portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

human & civil rights | police / legal

The Natural & Common Law Right of Self Defense

Rarely is an "arrest" of a citizen a Lawfull one. They are civil maritime arrests and the power brokers have hidden the information so that they can rule with an iron fist under maritime contract jurisdiction
"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)

1. State v. Robinson, 145 Me 77, 72 Alt. 2d 260, 262 (1950)
2. State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105
3. State v. Rouseau, 40 Wash. 2d. 92, 241, 242 P.2d 447, 449 (1952)
4. State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 446, 83 S.E., 2d 100, 102 (1954)
5. Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711
6. Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 SE 305
7. Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 523
8. Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex Crim 228, 202 S.W. 513
9. Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 SE 2d 91 (1943)
10. Owen v. State, 58 Tex Crim 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910)
11. Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903)
12. Graham v. State, 143 Ga. 440 85 S.E. 328, 331
13. City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058)
14. Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)
15. Robertson v. State, 198 S. W2d 633, 635-36 Tenn. (1947)
16. Roberts v. Dean, 187 So. 571, 575 Fla. 1939
17. The State of Connecticut against Leach, 7 Conn, Rep. 452 (1829)
18. Housh v. The People, 75 ILL Rep. 487, 491 (1874)
19. Plummer v. The State, 135 Ind. 308, 313, 334 N.E. 968 (1893)
20. John Bad Elk v. U.S. 177 U.S. 529 (1899)
21. People v. Hevern, 127 Misc. Rep. 141, 215 NY Supp 412
22. U.S. v. Cerciello, 86 NJL 309, 90 Atl.1112, (1914)
23. U.S. v. Kelly, 51 Fed 2d 263 (1931)
24. Bednarik v. Bednarik, 16 A 2d, 80, 90, 18 NJ Misc. 633 (1948)
25. State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91 NW 935
26. People v. Corder, 244 Mich. 274, 221 NW 309
27. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
28. State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo 54 119 SW 405
29. Town of Blacksburg v. Bean, 104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916)
30. Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11(Wis 1924)
31. Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904) Green v.Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871)
32. Hicks v. Matthews, 266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954)
33. Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905)
34. Mullins v. State,196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943)
35. Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920)
good work 02.May.2004 21:44

...

this is very interesting work. i appreciate being able to read it.

i have a question though. the us supreme court has been quite busy recentyl, as we all know, taking away a sizable number of rights that were once granted under the law. most of the cases are 50 to 100 years old. i realize that even a 100 year old law must be followed if it is still 'good law'. my question is, do all of these cases represent 'good', i.e. valid and enforceable law.

i would like to see some followup if someone has time and interest in posting it.

thanks

legality vs reality 02.May.2004 21:46

troll, a sympathetic troll from out of state, but a troll.

The legality is: you do NOT have the right to resist arrest by reason of being innocent of the crime the officer is arresting you for. You DO have the right to resist arrest if the officer is breaking the law by arresting you (such as arresting you to prevent you from voting, arresting you for something that is not a crime {like "you are under arrest for wearing a purple hat," not illegal so you can resist the arrest}), or if you are under duress and reasonably expect your life to be in jeopardy because of the arrest (note that this must be a fear that is specific, not general.

You can not claim to be afraid of death because the cop is scary or jail is scary and have a legal ground to resist. You can have a legal ground to resist if the cop says "I am going to arrest you and then strangle you." This claim also does not apply to specific problems that do not affect most people, such as being a vegan and knowing the local jail is not vegan friendly, or hating flourescent lights and knowing the local jail has them such as Tre Arrow's complaints).

The REALITY is: never try to resist arrest unless you are really certain you can SUCESSFULLY resist that arrest. If you are one lone person fighting with 20 cops, you will be arrested anyway and just wind up with more jail time. The courts always side with the cops on these issues, and if you have zero chance of pulling it off, save yourself the trouble.

Also, you should look up laws and be familliar with what Oregon considers a felony. If the officer arresting you is committing one, you can just arrest HIM (again, only if you can physically pull it off). Misdemeanors are a bit more tricky, but felonies are really cut and dry. Catch a cop in the act, grab fifteen of your friends to subdue him, do NOT use more force than is necessary, and you are in the clear. Take him to a courthouse or a jail, turn him in, file the complaint with the DA and prepare for the most interesting press/court battle you have ever seen.

fe fi fo fum 02.May.2004 22:30

Sourdough Sam

I'm not suggesting any violence here but the O.R.S. is not the Law of Oregon. Guess which one it is

Correction "Legality vs. Reality" 03.May.2004 13:51

PPBCopwatcher PPBCopwatcher@yahoo.com

"You DO have the right to resist arrest if the officer is breaking the law by arresting you (such as arresting you to prevent you from voting, arresting you for something that is not a crime {like "you are under arrest for wearing a purple hat," not illegal so you can resist the arrest}), or if you are under duress and reasonably expect your life to be in jeopardy because of the arrest (note that this must be a fear that is specific, not general. "


You are incorrect in your assertion. In Oregon, you do NOT have the right to resist ANY ARREST, lawful OR unlawful. You MAY use a defense the fact the the officer was NOT acting under the "color of the law", but you still may NOT RESIST.


162.315 Resisting arrest. (1) A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if the person intentionally resists a person known by the person to be a peace officer in making an arrest.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Arrest" has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.005 and includes, but is not limited to, the booking process.
(b) "Resists" means the use or threatened use of violence, physical force or any other means that creates a substantial risk of physical injury to any person and includes, but is not limited to, behavior clearly intended to prevent being taken into custody by overcoming the actions of the arresting officer. The behavior does not have to result in actual physical injury to an officer. Passive resistance does not constitute behavior intended to prevent being taken into custody.
(3) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer lacked legal authority to make the arrest or book the person, provided the peace officer was acting under color of official authority.
(4) Resisting arrest is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 206; 1989 c.877 1; 1997 c.749 3]