The Minority Report
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

The Minority Report

This is a forum designed to cover all aspects of alternative research from religion to the paranormal to other aspects of global conspiracy.
HomeSearchRegisterLog in


 Right To Defend Yourself Against Unlawful Arrest

Go down 
Minority of One
Minority of One

Posts : 1044
Join date : 2010-08-16

Right To Defend Yourself Against Unlawful Arrest Empty
PostSubject: Right To Defend Yourself Against Unlawful Arrest   Right To Defend Yourself Against Unlawful Arrest Icon_minitimeWed Jun 01, 2011 9:02 am

Right to Defend Yourself Against Unlawful Arrest

Right To Defend Yourself Against Unlawful Arrest Jeff-monson-with-cops

From M.o.1 -- There is a common trend during this growing police state that we see abuse from police officers against people committing no crime. We see many acts of unlawful arrest, unlawful search and seizure and people being beaten by riot cops/officers. In most of these cases, the people are attacked and resist peacefully which leads to nothing more than a night in the hospital by getting a baton upside the head. For some reason, people believe that they do not have the right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest however I remember several years ago having an officer explain to me that a citizen as the right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest EVEN TO THE DEATH if their rights are being violated.

Most of these officers/riot cops use a "bully mentality" when executing their attacks. With a bully, the bully will continue to attack if the victim does nothing. This is the case w/ most protesters these days....the cops how up and start bashing people and they run away instead of defending their right to peacefully assemble and protest. It is my hope that the people will read these, especially those attending the "Dance Against Tyranny" event and assemble peacefully, act as such but if their rights are violated.....they defend themselves.

You can listen to this while you read Twisted Evil

Here is some info on this subject:

The Natural & Common Law Right of Self Defense

"Common as the event may be, it is a serious thing to arrest a
citizen, and it is a more serious thing to search his person; and
he who accomplishes it, must do so in conformity to the law of the
land. There are two reasons for this; one to avoid bloodshed, and
the other to preserve the liberty of the citizen. Obedience to the
law is the bond of society, and the officers set to enforce the
law are not exempt from its mandates."
Town of Blacksburg v. Bean
104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916): Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11
(Wis 1924)

"Where officers do not conform to the 'law of the land' they have
no authority and the right to resist them exists. A Public Officer,
as with a citizen, who unlawfully threatens life or liberty, is
susceptible to be injured or killed; for by such acts 'they draw
their own blood upon themselves' As stated in some cases, 'where
a peace officer has no right to make an arrest without warrant he
is a trespasser and acts at his own peril." 6A CJS., "Arrest"
Section 16 page 30; A sheriff who "acts without process," or
"under a process void on its face, in doing such act, he is not to
be considered an officer but a personal trespasser."
Roberts v. Dean,
187 So. 571, 575 (Fla. 1939)

"A person has a lawful right to resist an arrest by an unlawful
authority, i.e., an officer without a valid warrant."
Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903)

"What of the resistance to the arrest? The authorities are in
agreement that since the right of personal property is one of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, any unlawful
interference with it may be resisted and every person has a right
to resist an unlawful arrest. * * * and, in preventing such illegal
restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary."
City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058)

"It is the law of self defense and self preservation that is
applicable. "One has and "unalienable" right to protect his life,
liberty or property from unlawful attack or harm." "* * * it is not
an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer,
even though he may have submitted to such custody without resistance."
Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted
to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same
right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any
other assault and battery."
State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 Atl, 2nd.260, 262 (1950)

"A citizen illegally arrested "cannot initiate the use of force" and
neither do "words alone justify an assault." However, "when the officer
initiates the assault by physical contact, which is usually the case,
and there is an unlawful arrest, the citizen has the right to protect
his liberty to the extent of killing the officer."
See Green v.
Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871) and/or Hicks v. Matthews, 266
S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954)

"What rights then has a citizen in resisting an unlawful arrest? An
arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the
person, and how far one thus unlawfully assaulted may go in resistance
is to be determined as in other cases of assault. Life and liberty are
regarded as standing substantially on one foundation; life being
useless without liberty, and the authorities are uninformed that where
one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist
the aggressions of the officer, to the extent of taking the life of
the assailant, if that be necessity to preserve his own life, or
prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm."
State v. Gum,
68 W. Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 464 (1910)

"It is the law that a person illegally arrested by an officer may
resist that arrest, even to the extent of the taking of life if his
own life or any great bodily harm is threatened.
State v. Rousseau,
40 Wash. 2nd, 92, 241 P. 2nd. 447, 449 (1952); Porter v. State, 124
Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905); see also State v. Mobley, 240 N.C.
476, 83 S.E. 2nd 100, 102 (1954); Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324,
108 So. 711, 712-13 (1926); American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., "Arrest",
Section 94, pp. 778-780; Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 S.E. 305
(1892); Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 532, 534 (1918);
Burkhard v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 228, 202 S.W. 513; Mullins v. State,
196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943); Ownes v. State, 58 Tex. Crim.
261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910); Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655,
225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)

"The United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past
deciding upon the matter, has recognized that "at common Law", a
person had the right to "resist the illegal attempt to arrest him."
John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1899)

“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

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.”
Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.”
Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.”
Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
(State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.”
(State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
(Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
(Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

Be safe out there, my brothers and sisters
Back to top Go down
Right To Defend Yourself Against Unlawful Arrest
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Minority Report :: Recommended Info-
Jump to: