• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Help me figure out if this urban legend is true...

1337m4n

Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
1337m4n
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
3,510
So I was sifting through some comments on a Youtube video of Andrew Meyer's tazing, and one of his fanbois brought up the following quote:

"“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.""

Skeptical, I scoured Google for the exact phrase "citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking". I got a whopping 43 results before running into Google's infamous line, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the X already displayed.":

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Citizens+may+resist+unlawful+arrest+to+the+point+of+taking&hl=en&start=40&sa=N

Here's why I classify this as an "urban legend": Not one of those search results is from a reliable legal site. They are all links to Youtubes or debates related to the Andrew Meyer incident, personal blogs, or think tanks. I was under the hopes that one such link might give me yet another internal link which would be the real, original source. I came across this blog:

http://ariuscollingwood.blogspot.com/2007/09/police-brutality.html

and lo and behold, it sourced the quote!

Or so I thought.

Turns out it's "source" for the "taking an arresting officer's life" quote is this page here:

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt

At first glance, it looks valid. After all, the domain is "constitution.org". So I assumed it was a genuine Constitution site. But when I realized that A) every quote expressed the same narrow-minded point of view that I was originally skeptical of, and B) the site STILL didn't provide the original source, I became even more skeptical. So I went to the main domain page:

http://www.constitution.org/

Surprise, surprise--it's a gang of rebellious Emos. Check out this quote near the bottom of the page:

We have chosen a background color of black to protest the many violations of the U.S. Constitution that have occurred and continue to occur. We urge others to join in this protest until full compliance with the U.S. Constitution is achieved.
Click to expand...

Gee, how profound.

My only remaining recourse was to search for the actual text of the case. I searched for "Plummer v. State" and got this as my first result:

http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/pdf/07280601ewn.pdf

Ahh, how refreshing it is to finally locate a genuine source. One problem: Nowhere in that entire case does it say that you can resist unlawful arrest with lethal force. If anything, the case summary seems to favor MORE police authority, not less.

I figure it's possible that I have the wrong case, so I've been searching for other "Plummer" cases and any cases discussing the issue of resisting arrest. So far I've turned up nothing, which is why I'm asking y'all to help me look.

For the time being, however, it appears that the idea that you can resist unlawful arrest with lethal force is exactly like every other belief that rebellious Emo kids hold, i.e. completely made up. Would someone care to prove me wrong?
 
1337m4n said:
Would someone care to prove me wrong?
Click to expand...


Tsk, tsk...

:p

Seriously, though, I have no doubt that this was just made up. Legalese sounds like gibberish to these kids (well, me too, honestly), so they think they can just make up laymen translations...
 
I got some info for you. What you found is apparently one of the pre-supreme court rulings.

This decision: here

It quotes the original.

Also this: http://www.audiocasefiles.com/cases/detail/case/8768/

It appears the quote is mangled a bit. The original was about arrests using excessive force, not unlawful arrests. It says that once an officer uses excessive force, a person has the right to self-defense.
 
This is why I need to pay more attention.

You can find lots of references to: "[SIZE=-1]Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308" in google, especially in books and what not, that quote the original passage.

One of the first things I noticed, upon paying closer attention, was that decision was made in 1893. The link you provided... 2006 or 7. I'm thinking it was a different case.

You can find lots of references to the original in other cases. I'm not an expert but I suspect the "Ind." means Indiana Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. Seems to me what is being quoted is a mangled version of an 1893 Indiana Supreme Court decision.
[/SIZE]
 
not a troll, I swear...

Anti-sophist said:
It appears the quote is mangled a bit. The original was about arrests using excessive force, not unlawful arrests. It says that once an officer uses excessive force, a person has the right to self-defense.
Click to expand...


So who determines excessive force? Call me cynical, but it seems like it's very rare that a court will take the word of the defendant over the word of a cop. And if a suspect does kill the cop, there's no witness on the other side, and the defendant is now on trial for murder. Hmmm....
 
I kind of take that to mean that if a cop starts whacking you with his baton when he had no probable cause to detain you, and you take it away and bash his brains out with it, you are probably within your rights of self-defense.

I do not recommend busting a cap in his head to make sure he doesn't get back up.
 
leftysergeant said:
I kind of take that to mean that if a cop starts whacking you with his baton when he had no probable cause to detain you, and you take it away and bash his brains out with it, you are probably within your rights of self-defense.

I do not recommend busting a cap in his head to make sure he doesn't get back up.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Also, while you may feel you are within your rights at the time, you need to be damned sure you can back it up when you wind up in the courtroom for it, because self-justification isn't enough. Police also have to be able to justify their use of force in all cases, and it is reviewed by the precinct for probable cause and, if necessary, investigated if there is reasonable concern of excessive use.
 
FramerDave said:
So who determines excessive force? Call me cynical, but it seems like it's very rare that a court will take the word of the defendant over the word of a cop. And if a suspect does kill the cop, there's no witness on the other side, and the defendant is now on trial for murder. Hmmm....
Click to expand...

