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

[Guest macho999]

The nail that sticks up is the one that gets hammered down.

[molonlabetn]

Things happen fast. If a Police Officer wants you disarmed he will not hold a probable cause hearing.

Don’t do something stupid that could destroy your future or even take your life.

I didn’t read the linked threads, but to answer the originally question… No, it is not legal to resist a civil rights violation. Because until a Judge or Jury rules; there is no civil rights violation. It’s just resisting arrest and you will go to jail.

That's just it, Judges and Juries HAVE ruled on such cases in favor of a defendant's right to defend themselves from unlawful arrest. The sticky part would be knowing whether a given situation which one finds themself in, applies... which is why I amicably agree with others that such actions are only justifiable in the most extreme cases. I brought this up to promote debate (and awareness) of how to recognize them. Not to build any argument that we should actively (or passively) try to undermine lawful police activity. I know too many good men in uniform who I would trust to do the right thing, and support them in that... This is only a valid speculation of what a 'worst-case' scenario might entail, and weighing the consequences for compliance vs. resistance in those situations.

There is no question in my mind, as a matter of principle, that there is never reasonable cause to disrupt official activities which pose no harm to me/family/loved-ones, even if they are not strictly legitimate. This is not an issue which I am trying to find an excuse to 'fight the police' on... I wish their job were easier and more clear-cut, while at the same time insisting that law-abiding citizens are not oppressed for exercising their rights.

[molonlabetn]

And my point is that whether or not it is legal will be determined by a Judge later; not on the street.

Already addressed this above.

You have absolutely no right to refuse a Police Officers order to surrender your weapon; but he has every right to order you to do so. Refusal to do so can not end well.

So, if the police show up at your door one day to order you to surrender your firearms...? (assuming that you have not broken a law which requires this)

Regardless of what any of us do, the outcome would be undesirable.

I don’t know what you are suggesting the man in the case you described should have done. It doesn’t sound to me like he had much of a chance.

If he had a chance, what should he have done?

I don’t mean to make anyone mad but are these very basic things not covered in carry classes in this state? What do you guys do in these classes…. sleep?

My HCP class didn't cover an in-depth analysis of case-law regarding crimes committed by law-enforcement officers, and the best responses to them...

And no, I didn't sleep through it. That comment adds nothing to this discussion.

[The Rabbi]

I dont understand the further purpose of this thread. Molon, what are your proposing, that people should resist LEOs anywhere? And your example of police showing up at the door is NOT what has been discussed, but a completely different situation that takes place under completely different legal circumstances.

As I said, if no one is imminent danger then you do what the cop wants and hash it out in court later. The literature on resisting is what you look at AFTER the incident.

(And fwiw, I think people ought to be informed about their rights in regard to interactions with authorities. E.g. no LEO has the right to ask you for ID on the street just because.)

[molonlabetn]

I dont understand the further purpose of this thread. Molon, what are your proposing, that people should resist LEOs anywhere? And your example of police showing up at the door is NOT what has been discussed, but a completely different situation that takes place under completely different legal circumstances.

As I said, if no one is imminent danger then you do what the cop wants and hash it out in court later. The literature on resisting is what you look at AFTER the incident.

(And fwiw, I think people ought to be informed about their rights in regard to interactions with authorities. E.g. no LEO has the right to ask you for ID on the street just because.)

Since no-knock warrants were brought up, the reference to one's response in their home is just as valid as on the street. The scenario and location would be different, but the potential harm would be no less. I'm not proposing anything other than introspection and debate about the subject of reasonable and justifiable response to un-lawful arrest, wherever that might take place.

[The Rabbi]

You are being disinegenous. The original question had to do with an LEO seizing your weapon on the street. That is completely different from an LEO showing up at your house to seize your weapon.

Reasonable and justifiable responses have already been pretty well outlined: if no danger to life, then compliance followed by court action. If danger to life, then whatever is necessary.

[molonlabetn]

Disingenuous?

The question was: "Is it legal to resist a civil rights violation?"

That can happen anywhere. I concede that the primary concern is when a LEO observes handgun carry... but the subsequent mention of no-knock entry is a true and valid point which broadens the scope of where these situations might be encountered.

