Lv 2528 points


Favorite Answers26%
  • Is it against the law to take pictures of the police?

    What can an officer legally do if you take their picture, but they demand you delete it or order you to give them your camera?

    11 AnswersLaw Enforcement & Police10 years ago
  • Taking Pictures of the Police?

    Can I take pictures or videotape of the police? Is it against the law? Can the police snatch my camera from my hands and delete any pictures I took of them if I refuse to give them the camera or refuse to delete any pictures, even if I'm standing at a reasonable distance and/or out of the way?

    1 AnswerLaw Enforcement & Police10 years ago
  • Why do people think they have to submit to bad cops. That you are not allowed to resist arrests that are false?

    Court Cases establising your right and DUTY to resist unlawful police.

    A citizen's right to resist UNLAWFUL arrest. (Court Rulings)

    Posted November 22nd, 2008 by Citizen Joe

    On August 15th, 2008 Citizen Joe says:

    As citizens of the United States of America, we must understand that we are the rulers of our own lives and each of us holds sovereign rights over our bodies and liberties.

    We must also understand that when police officers or government officials break the law they no longer hold any authority what so ever. In the instant they act outside the law and under color of authority or jurisdiction we have a right and duty to resist.

    Below are some very interesting court decisions and legal precedents in which honorable judges and juries have found the right to resist with mortal force is the right of all free citizens.

    All law enforcement and government officials should be made of aware of these facts. Maybe that will raise some eyebrows instead of billy clubs and ltasers.


    "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,

    2 AnswersLaw & Ethics1 decade ago
  • Hard Question about Indiana Curfew?

    This is a PDF to a Preliminary Injuction on enforcing Curfew laws in Indiana. It was issued back in 2004. Not it was my understanding that it was ruled unconstitutional. From what I can tell the preliminary injuction prohibits any law enforcement officer in Indiana from enforcing curfew laws. I'm 27 years old and was riding my bike home from work and was literally 2 houses away from my house and was detained. I asked why I was being detained and she said there's a curfew law in the city and that I thought I looked young. (this was at 4 am) It was dark. I was getting ready to go into my alley where I have to go in order to get into my house and to make sure of any possible traffic I turned my head and looked behind me before making a turn, there was a car 2 1/2 blocks away and I couldn't tell it was a cop car. I realize I have enough time to turn and do so. Anyways to make this short, they thought I looked young from 2 1/2 blocks away in the dark? Likely story. If anyone knows a little bit more about preliminary injunctions or the Indiana Curfew laws being struck down as unconstitutional, please respond. I don't like being hassled with the sorry excuse about curfew violations when i'm 27 years old.

    2 AnswersLaw & Ethics1 decade ago