Originally Posted by TWA884 (Post 16602575)

In California, resistance to an unlawful arrest is not in violation of those Penal Code sections. If excessive force is used by an LEO to make an arrest, the person being arrested is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defense (People v. Curtis, 70 Cal.2d 347).

Originally Posted by Tizzette (Post 16720972)

I've seen a couple of guys on the street lately with the pants pulled very low to expose half the buttocks in skin tight black underwear, or dingy white underwear, just like this thread is about. Not at all what I first thought, which was baggy jeans exposing plaid boxers. This is different, agressively sexual and bordering on obscene.

Originally Posted by Always Flyin (Post 16718221)

It is a crime in California to use force to resist an arrest, whether there is probable cause for the arrest or not. That is the holding of Curtis. See also People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179. The only issue is which crime will be charged.

Yes, you can respond to unreasonable force at a necessary level to protect yourself, but you had better be right.

Originally Posted by TWA884 (Post 16722633)

I recommend reading the California jury instructions, either CALJIC or CALCRIM, on this issue.

Originally Posted by tom911 (Post 16568604)

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1POWBrxBS

Not a style I'd dress in, but something you commonly see in the Bay Area. Read the entire article as there's a lot more than can be posted here in a few lines.

Originally Posted by Always Flyin (Post 16724860)

Firstly, jury instructions are not definitive statements of the law. I can't remember the last time I used a civil instruction (other than introductory instructions) without at least some modification based on the current state of the law or to take into account the facts of the case. They are a good starting point, however.

Secondly, rather than saying the equivalent of, "Look up the answer in the encyclopedia," it would be helpful if you stated what portion of my summary of the law you disagree with and what you contend the law to be on that precise issue. I'll then know what to look for in CALJIC. Heck, you could just cite to the CALJIC section!

---

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. <insert name, excluding title> was (a/an) (peace officer/public officer/emergency medical technician) lawfully performing or attempting to perform (his/her) duties as a (peace officer/public officer/emergency medical technician);

2. The defendant willfully (resisted[,]/ [or] obstructed[,]/ [or] delayed) <insert name, excluding title> in the performance or attempted performance of those duties;

AND

3. When the defendant acted, (he/she) knew, or reasonably should have known, that <insert name, excluding title> was (a/an) (peace officer/public officer/emergency medical technician) performing or attempting to perform (his/her) duties.

<snip>

[A peace officer is not lawfully performing his or her duties if he or she is (unlawfully arresting or detaining someone/ [or] using unreasonable or excessive force in his or her duties). Instruction 2670 explains (when an arrest or detention is unlawful/ [and] when force is unreasonable or excessive).]

---

---

If a peace officer uses unreasonable or excessive force while (arresting or attempting to arrest/ [or] detaining or attempting to detain) a person, that person may lawfully use reasonable force to defend himself or herself.

A person being arrested uses reasonable force when he or she: (1) uses that degree of force that he or she actually believes is reasonably necessary to protect himself or herself from the officer's use of unreasonable or excessive force; and (2) uses no more force than a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary for his or her protection.]

---

---

The defendant is not guilty of the crime... if the officer was not lawfully performing (his/her) duties because (he/she) was unlawfully arresting someone.

However, even if the arrest was unlawful, as long as the officer used only reasonable force to accomplish the arrest, the defendant may be guilty of the lesser crime of...

On the other hand, if the officer used unreasonable or excessive force, and the defendant used only reasonable force in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), then the defendant is not guilty of the lesser crime[s]...

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was lawfully performing (his/her) duties. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty [of <insert crimes>].

---

---

---

Originally Posted by TWA884 (Post 16726889)

With those in mind, I am reposting my earlier post which is a correct statement of the law.

Originally Posted by Always Flyin (Post 16736588)

I maintain my recitation of California law on the issues is correct and that yours is incomplete and misleading. Unfortunately, we don't have a judge present to render a ruling for us.

Originally Posted by Always Flyin (Post 16742332)

The instructions are actually authored by the Judicial Council, which I am confident are drafted by law clerks and not judges, although the judges likely at least review the product before it is published.

---

---

Originally Posted by TWA884 (Post 16743607)

Wrong.

The Judicial Council is composed of judges. I know several of the judges who sit on both the CALJIC and CALCRIM committees, so I am familiar with the process. The judges, with input from veteran prosecutors, defense attorneys and legal scholars, write the instructions. The judges have the final say on the wording of each instruction.

Originally Posted by TWA884 (Post 16743607)

You keep distorting what I wrote.

Here it is again, for the last time, with emphasis added on the key words: