Why thousands in the UK engaged in protests spurred by George Floyd death in US

[Syne]

Here’s a good example. One thing that most police officers aren’t aware of, is that you can resist an unlawful arrest.

If they had probable cause to believe that he had broken the law, even if he hadn’t, and he resisted, then he would be guilty of resisting arrest.  They can detain someone suspected of being under the influence but not for simply dancing in the street. According to the police report, he was later cited for resisting arrest.

Depending on the state where you live, you may or may not have the right to resist an unlawful arrest by using force. If you have this right, the use of force must be reasonable and necessary, such that it responds to the use of force by the officer making the unlawful arrest. The resistance must occur during the attempted arrest, and the arrest must have no legal basis. Any use of force must be no more than what is needed to prevent the arrest. [1]

That's the kind of advise that can get people killed. Even if you have a right to resist, in principle, actually doing so will always provoke police to up their use of force. Much less you trying to resist using force. But some people seem to have a vested interest in feeding certain people misinformation designed to do them harm.

[Secular Sanity]

Here’s a good example. One thing that most police officers aren’t aware of, is that you can resist an unlawful arrest.

If they had probable cause to believe that he had broken the law, even if he hadn’t, and he resisted, then he would be guilty of resisting arrest.  They can detain someone suspected of being under the influence but not for simply dancing in the street. According to the police report, he was later cited for resisting arrest.

Depending on the state where you live, you may or may not have the right to resist an unlawful arrest by using force. If you have this right, the use of force must be reasonable and necessary, such that it responds to the use of force by the officer making the unlawful arrest. The resistance must occur during the attempted arrest, and the arrest must have no legal basis. Any use of force must be no more than what is needed to prevent the arrest. [1]

That's the kind of advise that can get people killed. Even if you have a right to resist, in principle, actually doing so will always provoke police to up their use of force. Much less you trying to resist using force. But some people seem to have a vested interest in feeding certain people misinformation designed to do them harm.

Ah, fuck! You’re right. I fucking hate when that happens. Here comes the gloating. 

For years the Anglo-American system of law recognized the common law right to resist an illegal arrest. Resistance, even to the extent of at least some form of limited physical force, was deemed justified when the arrest was patently unlawful in nature. A reasonably good faith belief in the arrest's illegality was also often permitted as a valid reason for resistance under the common law. Now, it appears that the wall of lawful resistance is beginning to crack and may possibly soon crumble. The states which are often viewed as key indicators of significant modem legal trends have reversed this common law right and one might predict that the others will eventually join the bandwagon. The premises upon which this "about face" is based focus on the evolution of modem society into one that is no longer pastoral in nature and is preoccupied with guns and violence. "Law and order" proponents may perhaps welcome this shift in the law, but civil libertarians will probably see it as just one more step toward the end of a free society. The abolition of the right to resist an unlawful arrest may possibly make us a nation of "sheep". American citizens may further be expected to become passive in their reactions to the conduct of their lawful authorities such that many forms of dissent will no longer be tolerated. Perhaps the spectra painted is a bit extreme, but it is well to remember that our legal and societal institutions are slow to change but steadfast in their development. Once the machinery is kicked into gear the brakes become more difficult to apply. What is to stop this trend? State governments are probably the least likely to accomplish this. It may be that the federal government through Congress or the federal court system will nip this in the bud. As mentioned earlier, there are possible federal constitutional grounds upon which to base a right to resist an illegal arrest. Perhaps the right case or situation will develop to make this possible.

https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/636eb514...a0b62e.pdf 
https://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/20...ution-org/
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/...ontext=ylj

[Syne]

Unless you have an actual reason to think a specific cop is intent on killing you, like you've had personal problems with that particular cop outside of him enforcing the law, it is just always safer to be arrested and sort it out where the cops do not feel they are at risk. And let's face it, if a cop is really out to kill you, you're probably mixed up in some illegal shit anyway. Dirty cops like people they can get dirt on.

[Zinjanthropos]

People, maybe cops more so, think they deserve respect these days and if they don’t get any then the shooting starts. If you’re shown no respect then how does killing that person earn you more respect?

These lines from Fistful of Dollars just about sums it up:

I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

People used to be able to laugh at themselves, now they’re all mules

[Secular Sanity]

Unless you have an actual reason to think a specific cop is intent on killing you, like you've had personal problems with that particular cop outside of him enforcing the law, it is just always safer to be arrested and sort it out where the cops do not feel they are at risk. And let's face it, if a cop is really out to kill you, you're probably mixed up in some illegal shit anyway. Dirty cops like people they can get dirt on.

