Jury Finds Man Guilty of Evading Arrest After Being Mistaken for Burglar in his Own Home
• lufkindailynews.com via The AgitatorA Lufkin man convicted of resisting arrest in his own home after police mistook him for a burglar was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.
So what? You don`t really think an American in his community will do anything about it;Do You?
Juries are brain dead in the land of the free. Hope you never have to depend on one.
What a criminal freaking jury! They said he had been wronged yet they convicted him!!! WTF?
Nine cops?
They came with the mind set they were going to kick ass. The victim never had a chance.
OVER THE TOP OUT OF CONTROL JUSTUS SYSTEM.
How much more of this madness are the people going to deal with?
The power of the judge or prosecutor over the jury is in direct proportion to the jury’s ignorance.
This jury must have had their head way up their ass or was manipulated
This must have been in Indiana where it is against the law to protect your home and family.
I am sure they were told by the judge that they were ONLY deciding if he was evading police when he locked himself in the bathroom and not wheter the police had the right to do what they did or if it was a lawful arrest to begin with.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about the "resisting arrest" so-called 'crime' - it is time we get it cleared up once and for all ! DC and its media has put this LIE out over and over trying to establish a "new law" and "new power" for themselves. All past Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that an innocent person has the DUTY TO RESIST ARREST EVEN IF IT MEANS USING DEADLY FORCE ! That if a cop is killed during it that he brought it upon himself and the innocent person defending themself is not held guilty of any crime.
It is every citizen's duty to resist false arrest There is no such crime as "resisting arrest." This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police (state).The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen's right, but his duty ! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen's attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.
Here's a short collection of relevant court rulings on false arrest and resisting arrest:
"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). And on the issue of actually killing an arresting officer in self defense:
"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.