[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.
This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.
[/quote]
Should evidence always be excluded if the stop is unlawful?
[/quote]
Do you see any other way to make sure the law gets enforced, considering qualified immunity from civil suits and the lack of any other remedy? Exclusion doesn’t have to be the only remedy, but I don’t see an alternative one out there that is actually used.
[/quote]
I don’t think it should automatically be excluded because of a simple misunderstanding of traffic law, especially when the cop is acting in good faith. A totality of the circumstances test is far more appropriate.
[/quote]
I actually wouldn’t disagree in theory, but it seems so easy to erode rights, that I have come around to automatic exclusion.
[/quote]
With drug charges and other crimes not against the person, I agree with you.
[/quote]
I’ll concede I have a much harder time with my position when the trunk opens and its a dead child and not a big bag of coke.
That’s right. I forgot that it’s not illegal to have a single tail light out in that jurisdiction. However, if the officer had just followed the guy home and confronted him when he got out of the car, the officer still could legally ask for consent to search the car.
[/quote]
A cop can legally “ask” to search you under any circumstances. However, in this particular circumstances the evidence he found during the search is inadmissible because it resulted from an unwarranted stop. Once the cop stopped the guy with no legitimate grounds, anything that he then discovers as a result of that unwarranted stop(consent to search or otherwise) is inadmissible.
It shouldn’t be a problem because it followed on from an unwarranted stop. Consenting to be searched is neither here nor there because an illegitimate stop occurred in the first place.
Only he didn’t. He pulled over the guy for no legitimate reason.
Wuh? Legal to resist arrest and take an officer’s life? Um…that’s not legal anywhere.
[quote]
What if the officer had told this guy the reason for his stop(unlawful), the guy told the officer he was leaving and began driving off, and the officer moved one hand toward his gun while reaching out and grabbing the driver’s arm with the other? Should the guy have been able to lawfully kill the officer at that time?[/quote]
Are you serious? You can’t kill anyone except in self defence(fear for your life) and even then the force used has to be “proportionate”. I find it difficult to believe you’re being serious here.
It’s reasons like this why I sometimes think of bugging my own car. Just keep a hidden camera and microphone somewhere which can be easily be turned on without the officer knowing.
It may or may not be allowed in court, but that wouldn’t stop me from giving it to every ACLU ambulance chasing lawyer or news anchor I can think of to plaster it on the 6 o’clock news.
Proof is 90% of the argument, and sometimes the court of public opinion is the best one to win.
There are certain conditions where you can defend yourself against an unlawful arrest, be advised the conditions would be very difficult to prove, and the odds would be stacked against you.
"?Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.? Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: ?Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.?
In the case of a weapon found…
As for grounds for arrest: ?The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.? (Wharton?s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Wuh? Legal to resist arrest and take an officer’s life? Um…that’s not legal anywhere.[/quote]
Yes, it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest to the point of taking an officer’s life. I didn’t say AND take an officer’s life; I said TO THE POINT OF taking an officer’s life(one does not automatically have the right to kill an officer attempting to make an unlawful arrest). An unlawful arrest is assault and battery. You can legally resist assault and battery. If you are being a&b’ed and you believe that your life is in danger(your batterer making a move that indicates he’s going to pull his gun, for instance), you certainly have a very good case for being justified in killing someone.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Yes, it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest to the point of taking an officer’s life. I didn’t say AND take an officer’s life; I said TO THE POINT OF taking an officer’s life(one does not automatically have the right to kill an officer attempting to make an unlawful arrest). An unlawful arrest is assault and battery. You can legally resist assault and battery. If you are being a&b’ed and you believe that your life is in danger(your batterer making a move that indicates he’s going to pull his gun, for instance), you certainly have a very good case for being justified in killing someone.[/quote]
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Yes, it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest to the point of taking an officer’s life. I didn’t say AND take an officer’s life; I said TO THE POINT OF taking an officer’s life(one does not automatically have the right to kill an officer attempting to make an unlawful arrest). An unlawful arrest is assault and battery. You can legally resist assault and battery. If you are being a&b’ed and you believe that your life is in danger(your batterer making a move that indicates he’s going to pull his gun, for instance), you certainly have a very good case for being justified in killing someone.[/quote]
Good luck with this theory. [/quote]
I didn’t say that I would be comfortable doing it. I certainly would not want to go to trial for it; but in America’s past, people have done it and been found to be right.
Yes, it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest to the point of taking an officer’s life. I didn’t say AND take an officer’s life; I said TO THE POINT OF taking an officer’s life(one does not automatically have the right to kill an officer attempting to make an unlawful arrest). An unlawful arrest is assault and battery. You can legally resist assault and battery. If you are being a&b’ed and you believe that your life is in danger(your batterer making a move that indicates he’s going to pull his gun, for instance), you certainly have a very good case for being justified in killing someone.[/quote]
I don’t think you’d find the court would be likely to rule lawful homicide under such circumstances despite the precedents/rulings that you’re referring to. They tend to look very unfavourably upon people who kill police officers.
