OpenCarry.org: "Is it legal to resist a civil rights violation?"

[Guest samueld308]

More fuel for the fire.

39-16-602. Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search — Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.

( Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.

© It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process.

(d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.]

[Guest c.a.s.]

Sorry Dave, with your "the younger members of the forum" statement, I move from observer to involved. I side with Molon. He brought out full proof of every one of his statements.

[Guest Hyaloid]

More fuel for the fire.

39-16-602. Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search — Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.

( Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.

© It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process.

(d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.]

Well from 39-11-611:

39-11-611. Self-defense. —

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the degree, the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

( Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

© The threat or use of force against another is not justified if the person consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual.

(d) The threat or use of force against another is not justified if the person provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(1) The person abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

(2) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 8.]

The statute you provided samueld308, says in section ( except as provided in 39-11-611.

Those are the areas in bold in the quoted statute above.

Not that I would ever want to be the one to test this in court, and certainly don't advocate aggression or other harmful activities, but it does appear that at least in the statutes, the law abiding citizen does have some legal standing to resist with deadly force.

[DaveTN]

Sorry Dave, with your "the younger members of the forum" statement, I move from observer to involved. I side with Molon. He brought out full proof of every one of his statements.

Good.

If you ever find yourself with a Police Officer ordering you to surrender your weapon; tell them you know your rights and walk away. If you are still alive maybe he’ll come bond you out.

[Guest c.a.s.]

FYI, I;m not old enough to carry a weapon. I've got about six years before I can.

I;m a rather good terms with all my local police--We didn't have an official SRO at the middle school, they would take turns because the police statoin is literally right across the street. Different matter at the high school, we have a rent-a-cop with a radio and an older police officer. The police precinct here is rather small, and from all experiences with them they are well-educated. Not to mention that most are experienced, having been there were severla years, and don;t happen to be trigger-happy.

Also, if you just walk away, he can't shoot you. That's a non-violent act. He can detain (I don;t say arrest because I;m not 110% sure he can arrest you) you, and try to charge you with resisting arrest, or fleeing. Possibly obstruction of justice. At most he might tazer or pepper-spray you. Unless you pull some sort of weapon and walk away towards another officer, but then you;d just be an idiot who actually did something to warrant a stop. I don;t soubt a single bit that ANY police officer in Clinton could whoop my ass in a bare hands fight, and I don't have a disposition of violence. If a 150 pound, 5-foot-7 15-year-old makes a much larger policeman nervous, I think I'll be buy a plane ticket to Holland.

[saintsfanbrian]

But when as a cop, I have a weapon pointed at you and I am ordering you to surrender your weapon; we are not going to have a dialog about why. We are not going to hold a hearing to decide if there is probable cause. You have no idea why I am disarming you. I may be responding to an armed robbery and you match the description of the suspect. You may be totally innocent… but if you do not submit to my demands and it escalates to a deadly force situation; if you die because I think you were going for your weapon, I am okay, if I die because you don’t think I had a right to disarm you and you open fire on me, you will die in prison as a cop killer.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to ask the individual that you suspect is the person who committed a crime for their drivers license? At which point, many people on this board have already stated that if they are carrying, they will hand over both license and VALID TN HCP. Rather than pulling your gun out and aiming it at a person who you THINK is GUILTY of a crime, wouldn't it be better to talk peacefully with the person? Remember, and this goes ESPECIALLY to LE, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Many of the young police officers that are fresh out of training are a.) scarred ****less on their first real interactions with the public for something other than a speeding ticket and b.) trying to "prove" their "authority" so they will be seen as "equals" in the eyes of veteran officers. This is not first hand knowledge since I am not an LEO, but it is what I have gleaned from years of being friends with some and working with others in various other jobs. You can say I am wrong, but that is an opionion that I have come up with after years of dealing with LEO. I admit there are plenty out there that are great officers, but to automatically draw your weapon on some one that is peacefully walking down the street, or driving a car that matches an "eye witness" account of a perpetrator seems a bit extreme to me since often times, "eye witnesses" don't know their butts from a hole in the ground.

My opinions only, flame away if you wish.

[DaveTN]

Wouldn't it be a better idea to ask the individual that you suspect is the person who committed a crime for their drivers license?

Absolutely, but if you read the thread that Monolabetn linked the “suspect†said he knew his rights, didn’t have time for this BS and walked away.

I have said all I can from a former LEO point of view, common sense and the fact that you will be held responsible for whatever path you decide to take will have to form your decisions. I certainly hope that no one on this forum is ever in a position that they think pulling a gun on a cop seems like a good idea.

[molonlabetn]

Absolutely, but if you read the thread that Monolabetn linked the “suspect†said he knew his rights, didn’t have time for this BS and walked away.

