TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:

Katygunnut wrote:I have a hard time believing that it could be legal to arrest someone when there is no suspicion that they may have committed a crime, but the officer just wrongly believes that the lawful behavior they are engaged in is in fact illegal.

How can you say that:

1. "there is no suspicion that they may have committed a crime"

And then in the same breath say:

2. "the officer just wrongly believes that the lawful behavior they are engaged in is in fact illegal"

So there's no suspicion of a crime on 1 hand - but it's illegal behavior on the other???

You can't have it both ways - and my point is that the officer did believe that it was illegal behavior, hence the arrest. It doesn't mean that the arrest was correct - far from it - but it doesn't make it an illegal or unlawful arrest.

Katygunnut wrote:It is indeed a scary world we live in if the police can in fact "legally" arrest someone because they don't like that person's behavior, even though the behavior in question is clearly legal.

You're assuming that the officer knew that the behavior was legal - but decided to arrest them anyway. You know it's legal to OC there, I know it's legal - but apparently the cop didn't, or maybe he even did. Welcome to the real world - it happens, as we've seen many times by harassment of OC folks. Why do you think I posted the story in the first place?

If I was arrested for OC where it was legal, I would darned right be upset - and if it was a case where the officer just plain didn't know that it's legal, I would be hollering at his captain to get the ignorant little twerp retrained. However - if I somehow found out that he did know that it was legal and he decided to deprive me of my rights "under color of law", that's a felony and you can be darned sure that it would be taken a heck of a lot further than that.

And once again - you cannot shoot a cop and claim self-defence just because you thought his arresting you was wrong - but feel free to try it and we'll talk again in 50 years.

First off, I'm not advocating shooting a cop for anything remotely close to what we are discussing here.

Secondly, I think you are placing way more importance than I would on whether these cops were in fact ignorant of this law. They should be held to a much higher standard in this area than an average person (since LEO's are after all charged with actually enforcing the law). I understand your distinction between a LEO knowingly arresting people for something that they know for a fact is not illegal versus a genuine ignorance of whether something is unlawful.

I may have some sympathy for a LEO that is not up with all of the nuances related to the laws on breeding livestock or something similar. However, knowing when and where a person can legally carry a weapon that is capable of causing death is a pretty important thing for our LEO's to understand. If we have LEO's that are genuinely ignorant on something of this magnitude, then they really don't need to keep their responsibility to arrest people in the first place.

Back to the case at hand, it sounds like this police chief, at a minimum, is not ignorant, and that he did in fact knowingly direct his officers to act in a manner that he knew to be contrary to the law. I would advocate that the appropriate actions should be taken against this individual for his willful infringement on the civil rights of the subjects which he has sworn to serve and protect. However, I would not advocate that the good people of Wisconsin start opening fire on LEO's who falsely arrest them for OC (or any other made up crimes for that matter).

AndyC wrote:Maybe it's time for a lawyer to chime in on this subject.

I think C-dub is expecting that a cop will always and only arrest a bad guy - would that it were so. In real life, cops would then never dare arrest anyone for fear of having arrested the wrong person, or for something which they honestly believe is illegal but actually isn't - as in this case.

Yes, I agree - just as with us mere civilians, ignorance of the law shouldn't be an excuse, but it ain't a perfect world.

To me an unlawful arrest is something which was done maliciously in order to deprive someone of their liberty (and whatever other reasons/intentions they might have including assault, robbery, rape, whatever). Simply making a mistake might be wrong, but it's not unlawful.

I'm not a lawyer. However, I have a hard time believing that it could be legal to arrest someone when there is no suspicion that they may have committed a crime, but the officer just wrongly believes that the lawful behavior they are engaged in is in fact illegal. This isn't a judgment call where the officer had to decide whether verbal abuse rose to the level of assault, for example. This is a black and white determination of whether it is illegal to OC in public in that particular location.

It is indeed a scary world we live in if the police can in fact "legally" arrest someone because they don't like that person's behavior, even though the behavior in question is clearly legal. I don't like people who hold the elevator for someone (personal pet peeve). Maybe I can join the police force and start "legally" arresting someone everytime I see this happen. As long as I don't use excessive force, I should be fine.

AndyC wrote:

C-dub wrote:Good morning everyone.

The problem, as I see it, is not that I think they were arresting the wrong people. They had the right people. It's just that they weren't breaking any laws. Doesn't those two circumstances make their actions unlawful?

It doesn't make them unlawful - just wrong, assuming the police genuinely (but ignorantly) believed that the people had been breaking the law. If, however, it was for harassment purposes or whatever.... different story.

C-dub wrote:However, what if they passively resisted this unlawful arrest and the police became violent with them?

It wasn't an unlawful arrest - just wrong. Now, if the police became unnecessarily violent with them ... now we're getting into unlawful to my mind.

C-dub wrote:Most of us agree that the Trooper who recently slammed a woman into a concrete wall was excessive. if she would have some how been able to fight back and either disable or kill that Trooper would she have been justified?

That would depend upon a jury's opinion of her actions; if I were in that jury, my vote would depend upon whether I could see myself doing the same thing ie the "reasonable person" test. If a trooper was on me and slamming my head into concrete in such as a way as to make me believe that his intent was to cripple or kill me - believe me, I'll be looking for a way to shove his nose up into his skull or tear out his throat with my teeth in order to survive.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what we believe or agree upon - during a trial, all that matters is what the jury believes.

If the police are arresting people for things that are not crimes, then their actions are unlawful. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for civilians, and definitely not for LEO's, so the fact that the police "thought" OC was illegal is irrelevant. What if a police officer thinks it is illegal to wear white shoes after Labor day? Can he force you against a car and put cuffs on you? After all, maybe he was sick the day they taught law at the Police Academy and he honestly believes that a whole host of perfectly legal activities are in fact illegal.

I also would not have used deadly force to resist this unlawful arrest, but I don't see any way that this arrest can in fact be lawful behavior given that no crime had even been rumored to have occurred and there was no threat to the officers or anyone else.

Ameer wrote:

Katygunnut wrote:Did I miss the part where the Federal government is suing the state of Wisconsin because their police arrest and otherwise harrass law abiding people who fail to produce "papers"? Maybe they only sue Arizona for that particular practice.

The difference is the guys in Wisconsin were not breaking the law, but illegal aliens do. That's why Obama is on their side. They remind him of his cabinet and other political appointees.

Got it. I'm still hoping to become properly "enlightened" at some point. My Neanderthal brain keeps getting in the way. It's a good thing that I have leaders like Pelosi, Reid, and of course our Dear Leader himself on hand to show me the error of my ways.

Did I miss the part where the Federal government is suing the state of Wisconsin because their police arrest and otherwise harrass law abiding people who fail to produce "papers"? Maybe they only sue Arizona for that particular practice.