What is the point of Castle Doctrine, if we cannot defend ourselves equally wherever we have the right to be?

[The Rabbi]

Disingenuous?

What is the point of Castle Doctrine, if we cannot defend ourselves equally wherever we have the right to be?

And why is it called "Castle Doctrine"??

[molonlabetn]

And why is it called "Castle Doctrine"??

Derived from English Common Law which specifies one's dwelling as their 'castle'... but as it pertains specifically to TN, it defines any place where one has a legal right to be as defensible, without duty to retreat.

Perhaps "Stand Your Ground" is more befitting, and easier to understand.

[bteague2]

I'm pretty sure that like most of you if a cop just knocks on my door and when I answer it tells me to give him my gun(s). If he doesn't have a search warrant I'm closing the door on him and calling the cops. If he tries to enter he's getting shot or shot at.

Nobody in this thread is advocating resisting a lawful arrest or holding, but it is a hypothetical question of how far would you be willing to go when you are 110% sure you are in the right and 110% sure the LEO is abusing their power. And we should all remember that talking and doing are not related at all.

[DaveTN]

That's just it, Judges and Juries HAVE ruled on such cases in favor of a defendant's right to defend themselves from unlawful arrest.

Name one. Name one case where a Judge or jury ruled that a person was okay in resisting arrest by a sworn Police Officer on duty.

You can make all the arguments that you want about what you would do. I’m trying to make it clear to those people (especially the young ones) that you absolutely do not have a right to resist arrest even if you believe the arrest to be improper. Refusing to surrender your weapon to a Police Officer engaged in his duties is a criminal act. You will be arrested, convicted (probably of a felony, depending on what your resisting involves), and spend large amounts on an attorney. It’s not about your rights; it’s about whether or not you are a criminal.

The sticky part would be knowing whether a given situation which one finds themself in, applies...

There is no “sticky part†that is why the law is very clear on the point that you do not have a right to resist arrest arrest. I have seen people go to prison for resisting arrest and felony battery on a Police Officer that were not convicted of the crime they were being arrested for. Once you decided that you are not going to comply, or you are going to resist arrest, weather or not you did what you are being accused of does not matter.

which is why I amicably agree with others that such actions are only justifiable in the most extreme cases. I brought this up to promote debate (and awareness) of how to recognize them. Not to build any argument that we should actively (or passively) try to undermine lawful police activity.

And I am responding because I hate to see innocent people go to jail because they believed something they read on an internet forum. Tennessee does not recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right. They recognize your permit as a privilege they have given you and they can revoke it at any time. You do not have a right to argue with or physically resist an arrest.

[DaveTN]

So, if the police show up at your door one day to order you to surrender your firearms...? (assuming that you have not broken a law which requires this)

Regardless of what any of us do, the outcome would be undesirable.

I am going to ask them what weapons they want and I will turn them over. What else can I do, get in an armed encounter with the cops? I will only end up dead or in prison. You are asking about something that is not going to happen. Why are you trying to make cops the enemy?

My HCP class didn't cover an in-depth analysis of case-law regarding crimes committed by law-enforcement officers, and the best responses to them...

If a cop is committing a criminal act; one that a jury would consider to be a criminal act, not you deciding that you think your rights are being violated; you do what you have to do.

If he had a chance, what should he have done?

You are asking me what someone should do if they are having an armed robbery committed against them? The way you are presenting this scenario the guy had no chance. He was dead whether it was a cop or a thug. Life isn’t always fair and the good guys don’t always win.

And no, I didn't sleep through it. That comment adds nothing to this discussion.

My point is that if you attended a carry class you should know the answer to very, very basic legal questions about carrying a firearm.

[DaveTN]

Nobody in this thread is advocating resisting a lawful arrest or holding, but it is a hypothetical question of how far would you be willing to go when you are 110% sure you are in the right and 110% sure the LEO is abusing their power. And we should all remember that talking and doing are not related at all.

You have recourse if you feel that a Police Officer is abusing his power. Deadly force is not part of that recourse.

[The Rabbi]

You have recourse if you feel that a Police Officer is abusing his power. Deadly force is not part of that recourse.

Unless your life is under threat of course.

