Why should we feel sorry for someone who resisted arrest?

News had been full of this story of a black woman who was pulled over by police in the US. She passed away in jail, and it seems everyone (notably the black community) is in uproar.

Fact is though, this would have all be avoided if she had complied with the police officer. If she had nothing to hide, then she neednt be worried.

Same for Michael Brown... if he didn't run at the police officer, he wouldn't be dead.

I find it stupid that people are outraged when these situations come round.


Most Helpful Girl

  • I agree with you to an extent... however I think it is important to realize that no one is proven guilty simply by arrest. and It is a natural response to resist being captured, restrained and confined, especially if in previous history people similar to you have been beaten, abused and killed even if they did comply with police officer. I think it important to not point the finger based off personal bias or believe everything the extremely consolidated and bias mass media tells you but to at least look at things from the other point of view and use actual factual points to back up one's opinion.


Most Helpful Guy

  • She didn't resist arrest.

    He stopped her for a traffic stop. Then he asked if she would put out her cigarette. She said she wouldn't, and that's when he ordered her to exit the car.

    First of all, it's not his place to ask her to put out her cigarette. It's not against the law and it has nothing to do with a routine traffic violation.

    Second, as I said before, he asked her to do it. It was not a command, just a request.

    This is grounds for her being ordered out of her car? The job of the police is to serve and protect the public. They are not our keepers or or masters, but a great many of them seem to think that they are. Any action that is not complete subservience is treated as an existential threat, and many of them will respond with force for no other reason than perceived disrespect for them (which of course reinforces that disrespect).

    The cop should have let it go. Technically he should never have brought it up in the first place, but he chose to escalate the situation over a stupid cigarette.

    • Here's an article about a veteran who was recently raided by a tactical team over a minor misunderstanding. Take note of the part where he talks about the time spent training officers on deescalation vs time spent on weapons and tactical training.


    • " Any action that is not complete subservience is treated as an existential threat"
      That has indeed been judged by court rulings like Graham vs Connor (1989) and the California State Supreme Court.(2013)

    • @Dandeus, I've been raided the same way, at 5 am, in a hotel. I never knew why.
      My wife and then 9 yo son where in the same room. I woke up when I was punched on my nose. (the pillow was ruined by the blood.)
      Those things happen. And they happened 30 years ago too. Nothing new thus. I'd bet that William Shakepeare's dad (who was a kinda cop) did it the same way.

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 3

  • Why should we defend cops who use excessive amount of force and kill people when it's not absolutely necessary to do so?

  • In order to be charged with "resisting arrest" one more or less needs to be accused of a crime. One cannot be arrested for nothing. Similarly, one expects that the police should use a reasonable amount of force when arresting people - smashing someone's head into the ground several times is an excessive amount of force, no matter how you consider the situation.

  • She didn't resist arrest. She talked back and insisted on being told why she was arrested, which is legal.


What Guys Said 7

  • 0|1
  • Resisting arrest does bring with it certain consequences, but manslaughter isn't an appropriate reaction to unarmed resistance.

    • The mere fact that the officer thinks or feels the suspect could be dangerous is enough to warrant the use of a weapon. Thus she could have been shot. Graham v. Connor ruling, 1989
      Thus she could have been shot.
      in a 2013 ruling by the California State Supreme Court stated that “tactical conduct and decisions preceding the use of deadly force are relevant considerations under California law in determining whether the use of deadly force gives rise to negligence liability.” .
      Thus IF something had happened because the officer didn't use force, he'd have been liable for it because of negligence.

      In short: "shoot first, ask questions later."

    • Show All
    • Your supreme court rulings, supreme though they may be, suffer from a lack of logical reason.

      The fact remains that literally beating an unarmed person to death for defiance is not a reasonable application of force by any metric.

    • ccp116 I tagged you to be sure you read the legal aspects. These are taught to cops. Cops aren't pastors.
      Read what cops learn: www.policemag.com/.../...ding-graham-v-connor.aspx

  • 0|1
    • Wow.. I never saw that much footage before.. That's unbelievable.

  • No we shouldn't.

  • Shhhhh, you'll make the dindus mad!

  • She was pulled out the car because she wouldn't put her cigarette out. Last time I checked, its not against the law to smoke a cigarette

    • No, she was asked to get out of the vehicle by the police officer and she didn't comply.

    • Yes after not putting out her cigarette. The video clearly shows that.

    • So she wasn't pulled out of the car because she wouldn't put her cigarette out then lol.

  • If black people spent as much time teaching their kids how to interact respectfully with cops as they did teaching them to hate and distrust white people, they wouldn't have any trouble with the men in blue.