When a cop testifies (testi-lies?) that he bashed you in the face with a club without giving a reason for having done so and claims that you assaulted him by grabbing the club to prevent him from doing it again, the judge is quite likely to say "he had the right to defend himself".

Judges can be pretty smart cookies. When you hear one say, after the cops have testified, "if the police testimony is true, the following laws cannot have been broken" just before dismissing those charges, you can bet that he knows what's going on. Especially if he's giving the cops the "how dare you come in my courtroom and pull that @#$%" look.

Just a firsthand observation from thirty years ago. ;)
 
1337m4n said:
"“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.""
Click to expand...
You might want to look at http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02170601bbs.pdf

It covers some similar case law. In Plummer, the guy was mad that the town had ordered him to trim his trees. He started walking around the town waiving a revolver and looking for town officials saying he was going to kill them. I think at some point he started walking back home, and then the marshall showed up. The marshall told Plummer to put up his gun. Plummer refused, and I'm guessing continued walking back home. The marshall hit Plummer in the head with his club from the back and fired his revolver at Plummer. Plummer was able to recover his revolver and return fire, killing the marshall. Apparently it was legal at the time in Indiana to walk around streets waiving a revolver. The court basically ruled that Plummer had done nothing illegal, and, probably more importantly, that the marshall had not told Plummer that he was under arrest or used normal use of force to restrain Plummer before he charged Plummer from the back, smacked him with a club and started shooting at him.

The law does not allow a peace officer to use more force than necessary to effect an arrest, and if he does use such unnecessary force, he thereby becomes a trespasser, and an arrestee therefore may resist the arrester’s use of excessive force by the use of reasonable force to protect himself against great bodily harm or death.
Click to expand...


The marshall attacked Plummer from the back with lethal force when Plummer had committed no crime and posed no immediate threat and had not been instructed of arrest and had not been attempted to be restrained by reasonable force and had not resisted arrest. So the marshall was considered a trespasser, and Plummer had the right to defend himself and repel force with force.

Basically, this mean that if you are just minding your own business and not breaking any laws and a police officer comes up and starts hitting you or shooting at you for no reason, you have a right to defend yourself and repel force with force.

This doesn’t mean that you can kill a cop busting you on bogus charges. In, fact it does not mean that you can resist an unlawful arrest at all. Other cases sited in the above link specify that you cannot resist, even if the arrest is unlawful. In fact, if you resist arrest BEFORE the police officer has made an attempt to make a peaceable arrest, the officer can “press forward and overcome such resistance, even to the taking of the life of the person arrested, if absolutely necessary.”

So, the “urban legend” is mostly false, with a caveat of truth. In general, the Plummer case only supports a citizen resisting arrest when the person arrested has not committed any crime, has not resisted arrest, poses no immediate threat to the officer, and the officer has initiated unnecessary force prior to attempting to make a peaceable arrest.
 
Last edited:
ktesibios said:
When a cop testifies (testi-lies?) that he bashed you in the face with a club without giving a reason for having done so and claims that you assaulted him by grabbing the club to prevent him from doing it again, the judge is quite likely to say "he had the right to defend himself".

Judges can be pretty smart cookies. When you hear one say, after the cops have testified, "if the police testimony is true, the following laws cannot have been broken" just before dismissing those charges, you can bet that he knows what's going on. Especially if he's giving the cops the "how dare you come in my courtroom and pull that @#$%" look.

Just a firsthand observation from thirty years ago. ;)
Click to expand...

I can verify that with possibly similar observation from 15 years ago. :)

Oh, and I agree with DevilsAdvocate. The claim has a kernel of truth, but don't take the inference too far or it won't stand up in court. Police aren't immune (well, they're not supposed to be by law), but when on duty they are working as a representative, not an individual, so it needs to be kept in mind that the locality or the state is going to need to be convinced that the representative had sufficiently surpassed the bounds of being their representative. In cases that lead to death you're dealing with just about a snowball's chance of being able to convince a judge of necessity, since there's a fine line between resisting arrest and contesting unjust siezure (which is what this rumor seems to be covering).
 
Just looking at the case, I also suspect, if a similar incident occurred today, the outcome might be different. You have an armed person, publicly declaring their intent to kill other people. In such a situation today I suspect if you failed to comply with a police officer telling you to put down the weapon you'd be shot.

-Gumboot
 
Well, just about anything can happen in a court on any particular case. There always have been and always will be instances of lies and injustice. In the case of the orignial post, the claim that Plummer v. State supports that "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary” is simply not true. Plummer doesn't even support "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest." Citizens may NOT resist unlawful arrest by a police officer. Plummer dealt with resisting unnecessary force in a specific circumstance.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
You might want to look at http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02170601bbs.pdf

It covers some similar case law. In Plummer, the guy was mad that the town had ordered him to trim his trees. He started walking around the town waiving a revolver and looking for town officials saying he was going to kill them. I think at some point he started walking back home, and then the marshall showed up. The marshall told Plummer to put up his gun. Plummer refused, and I'm guessing continued walking back home. The marshall hit Plummer in the head with his club from the back and fired his revolver at Plummer. Plummer was able to recover his revolver and return fire, killing the marshall. Apparently it was legal at the time in Indiana to walk around streets waiving a revolver. The court basically ruled that Plummer had done nothing illegal, and, probably more importantly, that the marshall had not told Plummer that he was under arrest or used normal use of force to restrain Plummer before he charged Plummer from the back, smacked him with a club and started shooting at him.




