and plead not guilty, when you do that here, you are assigned a "trial date" by default. Perhaps I could have shown up with just my paperwork, but the Judge said "This offence could be serious and you could lose your licence for a year, its in your best interest to come back with a lawyer" and who am I to argue with the judge?

 

[Carol]

I just had a thought...do Illinois policies/laws say anything about borrowing a car from someone in the same household?

Mass. has mandatory liability too; an insured driver is not covered if they drive a car that belongs to someone at the same household, unless they are on the car owner's policy.

When I was married, I had to have my husband on my policy, and he had to have me on his...otherwise we wouldn't have insurance coverage when we drove one another's cars.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Until, of course, you resist being put into said cuffs, then its a case of resisting arrest, even if you were "not under arrest" at the time, yes?

You'd be resisting a lawful detention, and then be committing a crime. It's no different than fleeing from a traffic stop, where you are being detained, but have not been arrested.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Understand this. If a cop wants to arrest you, YOU WILL BE ARRESTED. Period. End of Statement.

I am always amused when, on the rare occasion it happens, some new SD/Firearms advocate finally notices that it's not illegal to resist arrest if it would legally be considered "False Arrest." That includes all the way up to Deadly Force.

The problem is, cops have guns. "I got guns too" sez they. Great. How many of your friends with guns can you call to be there beside you, legally resisting arrest, within 5 min.?

Yeah. If a cop wants you cuffed, you're gonna be cuffed. If a cop wants you arrested, you're gonna be arrested. Or you will be dead. Do you grok this yet?

So, if you think it's a bad arrest, then get a lawyer. Cuz "he was legally resisting false arrest" is probably not going to be much consolation to the widow. The ONLY time it makes any sense at all to resist is if you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you're gonna end up dead because of the "False Arrest."

To combat the potential of abuse of authority is specifically why we have SO MANY systems in place such as Internal Investigations, External Review Boards, Watchdog groups, pre-training, post-training, continuing training, Mentoring programs, etc. Notice that "private citizen resisting arrest" isn't in that list. This is primarily because it doesn't work very well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Very well put and too the point!

 

[sgtmac_46]

i don't know, i personally think the guy should have thicker skin. You've gotta know that when you make the decision to carry a gun, people are going to respond in strange ways, including a rookie cops.

A cop want's to handcuff me? Whatever, as long as i know the key is there with him. Do they want to hold my gun while the interview is taking place? Fine, there's stories all the time of that. Being handcuffed doesn't prohibit me from the reason the police were called in the first place. So it's "insulting"? Get over it.

If we're really talking about a place of danger, my gun would be out already, and guess what i expect would happen? The police would probably draw thier own guns, take mine by force, and handcuff me anyway until they figured out what is going on.

Now, if the officer wants to charge me for having a gun, then i call the nra, and they sponsor a lawyer for me in the biggest heyday of their career.

But handcuffs are temporary restraints -- they are a form of "force equalizer". They are not a mark of judgment, or condemnation. Getting uspset over it isn't going to help anyone.

bingo!

 

[chinto]

in my humble opinion, I would say she deserves arrest herself under Title 18 US Code for abuse of Authority and violation of his civil rights under color or law, and conspiracy to do so if her superiors agreed to her actions. ( I would also say her superiors deserve arrest for the same conspiracy if they did support her actions. )

 

[sgtmac_46]

in my humble opinion, I would say she deserves arrest herself under Title 18 US Code for abuse of Authority and violation of his civil rights under color or law, and conspiracy to do so if her superiors agreed to her actions. ( I would also say her superiors deserve arrest for the same conspiracy if they did support her actions. )

I think you're getting a little carried away. JMHO.

There was no violation of this man's rights, Constitutional or otherwise. He did not have his property seized by the state, he was detained for an extremely short period of time and his weapon was detained while the scene was secured, and then returned to him.

This is quite much ado about nothing at all.

 

[Archangel M]

in my humble opinion, I would say she deserves arrest herself under Title 18 US Code for abuse of Authority and violation of his civil rights under color or law, and conspiracy to do so if her superiors agreed to her actions. ( I would also say her superiors deserve arrest for the same conspiracy if they did support her actions. )

Whatever...

 

[Sukerkin]

Not a very constructive tone, Angel.

I more than half suspect that Chinto was using humerous exageration to make a point, rather than being literal.

 

[lklawson]

THIS is how you represent police, by saying essentially, 'we are the police and you will comply or you will be dead?'

That is, in fact, exactly how it is. Welcome to the real world.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

That doesn't preclude me from pointing out the obvious disparity in how these things work.

Of course there's a disparity. Cops are granted additional authority and privileges that average citizens simply are not. That automatically equates to disparity. I don't have to like it, but I do have to recognize that it exists and figure out how to work within the boundaries thereof.

and get stopped for "matching the description of a suspect we are looking for" (not fictional, happed to me 3 times since I moved here,

Happened to me too.

and your only recourse is to suck it up and pay for an overpriced lawyer

Yes. It sucks mightily. But it's better than getting shot or busted up for resisting arrest.

So, 80 hours of my life *GONE*, a hit on my Credit rating because I couldnt make my Mortgage payment on time plus the loss of 2 vacation days because 1 officer either didn't know or wouldnt listen... and I had no recourse. Should I just have had thicker skin about that? *shrug* I recognize that it's "just how it is" but wonder aloud if there shouldn't be a better way?

Which is why the threat of lawsuits is so effective.

I feel for you. I've paid bogus traffic tickets just because it was vastly less expensive for me to do so. In fact, with "Red Light Cameras," that is a common choice. (don't get me started on those)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Langenschwert]

That is, in fact, exactly how it is. Welcome to the real world.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Indeed. There's a reason they're called an "urban occupation force"

Best regards,

-Mark