Open carrier wins $23,500 settlement from Colorado Springs

[rotor]

I am not a LEO but from what I see in every aspect of government is that nobody takes the blame for wasting the taxpayers money. I don't know if these police were reprimanded or not but knowing how the civil service system works and how hard it is to do anything when a civil servant screws up I am not going to assume that they were reprimanded. I think the article said they took a 4 month review of the incident. Really? If I had a suit brought against me because of something like this that was so obvious I would have fired the employee that caused it by his/her ignorance. I doubt that any heads went to the chopping block.

[cb1000rider]

Now I'm curious.

1. At what point must I obey an officer's commands?

Anyways when he gives you a lawful command.

2. If a LEO tells me to come over to him and I don't, am I breaking the law by not obeying?

It depends. Was he "asking" or "commanding"? You get to decide based on the circumstances which he/she is doing and you might get it wrong.
If he's giving you a lawful order for a reason - you can be arrest for not obeying.

In principle, I'm generally going to comply and always assume there is a lawful reason or that we're just having a "person to person" encounter until I figure out that such isn't the case.

[cb1000rider]

My point was merely that even if you KNOW the officers are dead wrong on the law (which this guy seemed to think he did even though he didn't elaborate the correct reasons himself), being as belligerent as he was is probably not the best course of action. If both you and the officer(s) believe unequivocally that you're right, guess who wins on the street? You can only win the argument in the courtroom, you'll never win it on the street.

Being belligerent immediately justifies a disturbing the peace or perhaps obstruction charge. Immediately.
In this case, they just charged him with the wrong thing, that's all. Charge him with disturbing the peace and it becomes a non-issue, other than trampling all over than 2nd amendment.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'd be rather surprised if not one of seven officers really didn't know about a change in Colorado law that occurred 10 years prior to the arrest. However, it does appear that this incident was caused by an outdated Ops Manual as well as a belligerent subject. I'm sure everyone involved wishes this incident had not happened, but in hindsight it came out well. No one was injured or killed, the arrest was groundless meaning it was not a good faith arrest, the victim sued and received a damage award. This is about as good as it can get when an unlawful, bad faith arrest is made and a citizen suffers as a result.

In Texas, one cannot use force to resist an unlawful arrest or search, unless before the subject offers any resistance, the officer uses excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The rationale for this law is to prevent injury to anyone. The city or county can then respond in damages.

To head off an expected response, I'm not saying it's okay to make an unlawful arrest; I'm saying it better to recover money damages than to get injured or killed, or to injure or kill a LEO.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

. . .

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

. . .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

[Superman]

I'd be rather surprised if not one of seven officers really didn't know about a change in Colorado law that occurred 10 years prior to the arrest. However, it does appear that this incident was caused by an outdated Ops Manual as well as a belligerent subject. I'm sure everyone involved wishes this incident had not happened, but in hindsight it came out well. No one was injured or killed, the arrest was groundless meaning it was not a good faith arrest, the victim sued and received a damage award. This is about as good as it can get when an unlawful, bad faith arrest is made and a citizen suffers as a result.

In Texas, one cannot use force to resist an unlawful arrest or search, unless before the subject offers any resistance, the officer uses excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The rationale for this law is to prevent injury to anyone. The city or county can then respond in damages.

To head off an expected response, I'm not saying it's okay to make an unlawful arrest; I'm saying it better to recover money damages than to get injured or killed, or to injure or kill a LEO.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

. . .

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

. . .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

What about criminal commands by officers? Like these two instances:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1527459

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... story.html

Does Texas law cover these kinds of instances somewhere else? From what you quoted, it sounds like officers can commit crimes against citizens and citizens can't lawfully resist as long as the officer isn't using excessive force. I hope these women could have resisted under Texas law.

I'm genuinely curious, and hopeful. Thanks!