[molonlabetn]

Name one. Name one case where a Judge or jury ruled that a person was okay in resisting arrest by a sworn Police Officer on duty.

You can make all the arguments that you want about what you would do. I’m trying to make it clear to those people (especially the young ones) that you absolutely do not have a right to resist arrest even if you believe the arrest to be improper. Refusing to surrender your weapon to a Police Officer engaged in his duties is a criminal act. You will be arrested, convicted (probably of a felony, depending on what your resisting involves), and spend large amounts on an attorney. It’s not about your rights; it’s about whether or not you are a criminal.

There is no “sticky part” that is why the law is very clear on the point that you do not have a right to resist arrest arrest. I have seen people go to prison for resisting arrest and felony battery on a Police Officer that were not convicted of the crime they were being arrested for. Once you decided that you are not going to comply, or you are going to resist arrest, weather or not you did what you are being accused of does not matter.

And I am responding because I hate to see innocent people go to jail because they believed something they read on an internet forum. Tennessee does not recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right. They recognize your permit as a privilege they have given you and they can revoke it at any time. You do not have a right to argue with or physically resist an arrest.

You obviously don't read all of my posts, or you would have followed a link that I posted earlier on to this: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Here is the text:

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has 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. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus 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.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

Additionally, from the most recent TN Castle Doctrine Law Summary:

Under this bill, the threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless the person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless the law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt, and the person using force 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.

You are wrong, sir, and that is why I have responded yet again. Please check your facts before posting false information (which you accuse me of doing, though you have not cited your assertions towards the illegality of resisting un-lawful arrest... no surprise... you can't, because the truth is contrary to your assertion).

Another thing. Having a permit (a 'priviledge', as you say), has nothing to do with the seperate issue of resisting false arrest.

[molonlabetn]

Unless your life is under threat of course.

Yes, that is what I am getting at. I'm glad that we can agree about that.

[DaveTN]

This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right.

You are wrong, sir, and that is why I have responded yet again. Please check your facts before posting false information (which you accuse me of doing, though you have not cited your assertions towards the illegality of resisting un-lawful arrest... no surprise... you can't, because the truth is contrary to your assertion).

Can you not understand what you are posting?

Give me an example of where you think the courts will give you a pass on killing a cop doing his job.

We were talking about you refusing to surrender your weapon. You posed a question about someone having a gun pointed at them by a cop until be determines what their intensions are. You then posted the question “Is it legal to resist a civil rights violation?"

I stand by answer…. A cop can disarm you at his discretion, doing so is not a civil rights violation, and even if it was you do not have a right to answer with deadly force.

Sorry man, but I’m a former cop and I find the fact that you think its okay to kill a cop because you are clueless about the law appalling.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Can you not understand what you are posting?

Give me an example of where you think the courts will give you a pass on killing a cop doing his job.

We were talking about you refusing to surrender your weapon. You posed a question about someone having a gun pointed at them by a cop until be determines what their intensions are. You then posted the question “Is it legal to resist a civil rights violation?"

I stand by answer…. A cop can disarm you at his discretion, doing so is not a civil rights violation, and even if it was you do not have a right to answer with deadly force.

Sorry man, but I’m a former cop and I find the fact that you think its okay to kill a cop because you are clueless about the law appalling.

I think molonlabe was investigating where everyone felt their personal "line in the sand" was with regards to an ever more aggressive and militarized police force, and the potential inevitability of a police state.

I DON'T think he was advocating blatant provocation and dissent with everyone's next encounter with an officer.

(molonlabe is perfectly able to defend himself, so don't let me put words into his mouth either )

At some point in our history, it would have been unimaginable to kill one of the King's soldiers too, but luckily for us there were a few brave "rebels" that knew where their line in the sand was, so to speak.

Just because cops can, and very well might, disarm you "at their discretion", does not mean it is NOT a civil rights violation. Just depends what your view of the Constitution is. Remember, the Constitution does not GRANT us rights, it recognizes them, and limits the power of the government so that our INDIVIDUAL rights are not abused. Governments cannot abuse the rights of individuals without the power of its own arms, be it the military or the police.

