Is it Still Resisting arrest If Police Use Excessive Force?
If you can provide evidence that your actions were a form of self-defense, it might potentially be justifiable to resist an arrest. To substantiate this defensive argument,you must demonstrate that you had a reasonable belief the officer was using excessive force and that your reaction was necessary to prevent potential death or serious injury to yourself.
additionally, it is indeed essential to prove that you employed only the minimum force necessary to protect yourself from the threat of death or critically important bodily harm. This standard serves as an objective benchmark for a jury to assess whether a reasonable person in your position would have believed that self-defense was justified and appropriate. If your response aligns with what a rational individual would have done under similar circumstances, then it is unlikely you could be found guilty of resisting arrest.
Law enforcement officers are authorized to use force only within specific limits. These parameters primarily derive from the United States Constitution, applicable federal and state laws, and also police department policies and guidelines.The decision by an officer to apply force is always contingent upon the behaviour displayed by the individual involved; thus, officers will respond accordingly. If a civilian resists or poses any threat, an officer is permitted to escalate their use of force appropriately.
“Resisting Arrest” Covers Many Different Actions
to be classified as resisting arrest, one must disobey commands issued by law enforcement officials-such as failing to comply with instructions like placing one’s arms behind their back or refusing orders to exit a vehicle when instructed. This type of non-compliance is known as “passive resistance.” Such actions grant officers the authority needed to apply suitable levels of force for apprehension purposes. This may involve physically guiding someone’s arms behind their back for handcuffing or removing them from their vehicle.
In cases where an individual actively fights against being arrested-such as preventing an officer from securing their hands behind their back, tensing up their body, or attempting escape-they are categorized as “active resistors.”
As resistance intensifies, law enforcement may employ increased levels of force; tho, they are strictly limited by what is necessary for making the arrest. Depending on specific circumstances surrounding each incident, officers might resort to non-lethal methods such as pain compliance techniques or strikes using batons or open hands.
Only “Reasonable Force” Should Be Used
Force should only be applied when deemed reasonable and essential for ensuring apprehension based on situational specifics. For instance, if someone moves their arms defiantly against being handcuffed, striking them would not constitute permissible conduct for an officer. It should be evident that lethal measures cannot be utilized solely for apprehending someone unless there exists credible justification indicating imminent danger posed either towards themselves or others nearby.
A jury will assess whether a typical officer would have perceived threats similarly under those conditions; if they determine such beliefs were unfounded then excessive force has been unjustly applied.
In simpler terms: police should exercise restraint in employing force unless absolutely necessary and justified within context. Utilizing excessive measures beyond what reasonably ensures compliance infringes upon constitutional rights-irrespective of whether resistance was encountered during attempts at arrest.
Even if someone refuses cooperation during detainment efforts by law enforcement personnel remains legally obligated fulfill duties while adhering strictly constitutional mandates alongside relevant statutes governing use-of-force protocols established within respective departments’ regulations
The issue with simplistic statements like “If you want avoid being shot police just comply with arrest” lies in obscuring distinctions between practical advice versus legal obligations imposed upon law enforcement agencies themselves wich vary according situational contexts observed frequently where moderate civilian resistance elicits disproportionate responses involving unreasonable requests physical coercion tactics employed against them instead
In California under Penal code 148(a), individuals can face charges related resisting arrests even without actively obstructing delaying official duties performed during encounters initiated investigations conducted thereof regardless rudeness displayed uncooperative demeanor exhibited throughout process insufficient grounds establish guilt offence charged however exaggeration incidents reported could arise punitive measures taken due disrespect shown towards authority figures involved hiring experienced criminal defense attorney invaluable assistance navigating complexities associated proving innocence claims made against accused parties
Need an Attorney? CALL NOW: 213-932-8922
Yuliya Kelmansky is an Expert Attorney who has over 15 years of practice defending a variety of cases.