Yes, it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest to the point of taking an officer’s life. I didn’t say AND take an officer’s life; I said TO THE POINT OF taking an officer’s life(one does not automatically have the right to kill an officer attempting to make an unlawful arrest). An unlawful arrest is assault and battery. You can legally resist assault and battery. If you are being a&b’ed and you believe that your life is in danger(your batterer making a move that indicates he’s going to pull his gun, for instance), you certainly have a very good case for being justified in killing someone.[/quote]
I don’t think you’d find the court would be likely to rule lawful homicide under such circumstances despite the precedents/rulings that you’re referring to. They tend to look very unfavourably upon people who kill police officers.[/quote]
The Nick’s widow’s lawyer would most likely be the one testing the theory in court.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t think you’d find the court would be likely to rule lawful homicide under such circumstances despite the precedents/rulings that you’re referring to. They tend to look very unfavourably upon people who kill police officers.[/quote]
But back to my original question(actually, I’ll change it just a bit) to those on this board who have a problem with this court decision: Let’s say that the officer found the drugs, went to arrest the driver, the driver resisted, and the two began physically struggling. During the struggle, the officer reaches for his gun, but the driver is able to get and pull his first, so he gets the first shot off and kills the officer. If you’re part on the jury, do you find the driver guilty of murder? Do you find him guilty of manslaughter? Is he not guilty of anything? Unless you believe the driver not guilty of anything, I don’t see why the court’s decision here is a problem.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t think you’d find the court would be likely to rule lawful homicide under such circumstances despite the precedents/rulings that you’re referring to. They tend to look very unfavourably upon people who kill police officers.[/quote]
But back to my original question(actually, I’ll change it just a bit) to those on this board who have a problem with this court decision: Let’s say that the officer found the drugs, went to arrest the driver, the driver resisted, and the two began physically struggling. During the struggle, the officer reaches for his gun, but the driver is able to get and pull his first, so he gets the first shot off and kills the officer. If you’re part on the jury, do you find the driver guilty of murder? Do you find him guilty of manslaughter? Is he not guilty of anything? Unless you believe the driver not guilty of anything, I don’t see why the court’s decision here is a problem.[/quote]
Yes, you find him guilty of something because a cop reaching for his gun is not a reason to fear for your life. A “reasonable person” would assume that the cop is only going to point it at you and tell you to stop resisting. Why are you asking about killing police officers? It’s kind of concerning.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes, you find him guilty of something because a cop reaching for his gun is not a reason to fear for your life. A “reasonable person” would assume that the cop is only going to point it at you and tell you to stop resisting. Why are you asking about killing police officers? It’s kind of concerning.
[/quote]
B starts fighting with A when A tries to get away from B. B reaches for, or even grabs, his holstered gun. You believe that it would be reasonable for A to believe that B was merely going to point the gun at him? What if A then grabs his gun, so B pulls his and fires a shot at A? He misses and A then shoots and kills B. Is A guilty of murder, manslaughter, or not guilty of anything?
“Fighting” now? Your hypothetical scenario is getting better by the minute.
Isn’t B a uniformed police officer trying to conduct an arrest? If a cop wanted to arrest me, even if I was innocent and the cop acting unlawfully, I would cooperate. And if for some reason I initially resisted and he pulled his gun, I would then stop resisting. I would have no reason to believe that he intended to kill me.
[quote]
You believe that it would be reasonable for A to believe that B was merely going to point the gun at him? What if A then grabs his gun, so B pulls his and fires a shot at A? He misses and A then shoots and kills B. Is A guilty of murder, manslaughter, or not guilty of anything?[/quote]
Look, this is a totally invented, extremely unlikely, fictitious scenario and I don’t understand the point of it. My advice? Don’t resist arrest for any reason whatsoever.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Every time I hear something about this I keep going back to the Stanford Experiment. Oh no, you can trust those in charge (Stanford Experiment). You can bet there’s no slippery slope (cough Stanford). If you don’t have anything to hide why are you upset? Etc. etc.
[/quote]
“Fighting” now? Your hypothetical scenario is getting better by the minute.
Isn’t B a uniformed police officer trying to conduct an arrest? If a cop wanted to arrest me, even if I was innocent and the cop acting unlawfully, I would cooperate. And if for some reason I initially resisted and he pulled his gun, I would then stop resisting. I would have no reason to believe that he intended to kill me.
[quote]
You believe that it would be reasonable for A to believe that B was merely going to point the gun at him? What if A then grabs his gun, so B pulls his and fires a shot at A? He misses and A then shoots and kills B. Is A guilty of murder, manslaughter, or not guilty of anything?[/quote]
Look, this is a totally invented, extremely unlikely, fictitious scenario and I don’t understand the point of it. My advice? Don’t resist arrest for any reason whatsoever. [/quote]
That’s fine, and the Supreme Court’s decision in this incident should not be cause for concern.
“Fighting” now? Your hypothetical scenario is getting better by the minute.
Isn’t B a uniformed police officer trying to conduct an arrest? If a cop wanted to arrest me, even if I was innocent and the cop acting unlawfully, I would cooperate. And if for some reason I initially resisted and he pulled his gun, I would then stop resisting. I would have no reason to believe that he intended to kill me.
[quote]
You believe that it would be reasonable for A to believe that B was merely going to point the gun at him? What if A then grabs his gun, so B pulls his and fires a shot at A? He misses and A then shoots and kills B. Is A guilty of murder, manslaughter, or not guilty of anything?[/quote]
Look, this is a totally invented, extremely unlikely, fictitious scenario and I don’t understand the point of it. My advice? Don’t resist arrest for any reason whatsoever. [/quote]
That’s fine, and the Supreme Court’s decision in this incident should not be cause for concern.[/quote]
No, the SCOTUS decision is of concern. What is not of concern is some crazy, hypothetical scenario under which one might be able to kill a police officer or something.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No, the SCOTUS decision is of concern. What is not of concern is some crazy, hypothetical scenario under which one might be able to kill a police officer or something. [/quote]
Why is the SCOTUS decision a concern? My hypothetical was very much like the incident in question; it just had a different ending.