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'd be rather surprised if not one of seven officers really didn't know about a change in Colorado law that occurred 10 years prior to the arrest. However, it does appear that this incident was caused by an outdated Ops Manual as well as a belligerent subject. I'm sure everyone involved wishes this incident had not happened, but in hindsight it came out well. No one was injured or killed, the arrest was groundless meaning it was not a good faith arrest, the victim sued and received a damage award. This is about as good as it can get when an unlawful, bad faith arrest is made and a citizen suffers as a result.

In Texas, one cannot use force to resist an unlawful arrest or search, unless before the subject offers any resistance, the officer uses excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The rationale for this law is to prevent injury to anyone. The city or county can then respond in damages.

To head off an expected response, I'm not saying it's okay to make an unlawful arrest; I'm saying it better to recover money damages than to get injured or killed, or to injure or kill a LEO.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

. . .

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

. . .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

What about criminal commands by officers? Like these two instances:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1527459

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... story.html

Does Texas law cover these kinds of instances somewhere else? From what you quoted, it sounds like officers can commit crimes against citizens and citizens can't lawfully resist as long as the officer isn't using excessive force. I hope these women could have resisted under Texas law.

I'm genuinely curious, and hopeful. Thanks!

Sorry, I don't know what you are asking. Neither of the officers in the referenced articles told their victims what they were going to do. The first San Antonio victim wasn't told that she was going to be raped after he put her in cuffs and there was no arrest made in the forced porn photographing.

Chas.

[Superman]

Sorry, I don't know what you are asking. Neither of the officers in the referenced articles told their victims what they were going to do. The first San Antonio victim wasn't told that she was going to be raped after he put her in cuffs and there was no arrest made in the forced porn photographing.

Chas.

I guess I'm asking at what point is it lawful to resist an officers orders? For instance, if I was the young woman being asked by an officer to take off my clothes, I'm hoping I can resist. And then what if the officer then tries to take my clothes off to force me to comply with his order?

I'm hoping that there is something in the law that protects citizens if an officer is committing a crime. From what you quoted, it only mentions being able to resist in the case that the officer is using excessive force (via (c)(2)). I would expect (c)(2) to include wording about force being justified if the actor reasonably believed the officer (or other person) was about to commit a crime against them (i.e. sexual assault). Or is that covered somewhere else?

NOTE: And the D.C. officer was arrested. He was released and then found dead in the river.

[A-R]

I'd be rather surprised if not one of seven officers really didn't know about a change in Colorado law that occurred 10 years prior to the arrest. However, it does appear that this incident was caused by an outdated Ops Manual as well as a belligerent subject. I'm sure everyone involved wishes this incident had not happened, but in hindsight it came out well. No one was injured or killed, the arrest was groundless meaning it was not a good faith arrest, the victim sued and received a damage award. This is about as good as it can get when an unlawful, bad faith arrest is made and a citizen suffers as a result.

In Texas, one cannot use force to resist an unlawful arrest or search, unless before the subject offers any resistance, the officer uses excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The rationale for this law is to prevent injury to anyone. The city or county can then respond in damages.

To head off an expected response, I'm not saying it's okay to make an unlawful arrest; I'm saying it better to recover money damages than to get injured or killed, or to injure or kill a LEO.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

. . .

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

. . .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

THIS

As for WHEN can you resist unlawful order. Whenever you want. Just understand that - as detailed in statute above, it is not legal to resist an arrest - even an unlawful arrest - for the reasons Chas elaborated.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'd be rather surprised if not one of seven officers really didn't know about a change in Colorado law that occurred 10 years prior to the arrest. However, it does appear that this incident was caused by an outdated Ops Manual as well as a belligerent subject. I'm sure everyone involved wishes this incident had not happened, but in hindsight it came out well. No one was injured or killed, the arrest was groundless meaning it was not a good faith arrest, the victim sued and received a damage award. This is about as good as it can get when an unlawful, bad faith arrest is made and a citizen suffers as a result.

In Texas, one cannot use force to resist an unlawful arrest or search, unless before the subject offers any resistance, the officer uses excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The rationale for this law is to prevent injury to anyone. The city or county can then respond in damages.

