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 If you Shepardized John Bad Elk, you would find that it has been superseded, and is no longer good law, ANYWHERE in the United States.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!
What!? What!?
It's an UNLAWFUL arrest!
Ok, so let's go with a SPECIFIC example.
I live in New Mexico, our State Constitution says the following:
| Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] |
|---|
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) |
| Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.] |
|---|
| All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness. |
Inherent —adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
2. Grammar. standing before a noun.
3. inhering; infixed.
Inalienable —adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
Liberty —noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
—Idiom
9. at liberty,
a. free from captivity or restraint.
b. unemployed; out of work.
c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.
(Definitions #1, #3, #4 are the possibly relevant definitions.)
Now because the State has recognized that "defending life and liberty" is an inseparable and non-repudiatable right of "All Persons" the state has recognized the "defending of [a person's] freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint [possibly due to an arbitrary or despotic government control]" as such. Note now that there are NO QUALIFICATIONS laid upon that defense; it is NOT "defending life and liberty, except in those cases wherein deadly force is, or might be, used."
It is now proven that your statement "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." is false.
Having now proved that one can (at least in New Mexico) legally defend one's own freedom; I return to the case on which we originally started: that of illegal arrest. New Mexico has a State Statute "NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty" which [obviously] makes it illegal for one to carry a firearm on university premises... the law itself, however, is in direct conflict withthe State Constitution which says "[n]o law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense."
The state statute actually abridges the rights of the Citizens [who live in on-campus housing] to either keep OR bear arms! That's right, according to this law they cannot keep, in their home, a firearm; though they could legally keep it in their vehicle that assumes that they possess a vehicle.
So then, is an arrest for violation of NMSA 30—7—2.4 legal?
How can it possibly be legal? (The statute itself is illegal!)
The question becomes, would the State honor its own Constitution and allow me my freedom if I defended my Liberty with the use of deadly force or would it call and convict me as a murderer? If a murderer, why?
In fact, to help you out, let's look at the Crime "Murder."
| NMSA 30-2-1. Murder. |
|---|
| A. Murder in the first degree is the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death may be caused: (1) by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing; (2) in the commission of or attempt to commit any felony; or (3) by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind regardless of human life. Whoever commits murder in the first degree is guilty of a capital felony. B. Unless he is acting upon sufficient provocation, upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, a person who kills another human being without lawful justification or excuse commits murder in the second degree if in performing the acts which cause the death he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another. Murder in the second degree is a lesser included offense of the crime of murder in the first degree. Whoever commits murder in the second degree is guilty of a second degree felony resulting in the death of a human being. |