Are we at that point in my mind? No. Would a policeman be able to disarm me? Yes, I would willingly give over my firearm (the ones they know about ), even if the order were unlawful.

When do we, as citizens, have the right to disarm our police? Surely you do not believe they are above reproach.

We all know there are crooked people in all walks of life. Are MOST cops good, honest, and hard working. You bet. That doesn't help if YOU are the unlucky one who gets a chance encounter with an abusive power monger either.

--edited to fix spelling errors--

[molonlabetn]

Can you not understand what you are posting?

Give me an example of where you think the courts will give you a pass on killing a cop doing his job.

We were talking about you refusing to surrender your weapon. You posed a question about someone having a gun pointed at them by a cop until be determines what their intensions are. You then posted the question “Is it legal to resist a civil rights violation?"

I stand by answer…. A cop can disarm you at his discretion, doing so is not a civil rights violation, and even if it was you do not have a right to answer with deadly force.

Sorry man, but I’m a former cop and I find the fact that you think its okay to kill a cop because you are clueless about the law appalling.

That's exactly the point, when the cops are 'doing their job' within the constraints of the law, there is no need or justification to resist. I have never tried to argue that there is any... Neither have I advocated 'killing a cop' over simple, temporary disarmament ... I advocate resisting unlawful arrest with equal force, as outlined in federal and state law. Hyaloid's response is parallel to my own thoughts on this.

Where do you get that disarming a law-abiding citizen for no reason is not a civil-rights violation? Given the appropriate circumstances, when the police officer is doing his job and can articulate why that entails disarming me, I would comply without hesitation (and I've said that before several times). But, if I have broken no law, there is no requirement that I surrender my weapon. And, police may not arrest a person solely because they have a firearm (see TN AG opinion # 05-154)

2. As set forth in part 1, above, the holder of a handgun carry permit may lawfully carry his

or her handgun both openly and concealed.3 Therefore, a permit holder should not be subject to

arrest solely because the handgun is being carried openly. There is nothing, however, in any of the

statutes cited in part 1 that would prohibit the arrest of a handgun permit holder for other crimes.4

And, if I non-violently refuse to be disarmed, there is no cause to arrest me for 'resisting arrest' (see AG opinion # 00-147)

QUESTION

Whether an individual who intentionally but passively refuses to obey a law enforcement officer’s

reasonable, lawful command commits an offense under Tennessee law?

-----

OPINION

No, an individual who intentionally but passively refuses to obey a law enforcement officer’s

reasonable, lawful command does not commit an offense under Tennessee law because force is a necessary

element of resisting arrest.

Violence is only an option if undue force is used upon me. Be careful who you accuse of being 'clueless' on the law, sir.

[Guest Hyaloid]

That's just it, Judges and Juries HAVE ruled on such cases in favor of a defendant's right to defend themselves from unlawful arrest. The sticky part would be knowing whether a given situation which one finds themself in, applies... which is why I amicably agree with others that such actions are only justifiable in the most extreme cases. I brought this up to promote debate (and awareness) of how to recognize them. Not to build any argument that we should actively (or passively) try to undermine lawful police activity. I know too many good men in uniform who I would trust to do the right thing, and support them in that... This is only a valid speculation of what a 'worst-case' scenario might entail, and weighing the consequences for compliance vs. resistance in those situations.

There is no question in my mind, as a matter of principle, that there is never reasonable cause to disrupt official activities which pose no harm to me/family/loved-ones, even if they are not strictly legitimate. This is not an issue which I am trying to find an excuse to 'fight the police' on... I wish their job were easier and more clear-cut, while at the same time insisting that law-abiding citizens are not oppressed for exercising their rights.

**bold added by me for emphasis**

Just in case some of you folks missed this post, I though molonlabe spelled out his intentions very well here.

Debate is a GOOD thing, and just because we don't all agree does not mean we need to stoop to personal accusations and emotion-based attacks (those are sure signs you are losing the debate btw).

I would humbly submit, that we attempt to discuss without throwing barbs at each other, we ARE all on the same side in the grand scheme of things. I think molonlabe has brought up a contentious point of discussion, but an extremely valid one. He has brought about links and statutes and legal opinion to back up his assertions, and help us understand HOW he arrived at his point of view. Sometimes, the HOW is more important than the WHY.

