United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Court Affirms Citizens Have the Right to Defend Themselves Against Police Brutality
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/74360-2/
Published: Jul 10, 2017
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2017-07-11 08:32:55 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5838
Comments: 22
Newark, NJ — A court case was decided this month by an appellate court in New Jersey which affirmed that citizens are allowed to defend themselves against police brutality. The court’s decision involves the case of Darnell Reed, 33, who was beaten to a bloody pulp by officers during an arrest in 2013 in which he faced multiple charges. A jury found him not guilty on seven of the eight charges, with the only guilty charge being that of “resisting arrest.” However, the appellate court ruled last week that Reed was denied a fair trial in that instance, as the jury had not been instructed to consider whether or not Reed had that right to defend himself against police brutality. On April 1, 2013, Reed was targeted by two police officers who claim they saw him holding a brick of heroin. The officers claimed that Reed ran from them and then resisted when they attempted to bring him in. However, as the court noted, “It is likely that the jury found aspects of the testimony of the State’s witnesses to be less than credible. Given these circumstances, the evidence of guilt can hardly be characterized as overwhelming.” The two officers were identified in court records as Louis Weber and Manuel Souto. They were dressed in plainclothes and were in an unmarked car when they attempted to apprehend Reed. As NJ 1015 reports, the cops repeatedly struck Reed’s ribs and threw him to the ground. His face was left bloodied and swollen and his blood covered the ground. The appellate decision says more than 10 of his dreadlocks “were forcibly ripped from his scalp.” Reed had to be hospitalized and still suffers from pain in his rib cage. To come to their decision, the court referenced the long-standing precedent set in State v. Mulvihill, which notes: “If in effectuating the arrest or the temporary detention the officers employs excessive and unnecessary force, the citizen may respond or counter with the use of reasonable force to protect himself, and if in doing so the officer is injured no criminal offense has been committed.” As the court noted, a citizen “loses his privilege of self-defense if he knows that if he submits to the officer, the officer’s excessive use of force will cease.” However, the court explained, that self-defense instruction to the jury is required even if the defense attorney does not require it. Viewed most favorably to the defendant, the evidence supported a finding that the officers used unnecessary and excessive force against defendant, thereby providing a rational basis for a self-defense charge. Therefore, the trial court should have given the jury a self-defense charge as part of its resisting arrest instructions. Kelly, supra, 97 N.J. at 200; State v. Simms, 369 N.J. Super. 466, 472-73 (App. Div. 2004). The failure to instruct the jury that legitimate self-defense is a justification for resisting arrest where the facts reasonably could support that defense constitutes plain error. Simms, supra, 369 N.J. Super. at 473. Because the officers were found to have used excessive force and severely injured Reed, the court noted that Reed would have been justified in defending himself against his abuse. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to a self-defense charge and its omission from the jury instructions was plain error. While this case is not held as a precedent, the court’s opinion is not without merit. Self-defense is a natural right; when laws are in place that protect incompetent police by removing one’s ability to protect one’s self, simply because the aggressor has a badge and a uniform, this is a human rights violation. This ruling is also supported by an Indiana law which allows for citizens to shoot at police officers who unlawfully enter their homes. In that case, Indiana took action to “recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.” While some people may fear-monger over rulings and laws like this one, they are missing the point entirely. The point is not to create an environment in which people fight back against police. The point is to create an environment in which police don’t act in ways that make innocent citizens have to fight back. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
A reasonable ruling. And a reasonable law in Indiana. The wheel is turning.
I'm confused here. If he resisted arrested what is the officer supposed to do? I understand that the officer got out of hand once the kid decide he didn't want to be arrested but if everyone resisted arrested then the officer could no longer do his job but to those that obeyed him. This sounds ludicrous to me.
"They were dressed in plainclothes and were in an unmarked car" So you will submit to anyone who attacks you or you will deserve to be tortured and killed? What is a police state? The state where police is more feared than criminals, if you can tell the difference.
I didn't know they were plain clothed. That does make a big difference. More war on drugs issues rearing its ugly head.
