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.
The article describes the offense and the subsequent conviction. Try reading it.
I said so, when the laws do not protect the people as they should. And you hate the people (like me) when we don’t give JBTs the respect they think they deserve and are quite OK with laws being misused to deprive the people of their rights.
Who decides? You?
"Wants what he wants when he wants it -- and thinks that constitutes a natural law." --Robert Heinlein
Because the laws laid down by England were too onerous to be borne this nation’s founding fathers instigated the Revolution. You and your statist friends might want to think about that. I don’t think Hesse is exporting troops these days.
No. Because they were applied differently in the colonies. Read a book.
We (the founding fathers, most FReepers and I) believe that the people should control the government and not the other way around. Wouldn’t you be more comfortable in some totalitarian nation or at least a statist oriented site like DU?
The law you're denigrating was enacted by the people through their elected representatives. Nice foot shot.
You must be a cop. You are continually defending them and their supposed "right" to claim that a bystanders property which is unrelated to the issue needs to be secured.
Since you're shilling for the cops in question, and a BS "law", I'll go ahead and throw in a straw-man argument- ObamaCare was passed by "the people through our legally elected representatives". Do you support that? Go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot.
I am sure Mojave fully supports the police who will arrest you for not signing up for healthcare.
Just as you must be a perp.
their supposed "right"
Statutory.
bystanders property which is unrelated
The bystanders pose a risk while out in the open. She could film through the window to her heart's content.
a BS "law"
Longstanding law common to most jurisdictions. You can always write a whiny letter to your legislator suggesting a new law. I wonder how it might read?
Which "police" are those?
Want to explain why the comments about the law and how it was enforced are mostly against the police? Yeah, nice foot shot, need help with that bleeding?
In the eyes of some cops, everyone is a perp. That's why they consistently pile so many BS charges on anyone they arrest. Therefore, I am guilty as charged. Come and arrest me.
The bystanders pose a risk while out in the open.
You just made that up, didn't you. Define: Bystander. What is the distance to where you are no longer a bystander but an active participant in the crime? Is it spitting distance, rock-throwing range, or the maximum effective range of a 7.62 round? Maybe the focal distance of a cell phone camera?
You can always write a whiny letter to your legislator suggesting a new law.
Statist troll. There are enough "laws" on the books to put everyone in the country in jail, especially if cops are allowed to make up new ones as they please.
Do police need x-ray vision and crystal balls to know whether they will be committing brutality? It would seem that an honest cop would know that he wouldn't be committing any brutality; he wouldn't need any special super-hero or psychic powers to know that.
Easy. Your ilk likes to rant.
Webster's definition of BYSTANDER
: one present but not taking part in a situation or event : a chance spectator
No charge for the English lesson.
ACLU types love to piss and wail about "police brutality" every chance they get.
In my case at least, I hate to rant. Unfortunately I feel it is my duty to speak up whenever your ilk try to suppress liberties. That woman was doing nothing but exercise her rights until that JBT gave what is clearly an un Contitutional order and arrested her for not obeying it fast enough to satisfy his bloated ego. If you can’t see that, you would be much happier in a country that has no constitutional limits to police powers.
I think you nailed it right on the head.
Cop hating hyperbole.
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.