Innocent Persons Resisting Arrest

[Don John of Austria]

Please do not derail the discussion. I went tosome effort to keep this a rational productive discussion. So far everyone has maintained civility and decorum once this sillyness begins so will the rest of it.


Camelot, it is a silly place.... let's no go there.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Winchester]

Honestly, it's not really railed. There's a bunch of nonsense about situations and outcomes instead of whether one has a objective right. I submit there is too much inherent servitude to the State that has not been overcome. Americans do not regard themselves as free people living in a country whose government rules by their consent.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305669571' post='2242994']
Honestly, it's not really railed. There's a bunch of nonsense about situations and outcomes instead of whether one has a objective right. I submit there is too much inherent servitude to the State that has not been overcome. Americans do not regard themselves as free people living in a country whose government rules by their consent.
[/quote]


I thinkit is more than that, I think Americans do not really believe in free people.



To Mithluin and Catherine


Results do not determine rights,one has the right to marry, that marraige may lead to a miserable life, or to divorce, but it does not diminish ones right to marry.

Why would the results of a confrontation with the police have anything to do with the right to have it?

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305654671' post='2242854']
The question is not whether it's wise to fight, whether one will usually be released, or anything else. It's a question of whether an innocent man may morally resist arrest and to what degree. ...

No one has argued that an innocent man [i]must[/i] fight the police, merely it has been asked [i]may[/i] he?
[/quote]

True enough.

I suppose what I feel is that of course you may choose to do whatever you want. You have free will, you have autonomy. And you can answer for all of your actions on judgment day. I don't feel that I have to judge everyone else, though I do recognize the merit of considering hypothetical questions.

So perhaps my answer is that, yes, in theory, you have some right to refuse to cooperate, but that in practice, exercising this right is likely to cause more problems than it is worth. And that if you hurt, maim or kill someone else in the process, you're in the wrong and answerable for your actions. But if you want to run, sure, go for it. Might not be the right thing to do, but jail is scary.

And we may be free people, but no man is an island. We're all part of society.



As for results....you're supposed to consider the consequences of your actions. You can't just fire off a gun and say "I didn't know anyone was in the way." If the result of your actions are likely to infringe upon someone else's rights...then maybe your actions aren't right. We have rights [i]and[/i] responsibilities. You have to consider both of them together.

Edited May 17, 2011 by MithLuin

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305670221' post='2242996']
True enough.

I suppose what I feel is that of course you may choose to do whatever you want. You have free will, you have autonomy. And you can answer for all of your actions on judgment day. I don't feel that I have to judge everyone else, though I do recognize the merit of considering hypothetical questions.

So perhaps my answer is that, yes, in theory, you have some right to refuse to cooperate, but that in practice, exercising this right is likely to cause more problems than it is worth. And that if you hurt, maim or kill someone else in the process, you're in the wrong and answerable for your actions. But if you want to run, sure, go for it. Might not be the right thing to do, but jail is scary.

And we may be free people, but no man is an island. We're all part of society.
[/quote]


So you believe you can run, but not fight, that resistance to unjust arrest cannot be violent, because that would be wrong.


Can you explain why youbelive this to be so?

[MithLuin]

I explained in earlier posts in this thread. I don't think it's right to endanger the life of the police officer who is arresting you. Running away makes his job harder, and fails to clear your name, but it isn't quite the same as shooting at him. Whether or not you have the right to run away, I can understand doing so, whether you are innocent or guilty. Running makes you look guilty, so it makes it more likely that you will be convicted when you are caught. So, not the wisest choice, but as I said...understandable.


I really don't see why you would separate a discussion of rights from a discussion of responsibility or decision making. They seem to go together.

[Don John of Austria]

Because acting within your rights is, for lack ofa better term
right. I do not see a police man attempting to arrest am innocent man as an innocent. police are paramilitary and act as combatants. If an innocent man takes the combtant out of him.so be it. X

[stevil]

It feels to me, to be a somewhat selfish and arrogant stance to insist that one's self is innocent and hence to act in non compliance with this system one's society has in place.

Police officers do not arrest or detain guilty people, everyone is to be assumed by the police officer as innocent until proven guilty. It is the police officer's job to detain or arrest people so that they can be further questioned, investigated or removed from society as they may be potentially dangerous or may be a flight risk.

Complying with the rules of society, even if it means losing one's liberty for a period is to be seen as a duty, not a confession of guilt or a punishment of guilt. In a way it is like being called upon for jury duty. The pay is bad, your time is taken up doing something that you may otherwise prefer not to do. But as part of a functioning society you have a part to play.

I would feel much more sympathetic for your side of the discussion if you were arguing whether an innocent person found guilty and sentenced to a lengthy prison term has the right to resist, or flee. In such a case I would see merit in fleeing but not if this means killing or causing permanent physical damage to another person.

Edited May 18, 2011 by stevil

[Amppax]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305708725' post='2243128']
It feels to me, to be a somewhat selfish and arrogant stance to insist that one's self is innocent and hence to act in non compliance with this system one's society has in place.

Police officers do not arrest or detain guilty people, everyone is to be assumed by the police officer as innocent until proven guilty. It is the police officer's job to detain or arrest people so that they can be further questioned, investigated or removed from society as they may be potentially dangerous or may be a flight risk.

Complying with the rules of society, even if it means losing one's liberty for a period is to be seen as a duty, not a confession of guilt or a punishment of guilt. In a way it is like being called upon for jury duty. The pay is bad, your time is taken up doing something that you may otherwise prefer not to do. But as part of a functioning society you have a part to play.

I would feel much more sympathetic for your side of the discussion if you were arguing whether an innocent person found guilty and sentenced to a lengthy prison term has the right to resist, or flee. In such a case I would see merit in fleeing but not if this means killing or causing permanent physical damage to another person.
[/quote]

This. I would say that my opinion falls right in line with stevil's, CatherineM's, and Mithluin's. They expressed pretty much anything that i would like to say, and did so much more eloquently than I could. I would also add that a person's rightful way to defend his or herself is through the courts.

[Winchester]

Well, denying the existence of justice outside of government rules is one position to take, I suppose.

[MithLuin]

I don't think anyone is denying other avenues of justice...merely questioning why you'd have to right to endanger another person's life in this extra-legal search for justice. I mean...how exactly are you resisting arrest? A high speed car chase in which you endanger the lives of other innocents? What are they - collateral damage in your fight for freedom?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Just saw this on FB and it made me think of this thread.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qggqa36UDs[/media]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305731567' post='2243210']
Just saw this on FB and it made me think of this thread.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qggqa36UDs[/media]
[/quote]
I didn't watch the vid but I've seen Judge Andrew Napolitano on C-SPAN's Book TV and he was interesting...I liked that he didn't fit the usual conservative talking head mold. I think he goes to the Latin Mass too.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Era Might

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1305736047' post='2243251']
I didn't watch the vid but I've seen Judge Andrew Napolitano on C-SPAN's Book TV and he was interesting...I liked that he didn't fit the usual conservative talking head mold. I think he goes to the Latin Mass too.
[/quote]
That's pretty cool.

[MithLuin]

Ah, yes. If the police do not have a warrant, then resisting is more legitimate. I still wouldn't shoot them, but if they insisted on busting down my door and arresting me in the absence of a warrant, certainly that's not right, either.