Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Interesting article written by a former ACLU employee ("ACLU of Texas' Police Accountability Project Director from 2000-2006"). Not a bad idea for the law to require the offense for which arrest was resisted to be listed.

"Texas state Rep. Harold Dutton has filed a sweet little bill, HB 1219, with the sole purpose of requiring prosecutors who charge a defendant with "resisting arrest" to say what was the underlying offense for which they were originally being arrested. State Sen. Konni Burton has filed similar legislation, SB 494, which would require that information to be included in police offense reports when resisting arrest charges are filed."
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,937 Posts
Maybe they'll change the statue's wording to "not respectin' the authoritah of an officer of the law". :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
I think the whole charge is bogus. The statistics in that article are telling. I've read so many stories of people filming police and not interfering whatsoever that get charged with resisting arrest, when the person was simply exercising a lawful right and the officer didn't like it so made up an 'interfering' charge.

If you commit a crime, be a man and take the penalty. If your not committing a crime, or the law in question is unconstitutional, then of course you have the natural right to resist. Self preservation is the most basic right of all and the reason for the 2A as well. Or one of the main reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,962 Posts
"Resisting arrest" is such a catch-all charge. You could probably get charged with it for belching while discussing the "situation" with the officer.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Texas abolished the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute.

http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-38-03.html

It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
Therefore, in Texas, it is unlawful to resist arrest even if the officer tells you he is arresting you because you are black, have red hair, homosexual, or he just does not like you and wants to cause you as much grief as possible. This is the case in the majority of states.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Have any of you actually read the Texas resisting arrest statutes and seen what the Texas Legislature defined as resisting arrest?
:lol: You posted while I was posting. Had I seen your post first, I might have waited to see how this shook out . . .
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Texas abolished the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute.

http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-38-03.html

Therefore, in Texas, it is unlawful to resist arrest even if the officer tells you he is arresting you because you are black, have red hair, homosexual, or he just does not like you and wants to cause you as much grief as possible. This is the case in the majority of states.
So this change is even more important. Might even bring them back to Constitutional Searches & Seizures.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
Texas abolished the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute.

http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-38-03.html

Therefore, in Texas, it is unlawful to resist arrest even if the officer tells you he is arresting you because you are black, have red hair, homosexual, or he just does not like you and wants to cause you as much grief as possible. This is the case in the majority of states.
If this is the case, any arrest deemed unlawful should automatically generate a charge of false imprisonment or kidnapping.

We fought a revolution to end such nonsense. Either the law applies to all of us, or it applies to none of us.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,617 Posts
The best way to deal with wrongful arrests is to hash it out in court later, not authorize suspects (who are unlikely to know all the details and information that the cop considered in stopping/ detaining /arresting him) to fight back.
Citizens who are stopped by police just aren't usually in a position to know what they need to know to evaluate whether the stop / arrest is legal or clearly illegal.

As for the futility of taking a bad cop to court, that's something to address in other ways:
1-- body cameras.
2-- encourage bystander-citizens to record cops' activities, and be good witnesses.
3-- give cops polygraph tests after a use-of-force incident or arrest where the suspect is adamant that the cop is flat-out lying.
4-- more serious penalties TO THE OFFICER, individually, for lying about his own actions or those of a fellow officer. Make sticking up for bad cops a career-ending and prison-authorizing bad choice for cops who go that route.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
The best way to deal with wrongful arrests is to hash it out in court later, not authorize suspects (who are unlikely to know all the details and information that the cop considered in stopping/ detaining /arresting him) to fight back.
Citizens who are stopped by police just aren't usually in a position to know what they need to know to evaluate whether the stop / arrest is legal or clearly illegal.

As for the futility of taking a bad cop to court, that's something to address in other ways:
1-- body cameras.
2-- encourage bystander-citizens to record cops' activities, and be good witnesses.
3-- give cops polygraph tests after a use-of-force incident or arrest where the suspect is adamant that the cop is flat-out lying.
4-- more serious penalties TO THE OFFICER, individually, for lying about his own actions or those of a fellow officer. Make sticking up for bad cops a career-ending and prison-authorizing bad choice for cops who go that route.
Hold on a minute. While I agree with your 4 items to increase police accountability; How did we get to supporting resisting arrest? The proposed law, as I understand it, Counselor would require Sworn Peace Officers to be required to cite what law was being broken for which an arrest was initiated if they allege resisting arrest as a charge. How does that support/encourage actual resisting arrest?

BTW your item #2 actually is at the heart of many of the allegations of false arrest, detainment, and false resisting arrest claims against police in the US. Photographers often know the law and Court cases on photography of police in public places better than many prosecutors, let alone line officers, and yet we routinely see police harrassing photographers for recording them lawfully. Many have been charged with resisting arrest from talking back to officers and asserting their rights. If someone does that and is charged with resisting it is often merely a power tripping petulent officer and should be dismissed and the officer disciplined. If it escalates beyond that then charges such as assault may be appropriate. In any case, requiring the offense for which an arrest was initiated to be recorded in order to charge a citizen with resisting arrest makes sense and should already be the default.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Citizens who are stopped by police just aren't usually in a position to know what they need to know to evaluate whether the stop / arrest is legal or clearly illegal.
I cannot disagree more strongly. That idea is a prelude to all kinds of liberal and big government ideas, including serious gun control

Counselor would require Sworn Peace Officers to be required to cite what law was being broken for which an arrest was initiated if they allege resisting arrest as a charge. How does that support/encourage actual resisting arrest?
You shouldn't need a law for that. A officer can't detain you without probable cause because a basic tenant of law is one is innocent until proven guilty. ALWAYS insist the officer articulate you are being detained, even if it's obvious you are, because then the onus is on him to give RAS. If he can't, then he can't detain you and you are well within your rights to walk away AND what's more, thanks to a powerful stand your ground law, you can defend yourself against any attempts to unlawfully detain you or worse

O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.​
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-38-03.html#sthash.jueMO41Q.dpuf
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.​
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-38-03.html#sthash.jueMO41Q.dpuf
Why would citizens think having (b) on the books is a good thing?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Why would citizens think having (b) on the books is a good thing?
I am trying to figure out if that is a serious question, given that the majority of states have the same rule.

Sometimes we echo each other in here so much that we begin to think perhaps everybody else has the same opinions we do.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,886 Posts
"... A(n) officer can't detain you without probable cause because a basic tenant of law is one is innocent until proven guilty..."
I wouldn't make any pub room bets on that, you'd lose and the officer will be found to have qualified immunity.

Ask almost anyone on here just How I Know.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top