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 police were pursuing the armed fugitive and his accomplices at the behest of a corrupt politician?
Fascinating.
And everything the government and agents thereof do
is by definition “lawful”?
sheep.
I bet not.
No. Is the law whatever your feelings happen to be?
She was convicted.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Any law or action that violates fundamental/Constitutional rights, including property rights, is inherently void of lawfulness.
Your posts indicate the law is whatever the government can get some judge to say it is, thereby applying the “highest law” to the judge.
The violation of the law was the cause of the conviction.
Property rights are defined by state law. There is no fundamental right to commit crimes on your own or another's property.
No he was not. He was harassing a citizen who was filming the officer. If he had been pursuing an armed fugitive, she would have gotten away with her heinous "crime."
The citizen who was convicted?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
BTW:
“Salisbury Police Officer Mark Hunter had been in pursuit of a vehicle and was attempting to pull it over. A passenger in the vehicle jumped from the car and was caught a short time later by other officers. Police said that suspect had drugs and a handgun.”
The conviction was for that specific violation, not simply any violation that preceded it. It is not a coincidental correlation, as you falsely imply.
“Other officers” Like I said, he was too bust pestering the serf.
Right. Some officers were pursuing the escaped fugitive, some were arresting the accomplices still in the vehicle.
pestering the serf
Arresting the perp.
OK. arresting the perp and pestering the serf are semantically equivalent. But if the alleged armed fugitive got arrested anyway, how was she impeding him in the performance of his duty?
The armed fugitive was captured later. The officer ordered bystanders away from the site being secured. Some complied, some didn't.
>The traffic stop came at the end of a pursuit in which one of the three passengers jumped from the car and fled on foot. The suspect was armed and carrying drugs.
>
>Other people were ordered inside and they complied. Gibson refused that lawful order and the jury convicted her.
Question: Why was the order lawful?
Question: She was on her own property which, presumably was free of any connection to the passenger who fled... further, if the fugitive *were* on her property wouldn’t the police’s order be for her (and other innocents) to come out so they could go into a situation where there would be no innocent bystanders to get hurt?
Question: The police were called once, and told that I was “waving a gun around” on my own property [it was untrue, I wasn’t even at my house when the call went in]; they came onto the property with guns drawn and were looking-into/snooping around a neighbor’s vehicle and when the neighbor confronted them they a)refused to give their names and b)told her to get inside — Was that a ‘lawful order’?
Wow.
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.