Posted on 08/28/2010 5:41:46 AM PDT by marktwain
The resisting-arrest conviction last week of Felicia Gibson has left a lot of people wondering. Can a person be charged with resisting arrest while observing a traffic stop from his or her own front porch?
Salisbury Police Officer Mark Hunter thought so, and last week District Court Judge Beth Dixon agreed. Because Gibson did not at first comply when the officer told her and others to go inside, the judge found Gibson guilty of resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer.
Gibson was not the only bystander watching the action on the street. She was the only one holding up a cell-phone video camera. But court testimony never indicated that Hunter told her to stop the camera; he just told her to go inside.
Asked to explain the charge of resisting arrest, Salisbury Police Chief Rorie Collins provided general comments. He was not discussing the specifics of the Gibson case.
Post: What is “resisting arrest” or “resist, delay, obstruct an officer” in the performance of his/her duties?
Collins: “These are basically the same charge. Some call the charge simply “resisting arrest,” and some call it by its longer and more official title. This crime can be found in the North Carolina General Statutes under chapter 14, subsection 223 (G.S. 14-223).
“This crime is considered a Class 2 misdemeanor and involves:
“Any person who shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay, or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office.
“Obviously, this charge is rather broad and can encompass many different types of actions that are designed to, or serves to hinder a law enforcement officer as he/she performs their duties.
“This charge is most commonly used in situations where a person who is being arrested refuses to cooperate and either passively or aggressively resists an arrest or tries to run away.
“Another very common situation in which this charge is used involves instances when an officer is conducting an investigation and the individuals with whom he/she is dealing provide a false identity when required to identify themselves.
“As you can imagine, there are also many other circumstances in which this charge would be appropriate.”
Post: If the police stop someone in a car in front of my house, do I have the right to stand in my yard or on my porch and watch?
Collins: “The answer to this question is not quite as clear cut as the first. The short and quick answer is, ‘yes,’ in general, you do have that right!
“However, just as with many other scenarios, it is important to remember that every situation is based upon its own merits/circumstances. There are some circumstances in which the police who have stopped the vehicle in front of your house may determine that it is in the interest of safety (the officer’s, yours or the individual stopped) to require that folks move. As with other circumstances, it is best advised that an individual merely obey by the officer’s commands.”
To draw our own conclusions, Hunter could have felt that he, the bystanders or the suspects were in danger that night on West Fisher Street. No problem there. But concerns about safety do not explain why Gibson was singled out for arrest. That lingering question will have even the most law-abiding citizens wondering where their rights stop and police authority starts.
Your argument (such as it is) is circular: she is guilty because she was convicted and she was convicted because she was guilty. That is a post hoc argument, which is specious logic.
If anyone is failing to comprehend the meaning of the term, it is the one who keeps failing to heed its implications ... you.
Take a look at the thread since my #111; I think it’s safe to say we’ve found a pattern in his thinking/reasoning.
I wonder what his response to #120 will be; by bet is on some punt about “safety” or somesuch, what’s yours?
No. But please feel free to try out that frivolous argument in court.
I don't even know that they do.
No. She committed the crime. She was convicted because the court examined the evidence and decided that she committed the crime.
She's only entitled to a legal presumption of innocence prior to conviction.
>>Now, it is obvious that a carrying case is a conveyance. So I should, therefore, be able to open carry on campus, no?
>
>No. But please feel free to try out that frivolous argument in court.
Ah, I get it; the extreme “letter of the law” approach only works in the state’s favor.
What do you think of the following assertion:
“Case law” and “precedence” are nothing more than the judicial equivalent of the children’s game ‘telephone.’
Would you enjoy rounding up the rotkopfs or would you just round them up without enjoying it?
Filming a legal arrest is harassment?
What about watching an arrest, is that harassment, too?
Listening...is that harassment?
It seems to me like you want an America like the KGB in Russia, where cops do everything under a veil of secrecy, and watching, listening to, talking about and maybe even thinking about the cops in a wrong way...is illegal, and constitutes harassment.
ed
Nothing extreme about controlling a crime scene. Common practice.
I personally feel it would be unconstitutional. You might be in a more teachable state of mind if you more concerned with facts and less with your "feelings."
The police neglected to use their x-ray vision and crystal balls to determine that.
A careful examination of all of your posts leaves one with the conclusion that this is NOT sarcasm on your part. You actually seem to believe that police are some kind of un-impeachable divine force, their actions far beyond mortal comprehension and dispute. And this even seems to extend to judges.
Most of us on this thread disagree. WE own the “teachable moment” here...
>>I didn’t ask if it was Constitutional, I asked how you personally would feel about such a law.
>
>I personally feel it would be unconstitutional. You might be in a more teachable state of mind if you more concerned with facts and less with your “feelings.”
Ah, this coming from someone who fails to grasp the concept of a supreme law binding the state and preventing it from [legitimately] carrying out some action?
Which clause of the "supreme law" prohibits states from passing obstruction laws and police from securing crime scenes?
I'm mortal and I had no problem seeing that bystanders can pose a risk to officers trying to secure a crime scene where at least one armed fugitive is at large. Sorry if it strained your brain.
I did learn something from your post. You did not say that you would not round up the red heads if ordered to do so. I find that disturbing but not very surprising.
Admit it, you would enjoy rounding them up, wouldn't you? Especially if I were a red head.
Sorry if it strained your brain.
Thank you for making my point - again...
I didn’t know LEOs have crystal balls. If I ever have to defend my life from one hand to hand, I’ll have to remember that.
What crime was committed on the on the woman's property? I must have missed that part.
The cop was trying to clear away witnesses. I am sympathetic, I don't like it when the boss is watching over my shoulder, either. Unlike JBTs, I can't arrest him when he does.
Unconstitutional. Remember, I don't hate the law. You do.
Unconstitutional. Remember, I don't hate the law. You do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.