I have said all I can from a former LEO point of view, common sense and the fact that you will be held responsible for whatever path you decide to take will have to form your decisions. I certainly hope that no one on this forum is ever in a position that they think pulling a gun on a cop seems like a good idea.

I have only EVER said that pulling a gun on ANYBODY was a good idea if one's life or liberty were threatened by that person's use of excessive/deadly force. I have NEVER advocated using deadly force to resist arrest, and would never do so myself.

If a police officer draws his gun on me, it's his heinie on the line if he's wrong. And while I have no intention of forcibly resisting lawful commands, I will not simply curl up into the fetal position if THEY cross the line. Simply standing still with my arms crossed demanding them to articulate why they are detaining me, or not allowing me be on my way... If they have a reason to arrest me, then so be it. But, if they have no articulable suspicion or belief that I have committed a crime, required in order to arrest or detain me, then they have no cause to even place their hands on me without the fear of at least civil liability.

[molonlabetn]

...A police officer telling you to give him a BJ is not a lawful demand...

More fuel for the fire.

39-16-602. Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search — Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process. —

(a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another.

( Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful.

© It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process.

(d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.]

So... even if a police officer commands me to give him a BJ, I am not justified in resisting that demand, even though it is un-lawful? I suppose I just have to sort it out afterwards, after the damage is done?

That's kind of how it reads, to me... That is, if you don't read the portion I have highlighted.

There's my point... the code states specifically that it is only an offence if the defendant is:

using force against the law enforcement officer

Passive non-compliance is not what this section is talking about. It is talking about forcible resistance. And I am saying, just as the code perscribes, that forcible resistance is only justified when the officer uses unnecessary force themself.

[DaveTN]

Simply standing still with my arms crossed demanding them to articulate why they are detaining me, or not allowing me be on my way...

Justifies whatever amount of force is required to subdue and disarm you in most states.

Apparently that isn’t the case in Tennessee. According to you Tennessee cops are going to enter into negotiations with you and see if they can talk you out of your gun.

[DaveTN]

So... even if a police officer commands me to give him a BJ, I am not justified in resisting that demand, even though it is un-lawful? I suppose I just have to sort it out afterwards, after the damage is done?

That is not a civil rights violation. That is criminal sexual assault by an authority figure while he is armed with a deadly weapon. That is no where close to you getting your feelings hurt because a cop is disarming you.

[molonlabetn]

Justifies whatever amount of force is required to subdue and disarm you in most states.

Apparently that isn’t the case in Tennessee. According to you Tennessee cops are going to enter into negotiations with you and see if they can talk you out of your gun.

They are going to talk to me until they decide that I'm not going to kiss their shoes, and then they tackle me. I think you're getting the point now, that, I will not be the one who initiates and escalates forceful contact.

It's pretty clear that I won't have committed a crime by not willingly handing over my gun... nothing which warrants said potential application of force.

If the police tackled and disarmed an HCP holder who had done nothing illegal, who do you think would end up being vindicated? Can the police pull over and rough-up anyone they see driving, just to go on a fishing expedition for anything which might be illegal, without some articulable reason? Driving is a 'privilege' too .

[DaveTN]

They are going to talk to me until they decide that I'm not going to kiss their shoes, and then they tackle me. I think you're getting the point now, that, I will not be the one who initiates and escalates forceful contact.

It's pretty clear that I won't have committed a crime by not willingly handing over my gun... nothing which warrants said potential application of force.

If the police tackled and disarmed an HCP holder who had done nothing illegal, who do you think would end up being vindicated? Can the police pull over and rough-up anyone they see driving, just to go on a fishing expedition for anything which might be illegal, without some articulable reason? Driving is a 'privilege' too .

Not one time have I suggest that they can do that for no reason. But I have pointed out several times that you may not know what that reason is. You seem to believe that if you have done nothing wrong Tennessee law allows you to refuse their demands; I can’t ague that except to say I find that very hard to believe.

[molonlabetn]

That is not a civil rights violation. That is criminal sexual assault by an authority figure while he is armed with a deadly weapon. That is no where close to you getting your feelings hurt because a cop is disarming you.

So, would you say that I would be within my rights to resist a police officer trying to sexually assault me?

[DaveTN]

So, would you say that I would be within my rights to resist a police officer trying to sexually assault me?

I don’t know in Tennessee; but I’m sure you do. In Illinois you would be justified in using deadly force.

[molonlabetn]

I don’t know in Tennessee; but I’m sure you do. In Illinois you would be justified in using deadly force.

What about 'assault with a deadly-weapon', then?

