Adam Kokesh arrested

vant0037

unsung wrote:

I just not see how one can be arrested solely based on resisting arrest. I can see how the charge would be in addition to the actual charge that he would have been arrested for. If I'm standing on a sidewalk minding my own business, not harming anyone, and a cop tries to tackle me are you telling me that I can't defend myself?

I'm not saying that at all.

If an officer has probable cause to arrest you for a specific crime, and you resist that arrest, you can be charged with that crime AND the crime of resisting arrest (assuming resisting arrest is a crime in that given jurisdiction). That does NOT mean you WILL be charged for both crimes. A prosecutor, in his or her discretion, might decide that the underlying charge, for which the officer was going to arrest you, is not appropriate, supported by the evidence etc, and instead might decide to proceed with the charge of resisting arrest alone. Many prosecutors do not go forward, as another poster suggested, but many do, and that depends on the facts of the case, the prosecutor etc.

Now, does that mean there was another charge in this case that the officer was arresting this guy on? I have no clue, and neither do you. But that's what conspiracy theories are for, right?

I am telling you simply that it is a fact that you can be charged and arrested for resisting arrest, without necessarily facing charges on another crime. That explanation might not fit into a conspiracy theory, but it's a fact. Whether or not Mr. Kokesh is guilty of that charge is a question for the courts.

the wolf

unsung wrote:

the wolf wrote:

unsung wrote:

He has a detention hearing set for Thursday, the reason is that he won't answer if he owns firearms or not.

These people make me sick. What's happening to this country?

Who makes you sick? They guy who fought for our country but now opposes our involvment in Iraq, or the bastards that are railroading him?

The ones "railroading" him.

That's what I thought, just making sure.

I agree it is pretty disgusting. Sad really.

unsung

vant0037 wrote:

unsung wrote:

I just not see how one can be arrested solely based on resisting arrest. I can see how the charge would be in addition to the actual charge that he would have been arrested for. If I'm standing on a sidewalk minding my own business, not harming anyone, and a cop tries to tackle me are you telling me that I can't defend myself?

I'm not saying that at all.

If an officer has probable cause to arrest you for a specific crime, and you resist that arrest, you can be charged with that crime AND the crime of resisting arrest (assuming resisting arrest is a crime in that given jurisdiction). That does NOT mean you WILL be charged for both crimes. A prosecutor, in his or her discretion, might decide that the underlying charge, for which the officer was going to arrest you, is not appropriate, supported by the evidence etc, and instead might decide to proceed with the charge of resisting arrest alone. Many prosecutors do not go forward, as another poster suggested, but many do, and that depends on the facts of the case, the prosecutor etc.

Now, does that mean there was another charge in this case that the officer was arresting this guy on? I have no clue, and neither do you. But that's what conspiracy theories are for, right?

I am telling you simply that it is a fact that you can be charged and arrested for resisting arrest, without necessarily facing charges on another crime. That explanation might not fit into a conspiracy theory, but it's a fact. Whether or not Mr. Kokesh is guilty of that charge is a question for the courts.

That's my point. I want to know what the probable cause was. Resisting arrest is not probable cause, there has to be an arrest attempt for the resist part to happen. I want to know what had happened that the police felt the need to arrest him.

Jason P

unsung wrote:

If a cop tries tackling me for no reason other than I'm speaking into a microphone (peacefully and without inciting violence) and I defend myself then how exactly is that resisting arrest? Police don't have the right to assault someone that is not committing a crime.

I saw that happen to a friend of mine in high school. If a cop grabs you and all you do is try to turn around and try to figure out what is going on, they can beat the shit out of you for resisting arrest.

:x

That's why whenever a famous person makes the news for resisting arrest, I always give that person the benefit of doubt.

puremagic

unsung wrote:

If a cop tries tackling me for no reason other than I'm speaking into a microphone (peacefully and without inciting violence) and I defend myself then how exactly is that resisting arrest? Police don't have the right to assault someone that is not committing a crime.

Wow, are you out of touch. You can be charged with resisting arrest for ‘talking back’ to an officer. Depending on your tone and gesters, you can be shot/tased because an officer can say that they feared for their life.

vant0037

unsung wrote:

That's my point. I want to know what the probable cause was. Resisting arrest is not probable cause, there has to be an arrest attempt for the resist part to happen. I want to know what had happened that the police felt the need to arrest him.

If you're asking me if I know what the probable cause for the arrest on another charge was, I don't know. Neither do you. Very few people do, besides that cop and perhaps a prosecutor who will make charging decisions. That's why its pretty ridiculous to start speculating that there was no probable cause and that this is an unjustified arrest...especially given Mr. Kokesh's recent history. You might look at that recent history and say it's precisely why he was "targeted." Where's the evidence that he was targeted then? Others might look at that recent history and speculate that perhaps there was something legitimate the cops wanted him on. Drugs maybe? I don't know.

