New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Wise words from NYC's top cop | New York Post

"What we've seen in the past few months is a number of individuals failing to understand that you must submit to arrest, you cannot resist," Bratton said in an interview on Brian Lehrer's radio show. "The place to argue your case is in the court, not in the street."
Bratton: Criminal suspects should not resist arrest | New York Post

I agree with the sentiment in general, but the ongoing increase in heavy handed tactics and arrests for non-violent misdemeanors is also unnecessary.

These articles even mentioned that the arrest that spurred these comments was from "quality of life" crimes. Quality of Life crimes usually include minor issues like graffiti and victimless crimes like selling loose cigarettes. They justify a ticket, but do not justify an arrest. They certainly do not justify multiple officers forcibly arresting someone who is not committing a violent crime.

I know that this will probably rub some LEOs the wrong way, but "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State and This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court 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."

With the way the court system has been working lately, I sure wouldn't want to test these points today, but my point is that there is case history to show that Bratton is wrong.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
The place to decide if the guy that just broke into your house is there to kill you or give you an Edible Arrangements bouquet is the courtroom. Not at your own hands.

:bs:

When, in my reasonable judgement, I feel that it is not reasonable and prudent to be arresting me, yeah, sorry, I don't submit.

"BUT THEY MIGHT CHARGE YOU WITH RESISTING ARREST!"

Well, look how often that happens with literally zero resisting happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
"STOP RESISTING" as he pounds an already inert body that seconds, sometimes minutes, before had submitted. Seen it too many times, too many times.
Robin Hale
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,737 Posts
Wise words from NYC's top cop | New York Post

Bratton: Criminal suspects should not resist arrest | New York Post

I agree with the sentiment in general, but the ongoing increase in heavy handed tactics and arrests for non-violent misdemeanors is also unnecessary.

These articles even mentioned that the arrest that spurred these comments was from "quality of life" crimes. Quality of Life crimes usually include minor issues like graffiti and victimless crimes like selling loose cigarettes. They justify a ticket, but do not justify an arrest. They certainly do not justify multiple officers forcibly arresting someone who is not committing a violent crime.

I know that this will probably rub some LEOs the wrong way, but "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State and This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court 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."

With the way the court system has been working lately, I sure wouldn't want to test these points today, but my point is that there is case history to show that Bratton is wrong.
Are you an attorney? Successfully carried out the defense you lay out here? Case history to validate it? I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Article 35 will clearly define that there is no justifiable defense EVEN specifically in an unlawful arrest, or police order when you know it's a police or peace officer rendering the arrest (uniformed officer).

I don't agree with Bratton, but that said, NY is well... NY!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,901 Posts
"What we've seen in the past few months is a number of individuals failing to understand that you must submit to arrest, you cannot resist," Bratton said in an interview on Brian Lehrer's radio show. "The place to argue your case is in the court, not in the street."

What a shock another cop who doesn't know the law.

You have every right to resist arrest and use any and all force necessary if you know the arrest is unlawful, something the police will never Acknowledge or can even comprehend given the power trip they are given under "Proper Procedure". These are just 2 cases of many cases on the books.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

So what was the charge that they arrested under, where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of said charges. If no proof can be had then every officer who put a hand on him should be found guilty of , Assault and Battery, Manslaughter or an Accessory. FOLLOWING PROCEDURE DOESN'T MEAN ****!

PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOTHING BUT SWILL TO CIRCUMVENT NATURAL RIGHTS!

Maybe NYs top cop needs to visit the page below.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Are you an attorney? Successfully carried out the defense you lay out here? Case history to validate it? I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Article 35 will clearly define that there is no justifiable defense EVEN specifically in an unlawful arrest, or police order when you know it's a police or peace officer rendering the arrest (uniformed officer).

I don't agree with Bratton, but that said, NY is well... NY!
No, but Bratton is not a lawyer either and he is making a blanket statement despite several Supreme Court decisions that state otherwise. Yes, NYS law does have a provision that resisting arrest, "whether authorized or unauthorized", is unlawful. But, does state law trump a Supreme Court decision? It is the same issue we have with the Heller decision and various state laws. Until it is challenged, the law will be on the books. The chances of this be challenged is very slim because the vast majority of people who get arrested (and resist) were doing something wrong. Simply put, it is rare for law abiding citizens to be put into this situation and as I also pointed out, I wouldn't want to see this tested this with our court system today, especially in NY.