That's not to say that other points of view are not equally valid, but help us understand the HOW behind your reasoning. Remember, also, it is the tree that bends that survives the storm, don't be so unbending that it clouds reason.

Or, as our mommas used to say, "If you don't have anything nice to say...."

[The Rabbi]

And, if I non-violently refuse to be disarmed, there is no cause to arrest me for 'resisting arrest' (see AG opinion # 00-147)

And what is going to happen if the cop asks you for your weapon and you "non-violently refuse"? Is he just going to walk away? Shake your hand? No, he will arrest you. It might be unlawful and all but he will arrest you just the same.

[molonlabetn]

And what is going to happen if the cop asks you for your weapon and you "non-violently refuse"? Is he just going to walk away? Shake your hand? No, he will arrest you. It might be unlawful and all but he will arrest you just the same.

Here's the thing though, if he has no reason to arrest me before he requests me to disarm, and I non-violently refuse, he still has no lawful reason to arrest me. If he chooses to arrest me, unlawfully, then he will unquestionably be compelled to use greater force than necessary to do so, since I have passively resisted thus far. Either way, the law is in my favor. I would not break the law to remain out of custody, but I wouldn't need to if the arrest was unlawful, to begin with. As I've stated before, most cases will not be worth taking 'all the way' right there on the street, but my case would be solid for legal action afterwards.

I'm not looking for this to happen, but I'm confident that a firm, lawful, response must be upheld once that line is breached by the officer.

[DaveTN]

Here's the thing though, if he has no reason to arrest me before he requests me to disarm, and I non-violently refuse, he still has no lawful reason to arrest me. If he chooses to arrest me, unlawfully, then he will unquestionably be compelled to use greater force than necessary to do so, since I have passively resisted thus far. Either way, the law is in my favor. I would not break the law to remain out of custody, but I wouldn't need to if the arrest was unlawful, to begin with. As I've stated before, most cases will not be worth taking 'all the way' right there on the street, but my case would be solid for legal action afterwards.

I'm not looking for this to happen, but I'm confident that a firm, lawful, response must be upheld once that line is breached by the officer.

Sue the cop, sue the Police department, sue the state and anyone else you want to name; a civil rights violation does not justify the use of deadly force.

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.

Submit…. Let the cops check you out and everything is fine. The cop goes his way and you can make a bee like to your attorney; no harm no foul.

[Guest macho999]

Guys bad arrests happen, trust me. You argue your cause in court, not out on the street. Cops are not judges or juries. If a night at the county motel eating a chicken fried steak dinner is the worst thing that ever happens to you then you're doing pretty good.

Do not resist arrest. Once you do that you're getting arrested for resisting arrest. It's a catch-22 you don't want to be a part of.

[molonlabetn]

Sue the cop, sue the Police department, sue the state and anyone else you want to name; a civil rights violation does not justify the use of deadly force.

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.

Submit…. Let the cops check you out and everything is fine. The cop goes his way and you can make a bee like to your attorney; no harm no foul.

I'll certainly do all of those things... after making sure that my life is no longer in harm's way.

I don't think you're hearing me, or at least, you're responding to different issues than I have presented.

What do you think a 'civil rights violation' consists of? It can be many things, I'm not talking about matters in which my life or liberty are not threatened. But, attempting to deprive me of my life is certainly infringement of my rights, don't you think?. Should I allow that? The law clearly states that I don't have to.

If a cop has his weapon pointed at me, it had better be for a good reason. I have already stated, merely, that I would not be disarmed willingly, but that I will passively resist. That forces the LEO to weigh whether using escalated force is justified to disarm me. It would not be.

If a situation is escalated to the realm of 'deadly force', it will be by the LEO... not me. Passive resistance is not illegal, especially when no other laws have been broken. It is not my fault or affair if I am mistaken for the suspect of a crime, why is that my problem? Because you would shoot me if I don't fawn before you?

Give me a break...

I wouldn't use force against a cop for anything less than him escalating un-lawful deadly force against me.

Tell me, should I allow a cop to kill me because he is wrong, mistaken, or negligent in his duties? Would you?