To head off an expected response, I'm not saying it's okay to make an unlawful arrest; I'm saying it better to recover money damages than to get injured or killed, or to injure or kill a LEO.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

. . .

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

. . .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

THIS

As for WHEN can you resist unlawful order. Whenever you want. Just understand that - as detailed in statute above, it is not legal to resist an arrest - even an unlawful arrest - for the reasons Chas elaborated.

Correct. Also note that the code is dealing with an arrest, not a rape or child porn session. TPC §9.31(b) doesn't apply to those crimes.

Chas.

[suthdj]

I'd be rather surprised if not one of seven officers really didn't know about a change in Colorado law that occurred 10 years prior to the arrest. However, it does appear that this incident was caused by an outdated Ops Manual as well as a belligerent subject. I'm sure everyone involved wishes this incident had not happened, but in hindsight it came out well. No one was injured or killed, the arrest was groundless meaning it was not a good faith arrest, the victim sued and received a damage award. This is about as good as it can get when an unlawful, bad faith arrest is made and a citizen suffers as a result.

In Texas, one cannot use force to resist an unlawful arrest or search, unless before the subject offers any resistance, the officer uses excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The rationale for this law is to prevent injury to anyone. The city or county can then respond in damages.

To head off an expected response, I'm not saying it's okay to make an unlawful arrest; I'm saying it better to recover money damages than to get injured or killed, or to injure or kill a LEO.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

. . .

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

. . .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

THIS

As for WHEN can you resist unlawful order. Whenever you want. Just understand that - as detailed in statute above, it is not legal to resist an arrest - even an unlawful arrest - for the reasons Chas elaborated.

Correct. Also note that the code is dealing with an arrest, not a rape or child porn session. TPC §9.31(b) doesn't apply to those crimes.

Chas.

Just so I am clear if a LEO says I am under arrest and I know it is wrong I must still comply, If I resist it is resisting. Where as if I am told I am under arrest and I fully comply and the LEO starts using excessive force I can use force to protect myself? EG... I place hands on top of head or behind back and LEO slams me to the hood or pavement.

[jmra]

I'd be rather surprised if not one of seven officers really didn't know about a change in Colorado law that occurred 10 years prior to the arrest. However, it does appear that this incident was caused by an outdated Ops Manual as well as a belligerent subject. I'm sure everyone involved wishes this incident had not happened, but in hindsight it came out well. No one was injured or killed, the arrest was groundless meaning it was not a good faith arrest, the victim sued and received a damage award. This is about as good as it can get when an unlawful, bad faith arrest is made and a citizen suffers as a result.

In Texas, one cannot use force to resist an unlawful arrest or search, unless before the subject offers any resistance, the officer uses excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The rationale for this law is to prevent injury to anyone. The city or county can then respond in damages.

To head off an expected response, I'm not saying it's okay to make an unlawful arrest; I'm saying it better to recover money damages than to get injured or killed, or to injure or kill a LEO.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

. . .

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

. . .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

THIS

As for WHEN can you resist unlawful order. Whenever you want. Just understand that - as detailed in statute above, it is not legal to resist an arrest - even an unlawful arrest - for the reasons Chas elaborated.

Correct. Also note that the code is dealing with an arrest, not a rape or child porn session. TPC §9.31(b) doesn't apply to those crimes.

Chas.

Just so I am clear if a LEO says I am under arrest and I know it is wrong I must still comply, If I resist it is resisting. Where as if I am told I am under arrest and I fully comply and the LEO starts using excessive force I can use force to protect myself? EG... I place hands on top of head or behind back and LEO slams me to the hood or pavement.

I don't think just getting slammed on the hood would automatically justify resisting.
About the only way I would resist is if I feared for my life. If I thought he was going to kill me I would resist.

[Superman]

THIS

As for WHEN can you resist unlawful order. Whenever you want. Just understand that - as detailed in statute above, it is not legal to resist an arrest - even an unlawful arrest - for the reasons Chas elaborated.

