Dictionary.com defines it thusly:
Unreasonable —adjective
1. - not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person.
2. - not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate: His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich.
3. - excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable: an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands.
4. - not having the faculty of reason.
>>Actually, I do get to decide what reasonable is, as others have done. If I am forced to do so at 3:00 AM as my door is broken in, I can assure you that your opinion and that of the USSC will be the furthest from my mind.
>
>Uh huh, and you'll be dead or jailed as a result of your decision if it does not comport with the law.
Well, in some states he may be fully in-the-right to kill: Self Defense Immunity Granted Murder Charge Dismissed (FL) <— No "Duty To Retreat" in FL.
In fact, IF THEY HAVE THE WRONG HOUSE [which has come up on this thread] then the following justifies even lethal response on part of the homeowner:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” —— Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
Thanks, archy, for that info.
The dictionary.com definition is not a legal definition, but regardless, it proves my point. It's subjective, not objective. Hence, the Constitution gives the Courts the power to set an objective standard for measuring the word.
Well, in some states he may be fully in-the-right to kill: Self Defense Immunity Granted Murder Charge Dismissed (FL) <— No "Duty To Retreat" in FL. In fact, IF THEY HAVE THE WRONG HOUSE [which has come up on this thread] then the following justifies even lethal response on part of the homeowner: “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” —— Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
LOL! You don't know how many times I've seen conspiracy nutjobs repost that bit of tripe. This is a good lesson on why you don't rely on internet lawyers anymore than you would rely on a jailhouse lawyer.
When you look at a legal opinion, (any legal opinion, but especially one from 1900), you have to Shepardize it to make sure that it is good law. If you Shepardized John Bad Elk, you would find that it has been superseded, and is no longer good law, ANYWHERE in the United States.
When the Supreme Court decided John Bad Elk, it applied the Common Law (which the Courts did prior to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins.) The Common Law rule has been abrogated by Statute in every single State. There is no where in the Country that permits the use of deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest. Hence, if you do so, you will ALWAYS be a criminal in the eyes of the law.
As for your second case, "Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306." well, it doesn't exist as cited. There is no such case as "136 Ind. 306." Simply doesn't exist. It's fantasy. Some internet libertine wacko made up an official sounding citation and splattered it all over the internet for fools to soak up. Anyone with half a brain would have attempted to check the citation first. You know, that little thing called verifying your sources. If one had taken the care to do so, they wouldn't end up looking so foolish.
The REAL case is Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308 (1893). So wait, why would the internet libertines purposefully change the cite? Why wouldn't they want people looking up the case for themselves? Seems like a pretty foolish thing to do. Well there was a perfectly good reason for doing so, the quoted phrase "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Simply isn't in the opinion. Not there. At all.
So what was in Plummer?
"We are constrained to hold that Dorn, if he even had the right to make the arrest without a warrant, abused that authority by striking Plummer over the head with his policeman's club. Had he informed Plummer that he intended to arrest him, and requested him to submit to such arrest, and then Plummer had refused to submit and resisted, or threatened to resist arrest, with any demonstration of force, a very different question would have been presented. In such a case, the officer, as we have seen, having authority to arrest, would have been justified in using force sufficient and necessary to overcome such resistance, even to the taking of the life of the person he was attempting to arrest."
So in essence, whoever purposefully mangled the Plummer cite, actually changed around some words to make things say the opposite of what they really said.
Moreover, Plummer, like John Bad Elk, is no longer good law, and has been abrogated by Statute.
In Fields v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court said: "We are of the opinion that the common law rule is outmoded in our modern society. A citizen, today, can seek his remedy for a policeman's unwarranted and illegal intrusion into the citizen's private affairs by bringing a civil action in the courts against the police officer and the governmental unit which the officer represents. The common law right of forceful resistance to an unlawful arrest tends to promote violence and increases the chances of someone getting injured or killed."
Just this year, the Indiana Supreme Court, reaffirmed this rule:
"At common law, a person was privileged to resist an unlawful arrest. See Gross v. State, 186 Ind. 581, 583, 117 N.E. 562, 564 (1917). Our courts, however, have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today‟s modern society. See Fields v. State, 178 Ind. App. 350, 355, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975 (1978) (holding that a private citizen may not use force or resist a peaceful arrest by one he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized officer perform-ing his duties, regardless of whether the arrest is legal or illegal); accord Dora v. State, 783 N.E.2d 322, 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied; Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. In 1976, the Legislature, recognizing this modern trend, enacted the resisting law enforcement statute, Indiana Code section 35-44-3-3, which makes it a crime to “(1) forcibly resist[], obstruct[], or interfere[] with a law enforcement officer or a person assist-ing the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer‟s duties[.]” Additionally, Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(B), makes battery, if committed upon a law enforcement officer, a Class A misdemeanor. Id. (“A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misde-meanor. However, the offense is[] (1) a Class A misdemeanor if . . . (B) it is committed against a law enforcement officer . . . .”).
Next time, get a legal opinion from someone with a J.D. rather than retards on the internet.
Thanks, archy, for that info.
If your or archy tries to act on that erroneous information, you will find yourselves on the wrong side of the law.
The more you know!