Here’s the full video with sound.

You're right though. I was wrong. The right to resist an unlawful arrest was outdated, revised, and no longer applicable. It’s been consistently held that section 834a prohibits forceful resistance to unlawful as well as lawful arrests.

The courts in the United States regard resisting arrest as a separate charge or crime in addition to other alleged crimes committed by the arrested person. It is possible to be charged, tried and convicted on this charge alone, without any underlying cause for the original decision to arrest or even if the original arrest was clearly illegal. Accordingly, it is never advisable to resist even an unlawful arrest as it will likely result in the use of force by the arresting officer and the addition of the charge of resisting. [source]

The sections of the California Penal Code that govern the use of force in arrests are 835a and 843.

When an officer makes a warrantless arrest, Section 835a applies and states that when an officer has reasonable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime, the officer “may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.” When an officer makes an arrest pursuant to a warrant, and the suspect either flees or forcibly resists, “the officer may use all necessary means to effect the arrest.” In either case, the force used must not be unreasonable. Note that a suspect has a duty to peacefully comply with any arrest. Penal Code Section 834a states that when a suspect knows or should know they are being arrested, it is their duty to “to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest.” [source] 

An unlawful arrest merely results in a temporary deprivation of personal liberties, but…what about the right to resist excessive force? The law cannot restore a limb, an eye or a life. Freedom can be restored, and violations can be compensated through the courts, but obviously, life and liberty can not be viewed on the same plane.

"Wilson v. State discusses Plummer, depicting it as saying that it applies to the situation where the arresting officer is using excessive force such that unless the arrestee defends himself or flees, he is likely to suffer great bodily harm or death. The Wilson court was careful to note that a person may not resist an unlawful arrest where the officer does not use unlawful force. Other cases citing Plummer likewise noted that while a person may defend himself against an officer's unlawful use of force, they may not resist an unlawful arrest being made peaceably and without excessive force. In 1995, the Seventh Circuit Court cited Plummer, noting that the privilege exists "not because its use is necessary to protect him from an unlawful arrest, but because it is the only way in which he can protect himself from death or serious bodily harm." [source]

There are, however, two distinct and separate rights at stake. The common law rule allowing resistance to technically unlawful arrests protects a person's freedom from unreasonable seizure and confinement; the rule allowing resistance to excessive force, which applies during a technically lawful or unlawful arrest, protects a person's right to bodily integrity and permits resort to self-defense. Liberty can be restored through legal processes, but life and limb cannot be repaired in a courtroom. Therefore, any rationale, pragmatic or constitutional, for outlawing resistance to unlawful arrests and resolving the dispute over legality in the courts has no determinative application to the right to resist excessive force.
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/peop...rtis-22684

---

People, maybe cops more so, think they deserve respect these days and if they don’t get any then the shooting starts. If you’re shown no respect then how does killing that person earn you more respect?

These lines from Fistful of Dollars just about sums it up:

I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

People used to be able to laugh at themselves, now they’re all mules

Yep...saving face.

Seattle police apologize for arresting man with golf club

Jami Tillotson Arrest

[Zinjanthropos]

SS... If you’re ever on the golf course don’t expect that lady cop to let you play through...lol

[Secular Sanity]

SS... If you’re ever on the golf course don’t expect that lady cop to let you play through...lol

I was worried about you for little while. I thought you were starting to lose it but I see you still got it. Nice!

[Zinjanthropos]

SS... If you’re ever on the golf course don’t expect that lady cop to let you play through...lol

I was worried about you for little while. I thought you were starting to lose it but I see you still got it. Nice!

Not much to laugh about. Lately

Seattle police paid very well so why that woman would put her job on the line just to be an asshole is beyond me.

https://www.seattle.gov/police/police-jo...d-benefits

[C C]

As to a POV from the "other side", or at least digging up some sort of alternative viewpoint and cynicism...

This woman (video below) asserts that there is white arrogance on both sides of the fence. The byline extracted from her that's used on Twitter seems to be "I am black, I am not oppressed, I am free." One white protestor (if not several?) supposedly tries to tell her she's not being properly black.

