[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.

 

[CoffeeMate]

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

 

[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?