Is there any laws that procet you if a physical confrontation occurs during a wrongful arrests?

Question

Lets say a situation occurs were a cop is being an asshole and abuses his authority, hits your homie with a taser and begings shocking him and kicking him and stuff yelling a bunch of false *** charges. In the heat of the moment while your boi is being jumped by the police you punch one in his jaw and then you get jumped. are there any laws were you would not be held resonsible for fighting back.? im looking for maybe supreme court cases with simular situations.

Answer 1

In many states, there is no justification defense to resisting an arrest or interfering with an arrest. The basic reasoning is that police are authorized by law to initiate a certain level of force in the context of an arrest. A defense of justification, if allowed, would allow a defendant to determine that the force being used exceeded that level. Given the context of an arrest, the possibility that the use of force by a defendant might be justified could -- in the eyes of the states that do not allow justification -- result in the escalation of the confrontation involved in an arrest increasing the risk to the safety of law enforcement in arrests.

Answer 2

You're probably toast.

When you punched the officer you interferred with an arrest and assaulted the officer. Now, that the officer was engaged in the use of unnecessary force on your buddy can be used as a defense at your trial. Your problem is proving the force used was unnecessary and the only way to stop it was to hit the officer. Pretty tough to do.

I am not aware of any law that saids you can assault people even if you have a good reason. What the law does allow and recognize is your right to defend yourself when being assaulted.

So, if you are walking down the street and are jumped by the local gang bangers, you can fight back, meeting force with force. As long as your use of force is reasonable, you are in the clear. If you continue to beat on an attacker after he is down and no longer a threat, then you have stepped over the line and can be charged with a criminal offense.

The situation changes somewhat if an officer suddenly and for no reason attacks you. You are still allowed to defend yourself. However, at trial you must now convince the Judge and Jury that your resistance and the blows you struck were simple self defense against an unwarranted and illegal assault by the officer.

In the situation you describe, you now have to convince the judge and jury that the force used on your buddy was so extreme, unwarranted, and illegal that you had to intervene by striking the officer. That the officer was "being an asshole" isn't enough, zapping your bro with the tazer isn't enough, yelling at him isn't enough. All of that can fall under "resonable force". Now kicking the guy might be over the top, but is it far enough over the top to allow you to attack the officer. Frankly, probably not. Your friend might have been abused but I doubt his life was endangered. And he does have recourse through the department's disciplinary measures and the civil courts. You might get hung out to dry.

Answer 3

No. In a case where your homie is getting shocked and restrained by the police, you better let your homie deal with it.

You would be guilty of assault on a police officer, and no court in the country would let you get away with it -- not to mention, the cop wouldn't be too happy, either.

Answer 4

Nope. You committed assault upon a police officer. None too wise whatever the situation. I've only heard your side and of course, you're screaming victim. If your 'boi' had obeyed the officer perhaps he wouldn't have been tased. You both screwed up but now you want to claim police brutality. Hmm. Have a good time in jail.

Answer 5

If the police actually had no legal justification for shooting your "homie" with the taser and kicking him, you are justified in coming to his defense--in the jurisdictions where I practice law anyway.

The jury instruction in Oklahoma is as follows:

A person is justified in using force in defense of another if that person reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to protect another from imminent danger of bodily harm. Defense of another is a defense although the danger to the personal security of another may not have been real, if a reasonable person, in the circumstances and from the viewpoint of the defendant, would reasonably have believed that another was in imminent danger of bodily harm. The amount of force used may not exceed the amount of force a reasonable person, in the circumstances and from the viewpoint of the defendant, would have used to prevent the bodily harm.

Answer 6

most likely going to jail. You have to prove self defense; which is difficult at best against the police. You would have to prove that the cop went to far and that you were in fear for your friends life.