Ex-State Senator arrested

[toowm]

After blowing a stop sign, charged with disobeying a police officer for not stopping right away, and resisting arrest for not putting his hands behind his back for cuffs.

http://www.wmur.com/news/10168423/detail.html


Edit: fixed charges

[Quantrill]

Sounds like someone I'd vote for...

[Spencer]

What a terrible law (the NH version of resisting arrest).  Passive resistance to an arrest appears to be illegal under the NH statute.

642:2 Resisting Arrest or Detention. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a law enforcement official, including a probation or parole officer, seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the person or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest. Verbal protestations alone shall not constitute resisting arrest or detention.

Oregon's statute provides that passive resistance is not resisting arrest.  Both the NH and Oregon statutes provide that illegality of the arrest is no defense.  The theory behind it is that they don't want to encourage people to resist arrest because it places people in danger -- the reality is that it encourages people to unquestioningly obey and yield to "authority."

[Michael Fisher]

Contact him and ally him.

[KBCraig]

Contact him and ally him.

You should do that. /Russell

[KBCraig]

What a terrible law (the NH version of resisting arrest).  Passive resistance to an arrest appears to be illegal under the NH statute.

642:2 Resisting Arrest or Detention. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a law enforcement official, including a probation or parole officer, seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the person or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.

Wow. There are few instances (other than homeschooling) where I prefer Texas law of that of New Hampshire.

Texas has a similar law, but there's a very important distinction. From the Texas Penal Code (emphasis added):
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.  (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
   (b)  The use of force against another is not justified:                       
      (2)  to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
 
   (c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:           
      (1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; 
and
      (2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.

Verbal protestations alone shall not constitute resisting arrest or detention.

That's an important part of NH code. Too often, protesters are threatened with arrest based on their verbal protestations.

Kevin

[aries]

^ maybe we should work to change the law here.

There is a good case for doing so... a vote against that would tar any rep's record... not that many of them care. They could wipe their rear ends with their voting record and still get votes.

[Dreepa]

Contact him and ally him.

You should do that. /Russell

Zinger!

[Spencer]

^ maybe we should work to change the law here.

There is a good case for doing so... a vote against that would tar any rep's record... not that many of them care. They could wipe their rear ends with their voting record and still get votes.

I guess we know one of the witnesses who could be called to give testimony on changing the law.  I bet he knows the way to the state house.

[d_goddard]

Here's the link to the WMUR Forum.
Feel free to let your opinions be known there...
http://forums.ibsys.com/ViewTopics.cfm?sitekey=man&Forum=427

[David]

I have zero respect to any politician that preaces the need to follow law, but then violates it.  Michael Badnarik was one exception.  Not because he was a libertarian.  But because he encouraged others to not pay taxes and licences.  Of cource, I believe he has not paid income taxes for at least a couple of years.