Where I am going with this, is, if a police officer (for example), was threatening someone with his weapon unlawfully, would that not be investigated as 'assault with a deadly-weapon'?

I realize that the determination of whether or not the act was unlawful would be ambiguous to the victim. But, should the victim have to wait until they are dead to find out the officer's intentions?

[DaveTN]

But, should the victim have to wait until they are dead to find out the officer's intentions?

No. I’m done… you’re being ridiculous and are trying to justify using deadly force against a cop doing his job. Anything I post after this won’t end well so I’ll step off and let you continue with your cop killing scenario.

[molonlabetn]

No. I’m done… you’re being ridiculous and are trying to justify using deadly force against a cop doing his job. Anything I post after this won’t end well so I’ll step off and let you continue with your cop killing scenario.

If you'll quit knee-jerking for a minute, you'd realize that it's a valid question... I'm not looking for an excuse to shoot at anybody, especially a police officer! But it does not change the fact that mis-guided authority does not trump any person's right to defend their life or well-being from harm. I don't need to justify that, I have presented what I believe along with TN code which supports it, and case-law which reinforces it. I'm trying to get past the ideology which some have towards law-enforcement, in the assumption that they are always right, with unquestionable authority.

I am merely challenging us to think for ourselves, since we are ultimately the only people responsible for our own protection, and should not allow that to be trampled on in the name of authority, in an age where individual liberty is being slowly traded away for false security.

[Guest c.a.s.]

To simplify what Mlaon is saying.

The scenario is that police officer has stepped over the line of reasonable force, thus breaking the law.

Of course, Dave, look back at the original point of this thread. "Is it legal to resist a civil rights violation?" No where in there does it state that there needs to be killing involved. It doesn;t even insimuate violence, because of passive resistance. It doesn't even ask if it's really smart to do so. That would vary on scenario. It only asks if it's legal. Molon has proven that it is. Beyond a doubt. Your arguments seem emotionaly charged, while he has kept a level head and only tried reasoning. He has even stated (more than three times now) that force would be the last thing he would attempt. You simply take all of his comments in a "cop-killing" agenda, which he does not have. Calm down, reread the thread. Sleep on it and post in the morning.

[Guest Hyaloid]

DaveTN,

I think you have accused others of not seeing both sides to an issue. You were once a LEO, right? Perhaps that is clouding your understanding of the issue at hand.

Take your emotion out of it, and use logic. Present citations to back up your assertions when applicable. Let us know HOW and WHY, not just WHAT you think. Maybe you'll win a few of us over to your side .

No one here is ADVOCATING use of force on a police officer "just doing their job". However, I think it is a healthy discussion to talk about scenarios in which there is an abuse of power, and what avenues (peaceful and forceful) citizens have to resist those abuses.

I think your opinions seem to go against the grain of some of the more vocal members here, but that is a GOOD thing.

I think Rabbi said something to this effect in another thread, that we all would probably agree on 90-95% of most issues, but it's the other parts that make it interesting (sorry, too lazy to look up Rabbi's quote). I for one, disagree with Rabbi's stance on open carry, but I respect his conclusions as his own.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Justifies whatever amount of force is required to subdue and disarm you in most states.

Apparently that isn’t the case in Tennessee. According to you Tennessee cops are going to enter into negotiations with you and see if they can talk you out of your gun.

And why is talking instead of escalating a bad thing?

[dariks]

Food for thought

TCA 39-17-1351(t) Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

[molonlabetn]

Food for thought

TCA 39-17-1351(t) Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

Yes, while this is certainly true, simple contact with an officer on the street does not constitute an 'official duty'... There has to be some suspicion of wrong-doing which prompts detainment. Otherwise LEOs could just stop and 'check the papers' of anyone they choose, without any cause. Simply possessing a firearm and/or permit is not probable-cause. And even in circumstances where the citizen is involved in a situation, there are qualifiers for disarmament which must be articulable.

[Marswolf]

TCA 39-17-1351(t) Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

Is there a problem with that? It lets an officer disarm you while he determines if you will be arrested for something. He returns the handgun if you aren't arrested and are determined not likely to harm someone when you get it back. At that point you are released from the scene. Yes, it's the officer's judgment call. That's part of what we pay them to do.

[molonlabetn]

Is there a problem with that? It lets an officer disarm you while he determines if you will be arrested for something. He returns the handgun if you aren't arrested and are determined not likely to harm someone when you get it back. At that point you are released from the scene. Yes, it's the officer's judgment call. That's part of what we pay them to do.

There's no problem with that at all. Cops should be able to do their job effectively, and remove hazards from a crime-scene. I just wanted to make it clear that this provision doesn't give law-enforcement free reign to confiscate a lawfully carried firearm for no reason at all.