Reed is a case where the defense did not request a charge of self-defense be given in the trial court and, without objection, the trial court did not give such an instruction to the jury. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court was required to give such an instruction. In determining whether such a jury charge was required, the court looked at the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant and found that such a charge was required by the trial court. Based on this, the case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial. At 2: POINT I THE FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT TO RESIST THE OFFICERS' USE OF UNLAWFUL FORCE REQUIRES REVERSAL OF HIS CONVICTIONS. (NOT RAISED BELOW). At 12-13: "[B]ecause self-defense must be charged if the evidence, viewed most favorably to the defendant, would support that justification, we focus on ' the evidence that provides a rational basis for a self-defense charge.'" Gentry, supra, 439 N.J. Super. at 63 (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 195 N.J. 165, 170 (2008)). [...] Viewed most favorably to the defendant, the evidence supported a finding that the officers used unnecessary and excessive force against defendant, thereby providing a rational basis for a self-defense charge. Therefore, the trial court should have given the jury a self-defense charge as part of its resisting arrest instructions. Kelly, supra, 97 N.J. at 200; State v. Simms, 369 N.J. Super. 466, 472-73 (App. Div. 2004). The failure to instruct the jury that legitimate self-defense is a justification for resisting arrest where the facts reasonably could support that defense constitutes plain error. Simms, supra, 369 N.J. Super. at 473. The Court noted at 11,
The court, by raising this defense sua sponte and overturning the conviction, has just fired a loud, booming shot across the bow of the police. That was the intent of this decision. Whether it will have any effect, even in the state in which it happened, remains to be seen.
What is officer employed "unlawful force"? How does he know this?
Well, the Clan is NOT going to like this! Will be interesting to hear their arguments against this ruling, and the judges. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
It's all legal fiction to overturn the case and put the police on notice that if they just beat people up, the NJ courts may throw out the convictions of the perpetrators. The decision is designed to throw doubt across the police, and cause them to consider whether or not to use force.
Ah! Fake law. Rule by men.
I do not know. The trial court made no such finding. The case was remanded because the instruction to the jury was incomplete.
All law is rule by men. And it isn't fake if it's enforced by armed force (which our laws are). Law is the opinion of the lawmaker, nothing more, nothing less.
Well.... a little more. The law is what the judicial branch says it is, regardless of what the legislators said or intended. Either way, it is imperfect men just mucking about.
Disagree. It is the opinion of the most powerful group of men, as Holmes observed. Even then it is subject to open disobedience or insurrection if it is too burdensome on the many. Even this is an oversimplification (like yours).
It was not raised sua sponte. It was raised as Point I of the appeal. For the casual reader: "Sua sponte. Of his or its own will or motion; voluntarily; without prompting or suggestion." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Ok. I didn't read the court documents, but had the impression from the information you provided that the court raised this issue themselves. Apparently not. Thanks for the correction. It's quite a bold basis for appeal, really. "Well, we didn't ask for this in the trial, but with 20/20 hindsight we made a mistake and the judge should have raised it on his own."
Powerful is difficult to define. In the USA I would say that the most powerful group of men is any five in agreement on the Supreme Court. And yet a popular President willing to defy them could do so easily, diminishing their real power to effectively zero, for a time. There's power within the established rules. There's power that is outside of the rules. And then there is the power that comes into being at the advancing edge of what is and what could be. On any given day, the guy with the gun and the badge makes the law in his local sphere. Sure, he can be challenged later, on another battlefield. But then, so can any other decision under the sun, made by anybody.
I only know of Jackson who moved the Cherokees despite the court. Trump may have defied them quietly on the temporary immigration ban. On any given day a gang of thugs can scare away the badges wiht guns and turn an area into a "no go zone". However, even the arms length transactions of the law, in court or on the street, are influenced by natural law. The above arbitrary mess still references the right to self defense, as an ethnic gang exercises a property right not only in territory, but in their cultural norms as well. Natural rights have more to do with human behavior than physics, but they have a common basis. Just as you can not pass laws against, e.g., gravity, or command people to be prosperous via legislation, you can not ignore natural law when passing judgments or legislation without causing an eventual decline or outright destruction of social health.
There was also Lincoln, who systematically ignored reams of Supreme Court writs of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court had blown up its credibility with Dredd Scott and precipitated a Civil War. Lincoln undertook steps to preserve the Union, including arresting copperheads and others without trial. The Supreme Court issued decisions requiring their release, and Lincoln ignored them. Roger B. Taney at one point bitterly wrote in an opinion "...but I understand that the writ of this court no longer runs in the land." He was write. The Supreme Court had precipitated the war, and obeying its dictates would have made it harder for Lincoln to fight the war. He calculated that with all of the Democrat slave states out leaving a pro-war Republican supermajority in Congress, that there would be no effort by Congress to uphold the court against him, and he was right. So, Jackson disregarded one Supreme Court decision, but Lincoln ignored many rulings. Nobody focuses on Lincoln's example, for a whole set of complicated ideological reasons. It all comes down to power. No president has had as much power as Lincoln, because the check on President's - the opposition - had mostly seceded, leaving Lincoln's own partisans firmly in control of everything except the Supreme Court. So when Lincoln ignored the court, the court had no means to enforce anything. And were the court to try to make that a big public issue, it would have been accused of treasonous copperhead activity.