The marshall attacked Plummer from the back with lethal force when Plummer had committed no crime and posed no immediate threat and had not been instructed of arrest and had not been attempted to be restrained by reasonable force and had not resisted arrest. So the marshall was considered a trespasser, and Plummer had the right to defend himself and repel force with force.

Basically, this mean that if you are just minding your own business and not breaking any laws and a police officer comes up and starts hitting you or shooting at you for no reason, you have a right to defend yourself and repel force with force.

This doesn’t mean that you can kill a cop busting you on bogus charges. In, fact it does not mean that you can resist an unlawful arrest at all. Other cases sited in the above link specify that you cannot resist, even if the arrest is unlawful. In fact, if you resist arrest BEFORE the police officer has made an attempt to make a peaceable arrest, the officer can “press forward and overcome such resistance, even to the taking of the life of the person arrested, if absolutely necessary.”

So, the “urban legend” is mostly false, with a caveat of truth. In general, the Plummer case only supports a citizen resisting arrest when the person arrested has not committed any crime, has not resisted arrest, poses no immediate threat to the officer, and the officer has initiated unnecessary force prior to attempting to make a peaceable arrest.
Click to expand...

As I suspected. Even the most wild urban legends tend to have at least a tiny grain of truth at the center.

So, bottom line, you can't resist arrest, but you can defend yourself if a cop is threatening your life when you didn't do anything wrong.

I guessed as much. But I wonder just who the heck originally took that to mean that you are allowed to resist any "unlawful arrest" with lethal force?

I mean, this isn't just your average myth here. Most urban legends are harmless, but this one? If people believed this, they might actually go out and...try it. It pains me to think of anyone who would propagate such a dangerous belief in order to advance their own political agenda.
 
Not really. Both excessive force and unlawful arrest are both grounds for self defense. This right is upheld by Courts. The problem often is the lack of evidence. From experience I know that if you can show evidence that a Police Officer, or anyone else, was acting unlawfully, or used illegal violence against you, you do indeed have the right to defend yourself, even to kill if you have to.

Nobody has the right to attack or arrest you without cause. Nobody.

The problem is in the evidence. Without good video of the event, you may not get justice if it a cop who is attacking you.
 
To avoid misunderstanding, if someone is threatening you with a weapon, and you are in fear for your life, or even the life of another person, you have the right to kill in self defense. This is for Americans. I don't know about other countries.

Obviously this does not apply to a lawful arrest by a Police Officer, or even a citizen, if you are the one in the wrong, having committed a felony, or you are the one threatening violence.
 
robinson said:
Not really. Both excessive force and unlawful arrest are both grounds for self defense. This right is upheld by Courts.
Click to expand...

What I'm looking for is the source, though. Do you have that?
 
1337m4n said:
I mean, this isn't just your average myth here. Most urban legends are harmless, but this one? If people believed this, they might actually go out and...try it. It pains me to think of anyone who would propagate such a dangerous belief in order to advance their own political agenda.
Click to expand...

"Might?" Ever hear of David Koresh or Ed and Elaine Brown?

Yes, this is a dangerous concept, and has been applied to the detriment of society more than once.

I would still not wish to see the laws ammended to eliminate this right of self-defense, but I would like to see it better-defined.
 
Not all rights are in a law book or a document somewhere. Many things are covered under something like the Ninth Amendment to the United States Bill of Rights. Nobody needs a law to say something like "You have the right to attack, and if need be, shoot and kill anything or anyone that is attempting to harm you or your family or you fellow citizens".

Same for the right to put out a fire, move away from danger or defend your home against any and all illegal invasions. It doesn't matter if somebody is armed or not, if they are attempting to enter your home against your will, you can defend your property. If they resist with violence, or threaten you, you can use violence. If the threat is enough that you fear for your life, you can legally kill them. I believe you are supposed to use reasonable force, just like the police are required to do, but in the end it is going to be up to a Judge and/or jury as to what is legal and allowed.

There isn't a set of law covering everything, especially when it comes to rights. Laws are more about what you can't do. I have no doubt there are many laws against harming, attacking or killing anyone, in any way. In America, by law, a common citizen actually has the right to arrest someone under certain conditions. And use violence if they resist.

Tricky business that, but it is the law.

(All opinions expressed are just that. Do not mistake this post or any other for legal advice, nor should you rely on something somebody says on the Internet as a basis for decisions, especially regarding legal matters, and this is really really important in this case. If in doubt, consult a qualified lawyer or law enforcement official before attempting anything mentioned here.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom