"Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death.
There is no appeal and execution is carried out automatically without pity."
Robert A. Heinlein
You provoke people. You are mean and mistake that as being clever. I appreciate the members who help posters and I am sure it gets frustrating to answer the same questions over and over. I don't believe any of you are paid for your participation. If you have lost your ability to empathize or your desire to help trash like me maybe take a break and step back. I know I could not do what Carl does day in and day out with that kind of patience. I apologize for my profanity.
It is a lawful arrest. It escalates to excessive force. The arrestee then has a right to overcome excessive force until the police officer stops using excessive force? Then the arrestee must stop using any force to resist. Does it make a difference that the arrest is lawful once the officer breaks the law by using excessive force? This is not going to work in the real world, I know. That's why police who have a short temper, who use too much force, the first time, should be fired-a zero-tolerance policy. There is too much at stake. We must submit to police whether or not the arrest is lawful. I understand that. That is not the time to argue. We will have a chance down the road. But not so when a cop has lost it and is physically assaulting us.
The problem with this hypothetical is that if the person arrested is already UNDER ARREST, chances are he is immobilized to the point where he is unable to resist an assault effectively. What you describe is an act to resist arrest as the arrest generally requires that the submission to the authority already have occurred.
Sometimes that happens. It depends on what the nature of that force is, and why. It's impossible to create a fair and equitable policy that is so simple as to say that too much force would equal termination.That's why police who have a short temper, who use too much force, the first time, should be fired-a zero-tolerance policy.
Resisting arrest has potential consequences. Being right is of little consequence if you are dead or gravely injured. The best tactic tends to be to submit and handle the matter later on in court.
Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher
Walk humbly with your God
-- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
I would think there is a very simple answer to this question. DON'T resist, don't call the cop a pig and tell him/her how you are going to kill them or their family, and don't be uncooperative.
sorry but calling a cop a pig, although I do not subscribe to such an action, is a Constitutional right. If you want to give up your rights, be my guest but I would prefer not to.
also, if the cop is actually acting illegally, a citizen has a right to defend themselves. The problem is determining if the cop is simply extremely harsh or acting illegally.
The law is not going to be looking kindly on a resister ... hope you have some hard evidence supporting your legal conclusion that the force was excessive.
And "reasonable force" is determined on a case-by-case basis.