Innocent Persons Resisting Arrest

[Don John of Austria]

[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]

I understand your postition. I respect it. I do not agree. Arrest is a punishment, if it was not, if arrest was the same as simply detaining someone, then there would be no record of it occuring, and it could never be brought up again, but there is a record, and that record is used by police in investigations later.

When one is arrested, one's liberty is taken from them, more importantly one's ability to defend oneself is compromised if not entirely eliminated. No innocent is required to surrender his freedom, or his life ( once you have surrendered your ability to defend yourself, you have indeed surrendered your life, those you have surrendered it to may or may not take it, but it is their to take at that point.) because someone has decided that you might have commited a crime.

I personally love your appeal to duty, that is the only compelling arguement anyone has made here. I do not thinkone ever has a duty to allow injustice to occur.

As for being innocent until proven Guilty, well that just isn't so, you are either innocent, or you are guilty, in the US we are supposed to treat everyone as innocent until proven Guilty, but that does not make them innocent, anymore than being found guilty makes you guilty, its just the best we can do.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305720392' post='2243143']
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?
[/quote]
Becuase you have the right to liberty and life, both of which are compromised by being arrested.
you have the right to flee to protect those, and you have teh right to actively defend those even with deadly force.

Once you are arrested you are at the mercy of the legal system, you are not morally obligated to place yourself at others mercy just because they think you might have done something wrong.


can you explain, why you are obligated to surrender your right to life becuase the state believes you might have done something wrong?

[Don John of Austria]

[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]


May the Lord help us.

[MithLuin]

Submitting to legitimate authority in obedience has generally been upheld as a Christian virtue. I'm more curious why you justify not using the typical avenues of seeking justice and 'go rogue'?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305755141' post='2243332']
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.
[/quote]


If the police bust down my door without knocking and identifying themselves and presenting me a warrant calmly, unless they are fortunate enough to catch me by suprise in the livingroom, they are getting shot. Once I hear the door hit, I will immediately get my gun, once i confront them in my home with a gun raised, well, then there will be no choice, contrary to the TV shows cops do not ask you nicely to put down your gun when you have it raised at them. At that point it will be can I shoot them before they shoot me.

Home invasions are often done by those dressed as police, if you break in my door without presenting me a warrant, your getting shot, and my rifle bullet is going to go right through that class1 vest most cops wear.

to me in that situation it is not even a question of right to resist, that is not resisting aresst, that is resisting home invasion, tha is self defense and defense of one's family.

All bets are off at that point.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305775252' post='2243462']
Submitting to legitimate authority in obedience has generally been upheld as a Christian virtue. I'm more curious why you justify not using the typical avenues of seeking justice and 'go rogue'?
[/quote]


Well I posted a 9 part explaination of why, no point of which has been contested.

I keep hearing about howpeople feel, but no justification for that, beyond they feel it.

Further democracies do not have that type of authority. Democracies gain authority from the consent of the governed,they do not claim more. The governed has a right to remove consent. Secular humanist states certianly cannot claim to get their authority from a God they do not acknowledge.


Christ said: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Niether ones liberty, nor one's life are Caesar's, and they certianly not the US government's, or the US,State, local government's enforcers, i.e. The police.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[MithLuin]

Well, I don't own a home or a gun, so it's all a hypothetical for me. I do own multiple swords, but I have no desire to use them on a real person. If I were concerned about a home invasion, I might keep my bokken close...but that's essentially like grabbing a baseball bat.

But yes, I agree that lack of warrant makes the action illegit, and thus [i]not[/i] what this thread is about.

Freedom is a very American ideal, and certainly part of what makes this country amesome. I don't want freedoms curtailed. But at the same time, I don't see why it's inappropriate for a police officer with a warrant to arrest a suspect. I like that we have a society with rule of law. I think the time of the Judges was a rough patch in Israel's history.

[quote]In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes. [/quote]

[MithLuin]

And here I thought we lived in a republic...

Interesting that you think it would have been appropriate to surrender your freedom (even as as innocent man) if the people coming to arrest you were doing so in the name of a king who had been anointed.

I imagine no one has contested your argument point by point for the simple reason that not everyone accepts your premises.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305776606' post='2243472']
Well, I don't own a home or a gun, so it's all a hypothetical for me. I do own multiple swords, but I have no desire to use them on a real person. If I were concerned about a home invasion, I might keep my bokken close...but that's essentially like grabbing a baseball bat.

But yes, I agree that lack of warrant makes the action illegit, and thus [i]not[/i] what this thread is about.

Freedom is a very American ideal, and certainly part of what makes this country amesome. I don't want freedoms curtailed. But at the same time, I don't see why it's inappropriate for a police officer with a warrant to arrest a suspect. I like that we have a society with rule of law. I think the time of the Judges was a rough patch in Israel's history.
[/quote]

I trained with swords for many years, back before HACA became ARMA, i'd happly take a longsword against virtually anything, accept a gun.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305613172' post='2242694']
I am happy it was helpful, I presented it this way on purpose, just as I tried to clarify everyones postion before posting it.

I hope that we can actually have a reasonable discussion on this matter as opposed to the rather volitale "discussions" on other threads.
[/quote]

Amen, I think I'm starting to figure out where you are coming from. I apologize if I have been uncharitable or out of line in any other thread.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305777480' post='2243478']
Amen, I think I'm starting to figure out where you are coming from. I apologize if I have been uncharitable or out of line in any other thread.
[/quote]


I am not one to be easily offended, but thank you, sincerely.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305777654' post='2243480']
I am not one to be easily offended, but thank you, sincerely.
[/quote]

I do really apologize, to you or anyone else. I'm 19, I'm just trying to figure out just what i believe about certain things in the context of my faith... and so sometimes i'm saying things in here that aren't really fully thought out. Thanks for the understanding.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305777654' post='2243480']
I am not one to be easily offended, but thank you, sincerely.
[/quote]

I do really apologize, to you or anyone else. I'm 19, I'm just trying to figure out just what i believe about certain things in the context of my faith... and so sometimes i'm saying things in here that aren't really fully thought out. Thanks for the understanding.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305776926' post='2243474']
And here I thought we lived in a republic...

Interesting that you think it would have been appropriate to surrender your freedom (even as as innocent man) if the people coming to arrest you were doing so in the name of a king who had been anointed.

I imagine no one has contested your argument point by point for the simple reason that not everyone accepts your premises.
[/quote]
Your mistake... we live in a Democratic Republic.

I think there is a more compelling arguement for such if they were agents of a King who had been annointed, in as much as he might be able to claim the authority of God. That may or may not be so, but at least the arguement could be made.


I am not saying that one would be obligated to give up ones rights, butthat one would have to be much more careful, just as if they werre agents of the Church.

IIf they do not accept my premises then that is what sholud be contested, I gave 9, which do you not agree with?.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[stevil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305774189' post='2243448']
I understand your postition. I respect it. I do not agree. Arrest is a punishment, if it was not, if arrest was the same as simply detaining someone, then there would be no record of it occuring, and it could never be brought up again, but there is a record, and that record is used by police in investigations later.

When one is arrested, one's liberty is taken from them, more importantly one's ability to defend oneself is compromised if not entirely eliminated.
[/quote]

I am not sure what country you come from, but where I come from one's ability to defend one's self begins after one gets arrested.
You don't tend to go to court and plead your case before being arrested, if you can't afford an attorney then the government will provide, but only after one is arrested.

Here is a decent definition from Wikipedia
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest"]Arrest - Wikipedia[/url]
[quote]
An [b]arrest[/b] is the act of depriving a person of his or her [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty"]liberty[/url] usually in relation to the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detective"]investigation[/url] and prevention of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime"]crime[/url] or harm to others and oneself as well. The term is [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language"]Anglo-Norman[/url] in origin and is related to the French word [i]arrêt[/i], meaning "stop". The word 'arrest' when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint of a person, or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement. When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested.
[/quote]
I'm not sure if police use prior arrests against you. I know when applying for passports or visa's you get asked with regards to past convictions, not arrests.