Correct. Also note that the code is dealing with an arrest, not a rape or child porn session. TPC §9.31(b) doesn't apply to those crimes.

Chas.

Can we think outside the box a little? Please don't get hung up on the exact examples I gave. I used those simply to show the TYPE of scenarios...i.e. sexual assault. Image that the underage girl was an adult of 25 years old if that helps. The statute also says "or search," so you don't have to be under arrest. A better example would probably be the situation with those women who were cavity searched alongside the road. Are we allowed to resist sexual assault with deadly force...unless it's by a peace officer, then we have to let it happen and sue afterwards?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm being genuine with my inquiry. Also, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, sorry.

[rbwhatever1]

jmra I agree with that. Unfortunately I don't believe anyone would have much of a chance defending themselves when that point arrived.

As to the LEO's in this post. I find it absurd we have active Police Officers enforcing Law in the United States without knowing the Law and creating conflicts with Law Abiding Citizens for no reason at all. We Citizens are told "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse". This is not an isolated event to just these Colorado Springs Officers either.

People should be automatically fired for Dereliction of Duty when this happens and mandatory training needs to be initiated to go over every single Law on the books with annual testing. Fail the test? Badge and Gun are removed for retraining until one passes or gets replaced by one who can comprehend those Laws they are paid to enforce.

Too many Laws to keep up with? The State created them, the State is responsible for them. Can't pass the test? Find another profession.

[jmra]

jmra I agree with that. Unfortunately I don't believe anyone would have much of a chance defending themselves when that point arrived.

As to the LEO's in this post. I find it absurd we have active Police Officers enforcing Law in the United States without knowing the Law and creating conflicts with Law Abiding Citizens for no reason at all. We Citizens are told "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse". This is not an isolated event to just these Colorado Springs Officers either.

People should be automatically fired for Dereliction of Duty when this happens and mandatory training needs to be initiated to go over every single Law on the books with annual testing. Fail the test? Badge and Gun are removed for retraining until one passes or gets replaced by one who can comprehend those Laws they are paid to enforce.

Too many Laws to keep up with? The State created them, the State is responsible for them. Can't pass the test? Find another profession.

It would be interesting to know how long it would take someone to read through all the laws much less learn them. We need to get rid of all but about 10 of them.

[suthdj]

I'd be rather surprised if not one of seven officers really didn't know about a change in Colorado law that occurred 10 years prior to the arrest. However, it does appear that this incident was caused by an outdated Ops Manual as well as a belligerent subject. I'm sure everyone involved wishes this incident had not happened, but in hindsight it came out well. No one was injured or killed, the arrest was groundless meaning it was not a good faith arrest, the victim sued and received a damage award. This is about as good as it can get when an unlawful, bad faith arrest is made and a citizen suffers as a result.

In Texas, one cannot use force to resist an unlawful arrest or search, unless before the subject offers any resistance, the officer uses excessive force to effectuate the arrest. The rationale for this law is to prevent injury to anyone. The city or county can then respond in damages.

To head off an expected response, I'm not saying it's okay to make an unlawful arrest; I'm saying it better to recover money damages than to get injured or killed, or to injure or kill a LEO.

Chas.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

. . .

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

. . .

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

THIS

As for WHEN can you resist unlawful order. Whenever you want. Just understand that - as detailed in statute above, it is not legal to resist an arrest - even an unlawful arrest - for the reasons Chas elaborated.

Correct. Also note that the code is dealing with an arrest, not a rape or child porn session. TPC §9.31(b) doesn't apply to those crimes.

Chas.

Just so I am clear if a LEO says I am under arrest and I know it is wrong I must still comply, If I resist it is resisting. Where as if I am told I am under arrest and I fully comply and the LEO starts using excessive force I can use force to protect myself? EG... I place hands on top of head or behind back and LEO slams me to the hood or pavement.

I don't think just getting slammed on the hood would automatically justify resisting.
About the only way I would resist is if I feared for my life. If I thought he was going to kill me I would resist.

Ya, But I would suspect if you waited to the point you feared for your life it is already to late.