Her points are apparently along the line of:

(1) Most black murder victims are killed by black perpetrators. (2600 of 2935 in 2018)

(2) Black lives only seem to matter when a white person or cop is involved (in terms of protest, national attention, and doing something about it). Which is to say, it's the association with a white perpetrator or cop that elevates the victim's value in that sense. Thus, disguised racism and exploitation of those incidents by politicians to further their careers, by journalists/media to bolster ratings, white protestors scoring virtue points for themselves, and the stewardship of black leaders (ideologically descended from the Talented Tenth approach) issuing rallying cries to strengthen their importance as mediators for and resource acquirers for "common" black folk.

(3) Diminishing the extraordinarily high (percentage-wise) homicide rate in gang-ridden and substance abuse neighborhoods (or black on black violence) doesn't warrant national focus and demonstrations. Due again to the covert racism. It's important that cops and white dominated communities be held to high moral standards. (Even minority police are branded "white" in function if they're involved in brutality or hasty judgment scandals.) But in silent or unsaid in public style, black neighborhoods are not expected to achieve much in that area. They are challenged in various psychological, social, and financial areas due to past and continued oppression (not to mention exploitation by criminal elements and capitalism). They are excused as victims and require guardianship by talented black leaders and the "I care" and "I feel your pain" white political caretakers. Who give vocal support and have promised eradication of poverty and injustice for decades, but somehow never deliver. Or else keep raising the bar. (Successfully ending the plight of minorities would mean losing their role as saviors and their voter base, respectively.) 

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/tkhnUMZjnLc

[Syne]

Unless you have an actual reason to think a specific cop is intent on killing you, like you've had personal problems with that particular cop outside of him enforcing the law, it is just always safer to be arrested and sort it out where the cops do not feel they are at risk. And let's face it, if a cop is really out to kill you, you're probably mixed up in some illegal shit anyway. Dirty cops like people they can get dirt on.

Here’s the full video with sound.

You're right though. I was wrong. The right to resist an unlawful arrest was outdated, revised, and no longer applicable. It’s been consistently held that section 834a prohibits forceful resistance to unlawful as well as lawful arrests.

In the Floyd case, bystanders or the person filming could have called 911 to see about getting a supervisor out there. If bystanders would take some initiative, they'd be the best protection against stuff like this. So long as they actually try to get a supervisor out there, instead of just yelling at the cops and filming.

As to a POV from the "other side", or at least digging up some sort of alternative viewpoint and cynicism...

This woman (video below) asserts that there is white arrogance on both sides of the fence. The byline extracted from her that's used on Twitter seems to be "I am black, I am not oppressed, I am free." One white protestor (if not several?) supposedly tries to tell her she's not being properly black.

Her points are apparently along the line of:

(1) Most black murder victims are killed by black perpetrators. (2600 of 2935 in 2018)

(2) Black lives only seem to matter when a white person or cop is involved (in terms of protest, national attention, and doing something about it). Which is to say, it's the association with a white perpetrator or cop that elevates the victim's value in that sense. Thus, disguised racism and exploitation of those incidents by politicians to further their careers, by journalists/media to bolster ratings, white protestors scoring virtue points for themselves, and the stewardship of black leaders (ideologically descended from the Talented Tenth approach) issuing rallying cries to strengthen their importance as mediators for and resource acquirers for "common" black folk.

(3) Diminishing the extraordinarily high (percentage-wise) homicide rate in gang-ridden and substance abuse neighborhoods (or black on black violence) doesn't warrant national focus and demonstrations. Due again to the covert racism. It's important that cops and white dominated communities be held to high moral standards. (Even minority police are branded "white" in function if they're involved in brutality or hasty judgment scandals.) But in silent or unsaid in public style, black neighborhoods are not expected to achieve much in that area. They are challenged in various psychological, social, and financial areas due to past and continued oppression (not to mention exploitation by criminal elements and capitalism). They are excused as victims and require guardianship by talented black leaders and the "I care" and "I feel your pain" white political caretakers. Who give vocal support and have promised eradication of poverty and injustice for decades, but somehow never deliver. Or else keep raising the bar. (Successfully ending the plight of minorities would mean losing their role as saviors and their voter base, respectively.) 

Good for her. The national mainstream media will never let you hear that kind of supremely rational voice from a black person. Not without trying to claim she's a Trump shill who's internalized racism. That's how much leftists can't stand to see genuinely strong black people.