[jgullock]

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-right-to-resist-and-vindication-of.html

Julius Holmes was in his Macon, Georgia apartment cooking dinner when Officer Rogers arrived to arrest him.

"I'll be damned if you will," Holmes hissed, making a furtive move toward a handgun he had placed on a nearby bed.

GA Court of Appeals - "A policeman under these circumstances cannot be allowed to dispense with a warrant when making or attempting an arrest any more than other officers of the law," continued the appellate court's ruling. When the policemen went into the defendant's house to arrest him without a warrant, they were trespassers in a double sense - trespassing upon the sacred right of personal liberty, and trespassers upon the right of domicile. The defendant had a legal right to resist both trespasses, and to use in resistance as much force as necessary to make that resistance effective."

 

[UtiPossidetis]

Wow. The ruling goes on to state:
""Every person has the right to resist an illegal arrest, whether attempted by an officer, or by a private individual, and, in resistance, may use as much force as necessary for the purpose," Hill emphasized. This right inheres in every individual, "whatever his color or condition.""

It goes even further and says:
Had Holmes killed one of the officers, the court observed, that would have been an act of justifiable homicide. If Jobson or Rogers had succeeded in fatally shooting Holmes, "such killing would be felonious. Even with a warrant an officer cannot legally kill one who flees from him to avoid arrest for a misdemeanor."

Of course this all happened in 1908......

 

[68908]

Judges today do not believe this, all judges agree with today is goverment force and immunity if an officer does something wrong, that is how statist we've become as a country, you can thank your local public school for that.

How far we've fallen in just 100 years.

 

[CoffeeMate]

On the facts as presented by the prosecution, Judge Hill declared, "the arrest or attempted arrest was illegal. There was no warrant. The defendant was not `wanted for a state offense, felony or misdemeanor.' The offense for which he was wanted was a trivial violation of a municipal ordinance. This trivial offense was not committed in the presence of the arresting officers, but the day before a complaint was filed by the [landlady] that the defendant had cursed her" - an act that was described as "disturbing the peace."

The officers had every opportunity to seek an arrest warrant, if an arrest would have been justified. A bench warrant could have been issued, as Holmes correctly pointed out.

That was back before we became a 'Mockracy. Now we just nuke the house from orbit, just in case.

As armed intruders, the officers had no right to threaten Holmes with violence, or to lay hands on him: "When the officers attempting to make the illegal arrest of the defendant forcibly pulled him from his house and endeavored to handcuff him, they were guilty of an assault and battery..."

Kidnapping too, I'd say.

"The law values human life too highly to give an officer the right to proceed to the extremity of shooting one whom he is attempting to arrest for a violation of a municipal ordinance in order to prevent his escape, even though the offender cannot be taken otherwise," Judge Hill pointed out.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

This is a case from 1908.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Julius Holmes was black. The crowd and officers were white. I have posited before on this forum that Judges in Georgia often used the right to resist an unlawful arrest to protect the rights of black Georgians in the time of Jim Crow.

While the basic premise is still sound in Georgia law, you should be aware that Georgia is in the minority of states on this issue. The federal courts here do not recognize it except as a matter of state law, and even then the federal courts refer to it with derision.

While I think the law should recognize the right to resist an unlawful arrest, I do not expect the courts in Georgia to continue to do so.

Also, Legacy38 has posted cases showing that so long as probable cause exists, the technical details of Georgia statutory law, e.g., whether there was a warrant or whether the offense was committed in the officer's presence, do not apply to the analysis of whether the arrest is unlawful. I have not devoted any time to studying his assertion, but Legacy is generally correct on such matters, so you should carefully consider what he has written.

There has been a lot of case law development in this area since 1908.

 

[UtiPossidetis]

Sad, because the reasoning in the 1908 decision appears sound IMHO.

 

[jgullock]

This is a case from 1908.

And?

12345

 

[CoffeeMate]

I speculate he is attempting to caution anyone who might otherwise attempt to rely on it as current case law.

 

[legacy38]

And?

12345

Ever read Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, or Dredd Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393?

 

[gunsmoker]

100 years ago, the Supreme Court of Ga said that a ranch hand or farm worker can carry on the rural land they work as their "place of business." WITHOUT ANY CARRY PERMIT.

I am not confident that a court would follow that reasoning to rule that a pimply-faced 18 year old burger flipper can pack a loaded concealed pistol in his polyester uniform at McDorkle's in the City of Atlanta, without his employer's knowledge or permission.

Bob Dylan said "the times they are a-changin' " and they may have changed enough to erode the value of 100+ year old caselaw.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

And?

Did you read post # 6 before you posted this question?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

100 years ago, the Supreme Court of Ga said that a ranch hand or farm worker can carry on the rural land they work as their "place of business." WITHOUT ANY CARRY PERMIT.

I am not confident that a court would follow that reasoning to rule that a pimply-faced 18 year old burger flipper can pack a loaded concealed pistol in his polyester uniform at McDorkle's in the City of Atlanta, without his employer's knowledge or permission.

Bob Dylan said "the times they are a-changin' " and they may have changed enough to erode the value of 100+ year old caselaw.

Why not? The law still says "place of business," doesn't it?

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-126

"Any person [including pimply faced 18 year olds] who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun [which includes pimply faced 18 year olds] . . . may have or carry on his . . . person a weapon . . . inside his . . . place of business [which includes McDonalds] without a valid weapons carry license."

 

[68908]

How do we return our country to a place that has judges that believe like this, instead of judges who support law enforcement no matter what the do?

 

[CoffeeMate]

How do we return our country to a place that has judges that believe like this, instead of judges who support law enforcement no matter what the do?

We just had an election. How many judgeships go to people for no other reason than that they're willing to take the job?

 

[68908]

As far as I understand it, becoming a judge is all politics and having a lot of money.

 

[jgullock]

Did you read post # 6 before you posted this question?

I posted it because it was an interesting story, not to illicit some lawyer jibba jabba!

 

[gunsmoker]

Why not? The law still says "place of business," doesn't it?

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-126

"Any person [including pimply faced 18 year olds] who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun [which includes pimply faced 18 year olds] . . . may have or carry on his . . . person a weapon . . . inside his . . . place of business [which includes McDonalds] without a valid weapons carry license."

I don't know how a modern court might distinguish a future case from those ranch hand carry cases, but I'm sure it could be done. We've all seen some really convoluted thinking and lack of logic from the appellate courts of Georgia, haven't we? Or the federal courts, too-- like how church carry would force churches to deal with armed unwelcome visitors in their churches, and giving them the choice to opt-in would leave them no control over their own church security.

 

[68908]

I don't know how a modern court might distinguish a future case from those ranch hand carry cases, but I'm sure it could be done. We've all seen some really convoluted thinking and lack of logic from the appellate courts of Georgia, haven't we? Or the federal courts, too-- like how church carry would force churches to deal with armed unwelcome visitors in their churches, and giving them the choice to opt-in would leave them no control over their own church security.

Very true GS, very convoluted logic indeed.