General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Two Supreme Court Decisions

(1/2) > >>

DanClrk51:
Any truth to this or is this over exaggerated?

http://www.appleroguetimes.com/two_supreme_court_decisions_the_.htm

Dan W:
I am familiar with the Miller decision and I agree that it has relevance. But the second cite is new to me, so some research is called for.

CitizenClark:

--- Quote from: Dan W on January 20, 2013, 12:13:47 PM ---I am familiar with the Miller decision and I agree that it has relevance. But the second cite is new to me, so some research is called for.

--- End quote ---

I mentioned the Bad Elk decision in the third part of my short book (available for free here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55429420/Fighting-Back). That whole section of the book is relevant to this issue, since it is about the ethics and legality of using violent force against state agents, but the Bad Elk material, including a nice long quote from the case, starts on page 90.

CitizenClark:
The tl;dr version: the common law right to use deadly force in response to an unlawful arrest has been vitiated in this country. Unless you fear for your safety (like, the cop is beating the snot out of you and you think you are going to die or be grievously injured), you are supposed to just submit to the unlawful arrest and then use its illegality as a basis for suppression motions in court.

The problem is that only the guilty really have recourse to this remedy. For the guy who wasn't breaking the law when he got arrested, there isn't anything to suppress, so his remedy under this doctrine amounts to nothing, unless he can make out a case that the state agent conducting the unlawful arrest was intentionally setting out to deprive him of his constitutional rights (in which case the victim could initiate a "1983 action" to recover damages; see 42 USC § 1983).

Gunscribe:
The guy is way off base on Miller.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page