You made an incorrect statement about the law; I corrected you on it. I'm not here to argue about whether the arrest was justified or what the facts are. I'm merely pointing out that if you don't know the law, don't argue it incorrectly as support for a conspiracy theory you can't prove.

unsung

I'm not supporting any conspiracy theory, so really please drop that.

I have said that you need probable cause to arrest someone and in order to actually resist arrest some action has to have taken place in order to resist.

My entire point was that you can't resist arrest if no arrest was taking place, therefore that can't be the initiating arrestable offense.

Or are you going to tell me I'm wrong again and supporting some wild conspiracy theory?

the wolf

unsung wrote:

I'm not supporting any conspiracy theory, so really please drop that.

I have said that you need probable cause to arrest someone and in order to actually resist arrest some action has to have taken place in order to resist.

My entire point was that you can't resist arrest if no arrest was taking place, therefore that can't be the initiating arrestable offense.

Or are you going to tell me I'm wrong again and supporting some wild conspiracy theory?

I agree with you. The initial charge can't be "resisting arrest". That's not even possible.

unsung

puremagic wrote:

unsung wrote:

If a cop tries tackling me for no reason other than I'm speaking into a microphone (peacefully and without inciting violence) and I defend myself then how exactly is that resisting arrest? Police don't have the right to assault someone that is not committing a crime.

Wow, are you out of touch. You can be charged with resisting arrest for ‘talking back’ to an officer. Depending on your tone and gesters, you can be shot/tased because an officer can say that they feared for their life.

Ok, I'll not bite yet. I don't fear police. They work for me. I fear the power that they let go to their heads. Most cops I know never got invited to parties in high school so now they have to let their insecurities take over and get their power trips because of the gun and badge.

Oops, I bit.

Free

the wolf wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'm not supporting any conspiracy theory, so really please drop that.

I have said that you need probable cause to arrest someone and in order to actually resist arrest some action has to have taken place in order to resist.

My entire point was that you can't resist arrest if no arrest was taking place, therefore that can't be the initiating arrestable offense.

Or are you going to tell me I'm wrong again and supporting some wild conspiracy theory?

I agree with you. The initial charge can't be "resisting arrest". That's not even possible.

The cops have so much power, they're above the law. Don't we all know this?

vant0037

the wolf wrote:

unsung wrote:

I'm not supporting any conspiracy theory, so really please drop that.

I have said that you need probable cause to arrest someone and in order to actually resist arrest some action has to have taken place in order to resist.

My entire point was that you can't resist arrest if no arrest was taking place, therefore that can't be the initiating arrestable offense.

Or are you going to tell me I'm wrong again and supporting some wild conspiracy theory?

I agree with you. The initial charge can't be "resisting arrest". That's not even possible.

NO ONE IS SAYING IT IS! Someone claimed that resisting arrest is not an "arrestable offense," which is untrue. The only reason this becomes an issue - whether Kokesh was rightfully arrested or not - is if someone here knows for certain that the police were NOT attempting to arrest him for probable cause on a different charge.

Because none of us have that information, to continue to stoke these fires (i.e. "watch the video, he didn't do anything" blah blah blah) is irresponsible conspiracy baiting. For all you know, the arresting officer did have probable cause to arrest Kokesh on a separate charge. The fact that he hasn't been formally charged with any other crime doesn't change that.

I don't know the facts, you don't know the facts, so let's stop pretending we do and at least get our understanding of the law straight.

puremagic

unsung wrote:

puremagic wrote:

unsung wrote:

If a cop tries tackling me for no reason other than I'm speaking into a microphone (peacefully and without inciting violence) and I defend myself then how exactly is that resisting arrest? Police don't have the right to assault someone that is not committing a crime.

Wow, are you out of touch. You can be charged with resisting arrest for ‘talking back’ to an officer. Depending on your tone and gesters, you can be shot/tased because an officer can say that they feared for their life.

Ok, I'll not bite yet. I don't fear police. They work for me. I fear the power that they let go to their heads. Most cops I know never got invited to parties in high school so now they have to let their insecurities take over and get their power trips because of the gun and badge.

Oops, I bit.

I’m not trying to bait you, what I stated regarding assaulting a police officer is FACT. Whether you think it’s wrong or whether you think it’s a cop playing the big man on campus, they still have the law on their side to make that arrest.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... uana-rally

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/2 ... 08644.html