Resisting an Illegal Arrest: Legal Considerations and Consequences

Introduction

Are you familiar with the legal complexities surrounding the act of resisting an illegal arrest? The answer might seem straightforward at first: any act of resistance during an arrest is illegal. However, the situation becomes far more nuanced and involves fundamental principles of law and personal rights. This article will delve into the legal aspects of resisting an illegal arrest, including the consequences of such actions and the role of legal defenses.

Legal Consequences of Resisting an Illegal Arrest

It is frequently emphasized that resisting an illegal arrest is illegal, regardless of whether the arrest itself was unlawful. This principle is rooted in the legal system's structure and the principle of obedience to lawful authority. When faced with what appears to be an unlawful arrest, it is crucial to understand that any form of resistance, such as pushing, kicking, or using force, is not only illegal but can result in additional charges against you.

Your defense lawyer's role is to guide you through the legal process, advocating for your rights and challenging the legality of the arrest. However, this should not be mistaken as a call to resist; it is a procedural defense after the fact, aimed at exonerating you of any criminal charges related to the resistance. Failing to comply on the spot can lead to more substantial legal battles and may even result in your arrest being upheld as lawful.

Challenges in Resisting an Illegal Arrest

The consequences of resisting an illegal arrest can be severe. If you are successful in legally challenging the arrest, the administrative and financial costs associated with the legal process can be daunting. Furthermore, the psychological impact of being involved in a legal battle can be significant, potentially leading to long-term health issues.

The article by the Defense Lawyer underscores the advice to 'keep resisting,' but the implication is that this resistance needs to be channeled into the courtroom. Filing legal actions against the officer and their agency requires extensive legal knowledge and resources, which might not be accessible to everyone. In the context of the 'dead man's point of view,' those who resist and are killed do not have a voice to advocate for their rights.

Self-Defense Against an Unlawful Arrest

In some jurisdictions, individuals can defend themselves against an unlawful arrest by using force. This notion is often rooted in the idea that self-defense is a fundamental right, protected under certain legal frameworks. However, the use of force is a double-edged sword and should be approached with caution. Even if you have the right to defend yourself, the risks involved include potential escalation, further legal complications, and safety risks, especially given the armed nature of police forces.

It is recommended that if you are faced with what you believe may be an unlawful arrest, your best course of action is to either comply and report the incident later or, if you are a fast runner, to try to evade the arrest. Barring these options, the safest course is to comply and document the arrest for future legal action. This approach minimizes potential confrontation and reduces the likelihood of physical harm or legal repercussions.

Legal Framework and Constitutional vs. Statutory Jurisdiction

The article delves into the legal framework where cases of resisting an illegal arrest fall. Statutory jurisdiction is where modern legal systems predominantly operate, and it often bypasses or circumvents constitutional rights for the sake of procedural and financial efficiency. While constitutional law is still in place, it is often more challenging to invoke these protections effectively due to the constitutional overhaul in the 1930s.

The Case of John Bad Elk v. The U.S. (1903) is one of the notable precedents highlighting the right to use force, even deadly force, to protect constitutional rights against law enforcement. This case underscores the historical complexity of balancing legal rights against the reality of statutory jurisdiction.

Understanding the distinction between statutory and constitutional jurisdiction is crucial for individuals navigating the legal system. Statutory jurisdiction often creates a form of 'legalized fraud' that profits from the circumvention of constitutional rights. Awareness of these legal differences is essential for anyone looking to protect their fundamental rights.

The old Roman maxim, 'Let him who would be deceived be deceived.' (Leti qui vult duceri, ducatur)

effectively encapsulates the systemic complexity and the need for public education in today's legal landscape. It reminds us that systemic changes are necessary to ensure that everyone's rights are respected and that the legal system operates in a manner that aligns with fundamental principles rather than financial gain.

Conclusion

Resisting an illegal arrest is fraught with legal and personal risks. While the act of resistance may seem like a straightforward way to assert your rights, the realities of the legal system and the potential consequences can make this path perilous. Understanding the nuances of statutory and constitutional jurisdiction, as well as the historical context of legal precedents, is essential for anyone facing such a situation. Consulting with a legal professional to navigate the complexities of your case is crucial, as they can provide the guidance necessary to protect your rights and uphold your dignity.