To what alleged Supreme Court decision(s) do you refer?
Alleged? “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.” - Chief Justice Taney “To state the question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” - Abraham Lincoln, in response.
Alleged? “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.” - Chief Justice Taney Yes, alleged. Not real. I am extremely familiar with the quote and where it comes from, and where it does not come from. Ex parte Merryman was not a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not in session. CJ Taney issued an opinion in chambers. Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144, 146 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9,487) (Taney, C.J., in chambers). The proceedings were held in Baltimore, the record was filed in the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, and the handwritten Opinion of CJ Taney was filed as "before the Chief Justice of the United States at Chambers." CJ Taney heard the arguments. Also present was Judge Giles of the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. The Baltimore Sun reported the following in its May 29, 1861, issue: For the casual reader, a legal definition of "in chambers" follows, taken from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.:
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: Justified (#2)
If he resisted arrested what is the officer supposed to do?
#4. To: A Pole (#3)
#5. To: Deckard, Justified, A Pole, Vicomte13 (#0)
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
A self-defense charge is required when "any evidence raising the issue of self-defense is adduced, either in the State's or the defendant's case ." State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 200 (1984). If such evidence is present," then the jury must be instructed that the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the self-defense claim does not accord with the facts; [and] acquittal is required if there remains a reasonable doubt whether the defendant acted in self-defense." Ibid; see also State v. Gentry, 439 N.J. Super. 57, 63 (App. Div. 2015) (holding that a self-defense instruction is required, even when not requested, where the evidence indicates a rational basis for instructing it).
"[I]n our State, when an officer makes an arrest, legal or illegal, it is the duty of the citizen to submit and, in the event the seizure is illegal, to seek recourse in the courts for the invasion of his right of freedom." Id. at 155-56. However, our law also authorizes a civilian's use of force in self-protection while being placed under arrest in certain limited circumstances. "If, in effectuating the arrest or the temporary detention, the officer employs excessive and unnecessary force, the citizen may respond or counter with the use of reasonable force to protect himself, and if in doing so the officer is injured no criminal offense has been committed." Id. at 156; see also N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(1)(a) (although a person may not use force to resist arrest simply because the arrest is unlawful, he or she may use force if the officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest). The citizen cannot use greater force in protecting himself from the officer's unlawful force than appears necessary under the circumstances, and he loses his privilege of self-defense if he knows that if he submits to the officer, the officer's excessive use of force will cease. Mulvihill, supra, 57 N.J. at 157.
#6. To: nolu chan (#5)
#7. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#5)
(although a person may not use force to resist arrest simply because the arrest is unlawful, he or she may use force if the officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest).
...he loses his privilege of self-defense if he knows that if he submits to the officer, the officer's excessive use of force will cease.
#8. To: Deckard (#0)
" Court Affirms Citizens Have the Right to Defend Themselves Against Police Brutality "
#9. To: Anthem (#7)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#11. To: Anthem, Vicomte13 (#7)
What is officer employed "unlawful force"?
#12. To: Anthem (#10)
Ah! Fake law. Rule by men.
#13. To: Vicomte13, Anthem (#12)
Law is the opinion of the lawmaker, nothing more, nothing less.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
The court, by raising this defense sua sponte....
#16. To: nolu chan (#15)
#17. To: Anthem (#14)
Disagree. It is the opinion of the most powerful group of men, as Holmes observed.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
#19. To: Anthem (#18)
#20. To: Vicomte13, Anthem (#19)
There was also Lincoln, who systematically ignored reams of Supreme Court writs of habeas corpus.
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
To what alleged Supreme Court decision(s) do you refer?
“Chief Justice Taney, upon taking his seat on the bench, said that he desired to state that his associate, Judge Giles, of the Circuit Court, was present with him yesterday by his invitation, because he desired to avail himself of his counsel and advice in so important a case. The writ of habeas corpus was ordered by him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, consequently Judge Giles could not act with him in the case.”
In chambers. While a common meaning of word "chambers" is room adjacent to courtroom in which judge performs the duties of his office when court is not in session, it also connotes fact that judicial action was taken when court was not in session. Thus, when judge performs judicial act while court is not in session in the matter acted upon, it is said that he acted "in chambers" whether the act was performed in the judge's chambers, the library, at his home, or elsewhere. Morris v. State, 573 P.2d 1130, 1132, 2 Kan.App.2d 34. See also In camera.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]