I don't have a problem with arrests for violent acts, but the increasing number of arrests for Quality of Life issues is simply absurd - overloading our court and penal systems. The man who was selling single cigarettes should have been issued a citation, not arrested. If law enforcement (and the politicians who pass absurd laws) acted reasonably, many of these cases of un-necessary violent arrests would be ended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,999 Posts
Wise words from NYC's top cop | New York Post

Bratton: Criminal suspects should not resist arrest | New York Post

I agree with the sentiment in general, but the ongoing increase in heavy handed tactics and arrests for non-violent misdemeanors is also unnecessary.

These articles even mentioned that the arrest that spurred these comments was from "quality of life" crimes. Quality of Life crimes usually include minor issues like graffiti and victimless crimes like selling loose cigarettes. They justify a ticket, but do not justify an arrest. They certainly do not justify multiple officers forcibly arresting someone who is not committing a violent crime.

I know that this will probably rub some LEOs the wrong way, but "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State and This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court 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."

With the way the court system has been working lately, I sure wouldn't want to test these points today, but my point is that there is case history to show that Bratton is wrong.
The problem with your logic is in your own cite. If it a lawful arrest even for a violation, it is a lawful arrest . You do not have to agree with law but if it is there it is lawful arrest. Even if you are not guilty but there is probable cause, it is a lawful arrest. Actual Guilt or innocence is not a factor at that point but probable cause to be a lawful arrest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,999 Posts
No, but Bratton is not a lawyer either and he is making a blanket statement despite several Supreme Court decisions that state otherwise. Yes, NYS law does have a provision that resisting arrest, "whether authorized or unauthorized", is unlawful. But, does state law trump a Supreme Court decision? It is the same issue we have with the Heller decision and various state laws. Until it is challenged, the law will be on the books. The chances of this be challenged is very slim because the vast majority of people who get arrested (and resist) were doing something wrong. Simply put, it is rare for law abiding citizens to be put into this situation and as I also pointed out, I wouldn't want to see this tested this with our court system today, especially in NY.

I don't have a problem with arrests for violent acts, but the increasing number of arrests for Quality of Life issues is simply absurd - overloading our court and penal systems. The man who was selling single cigarettes should have been issued a citation, not arrested. If law enforcement (and the politicians who pass absurd laws) acted reasonably, many of these cases of un-necessary violent arrests would be ended.
he was already given a warning. Also because of his prior record he might not be eligible for a summons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,751 Posts
Whether a lawful arrest or not, resisting never works. You are not going to resist and then later the arresting officer and his backup let you go with an I'm sorry and a cab ride home.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
Are you an attorney? Successfully carried out the defense you lay out here? Case history to validate it? I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Article 35 will clearly define that there is no justifiable defense EVEN specifically in an unlawful arrest, or police order when you know it's a police or peace officer rendering the arrest (uniformed officer).

I don't agree with Bratton, but that said, NY is well... NY!
The guy posted the required caselaw and you still say that?

And Article 35 discusses use of force. Don't need use of force to ditch a crooked cop making a dirty arrest.

At all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I have done some more research on resisting arrest cases in NY and the state courts have upheld that penal law when the probable cause is something witnessed by the officer or based on a warrant. The cases where resisting arrest was dropped were cases where the officers did not clearly identify themselves or where the arrest was based on statements and not witnessed by the officers. There was even one case in 1971 where the subject was convicted of resisting arrest simply because they sat down with their arms outstretched in defiance to being handcuffed.

But, again, all of the cases in my quick search that I found in NY were where resisting arrest was a secondary charge, so the question of unlawful arrest was not addressed.

The vast majority of members here will most likely never be in a situation where this is a question - we are all firearms owners, go through NICS checks regularly, have a healthy respect for the law, and many of us have gone through the arduous process to get a pistol permit. Our group of members are not the ones who break laws (well, intentionally) and most of us know how to protect our rights within the court system and would most likely fight an unlawful arrest in the courts.

That being said, it also does not mean that all of us have to like the way our laws are written and how the government is acting towards average citizens. The number of laws being written on both the state and federal level is astronomical. It is virtually impossible to go through any single day without breaking some absurd law or regulation. Our country was founded in individual freedoms and many of our laws ignore that. In this case, I do not like the way the NY law is written and I question its constitutionality based on finding Supreme Court decisions that state otherwise. I do not like the fact that someone who was charged with a "quality of life" crime, where there was no victim, lost his life. Just like we are saying to not resist arrest and let the courts handle it, the same should also apply for victimless crimes like this, regardless of past history - issue a ticket and summon him to court. If he fails to appear, then get a warrant (there's that pesky 4th amendment again), which then justifies the use of force to enact an arrest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The guy posted the required caselaw and you still say that?

And Article 35 discusses use of force. Don't need use of force to ditch a crooked cop making a dirty arrest.

At all.
I think his point is that Article 35's section on resisting arrest is still on the books and has not been challenged in NYS. Here is the section currently on the books:
S 35.27 Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.
A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a police officer or peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a police officer or peace officer.
So, yes Bratton is correct that NYS law says resisting arrest is illegal. However, there is federal case history that has been supported by the Supreme Court that disagrees. My google-fu has not found a case where 35.27 was challenged by someone based on unlawful arrest.

I did find that the 1965 revision to Article 35 explicitly allowed for resisting unlawful arrest and that 35.27 was changed in 1968 after strong petitioning from law enforcement leaders. Interestingly enough, the section of Article 35 that allows for the increased use of force for police to enact an arrest was also added in 1968 and was spearheaded by the Buffalo Police Department.

Here's the source of that info: http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanstudy/state/ny/Ch08_NewYork.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,999 Posts
I think his point is that Article 35's section on resisting arrest is still on the books and has not been challenged in NYS. Here is the section currently on the books:

So, yes Bratton is correct that NYS law says resisting arrest is illegal. However, there is federal case history that has been supported by the Supreme Court that disagrees. My google-fu has not found a case where 35.27 was challenged by someone based on unlawful arrest.

I did find that the 1965 revision to Article 35 explicitly allowed for resisting unlawful arrest and that 35.27 was changed in 1968 after strong petitioning from law enforcement leaders. Interestingly enough, the section of Article 35 that allows for the increased use of force for police to enact an arrest was also added in 1968 and was spearheaded by the Buffalo Police Department.

Here's the source of that info: http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanstudy/state/ny/Ch08_NewYork.pdf
Again, an unlawful arrest is not in play in 99% of the cases. An unlawful arrest in the context of the law is not if you are innocent but if the arrest has no probable cause. You as the arrestee have no idea of all the "facts" or allocations involved andwl be placed into custody before that happens. If there is probable cause or a good faith of probable cause it is a lawful arrest. A traffic infraction is cause for a lawful arrest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,557 Posts
I will keep my thoughts to myself, except for one **** him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,118 Posts
"What we've seen in the past few months is a number of individuals failing to understand that you must submit to arrest, you cannot resist,"

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Are you an attorney? Successfully carried out the defense you lay out here? Case history to validate it? I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Article 35 will clearly define that there is no justifiable defense EVEN specifically in an unlawful arrest, or police order when you know it's a police or peace officer rendering the arrest (uniformed officer).

I don't agree with Bratton, but that said, NY is well... NY!
here is another way to look at this which I am certain has not occurred to you by this posting ...

a Warrantless Arrest requires Probable Cause of Crime
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Nfngun;932318. "An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." ([I said:
State v. Robinson[/I], 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

So what was the charge that they arrested under, where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of said charges.
just a few comments,because I am particular about some things .....

>>>
I did read your Cases--
both would only be considered mildly persuasive in New York courts

>>>
Arrest...requires Probable Cause

>>>
Guilt, is a term used after adjudication
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,999 Posts
see you in U S District Court ....;)
see you there. Atwater v city of lago vista. Or Atwater v lago vista. It was for a seatbelt offense that carried no jail time a fine only case. SCOTUS decision went with the officer for arresting a "soccer mom" for a fine only seatbelt offense. She did two days in jail before arraignment and paying a 50 dollar fine . Lawsuit dismissed

If you have no ID in NY and you are stopped for an infraction, you can be arrested, fingerprinted, and arraigned in court and is done all the time. It's held up under all courts especially if the person has no ID. Drive a car without a license or proof of a license- which just infraction of the vtl. No other ID on you. You are arrested. Violation arrests I see everyday if you don't have ID on you. Everyday. There is no charge for not having ID but commit an infraction, violation, without it and you are subject to arrest. And no extra charge added. Just the violation/infraction committed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,168 Posts
So what was the charge that they arrested under, where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of said charges. If no proof can be had then every officer who put a hand on him should be found guilty of , Assault and Battery, Manslaughter or an Accessory. FOLLOWING PROCEDURE DOESN'T MEAN ****!

PROBABLE CAUSE IS NOTHING BUT SWILL TO CIRCUMVENT NATURAL RIGHTS!
Are you saying that to simply be arrested, one must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, ie, the level of guilt established after a trial?
 
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
Top