|
Very important case for all gun owners to know and have in their files.
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 12:49 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks to: Carl Worden <wolfeyes00@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:45:02 -0700
Subject: BETO AND THE JOHN BAD ELK CASE — Carl F. Worden
Many years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen can use any force, up to and including lethal force, to stop a public official from violating his/her civil rights.
The John Bad Elk Case ruling stands to this day. In that incident, a Deputy Sheriff tried to arrest John Bad Elk without probable cause to make the arrest, and Bad Elk shot the deputy dead. Bad Elk was sentenced to death by the state court and appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled the attempt to arrest Bad Elk as a false arrest, therefore he was entitled to use any force to prevent his civil rights from being violated. Bad Elk was then released.
Beto O’Rourke has publicly threatened every law abiding citizen who happens to own an AR or AK-type weapon, with confiscation of his/her offending firearm, and apparently he intends to do that no matter what Article II of the Bill of Rights guarantees. Based on the Bad Elk Case, it would be perfectly legal to kill O’Rourke and/or anyone who came to carry out his illegal order.
The Bad Elk Case ruling has never been revisited or its conclusions changed by any subsequent Supreme Court decision.
Carl F. Worden
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=THE+JOHN+BAD+ELK+CASE+&t=vivaldi&ia=web
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/177/529/
John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900) Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be,…
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/177/529
JOHN BAD ELK, , v. UNITED STATES. We do not find any statute of the United States or of the state of South Dakota giving any right to these men to arrest an individual without a warrant, on a charge of misdemeanor not committed in their presence. Marshals and their deputies have in each state, by virtue of § 788,…
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/177/529.html
‘The deceased, John Kills Back, had been ordered to arrest the defendant; hence he had a right to go and make the attempt to arrest the defendant. The defendant had no right to resist him. It is claimed on the part of the defendant that he made no resistance, and he was willing to go with the officer in the morning.
https://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm
This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John BadElk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right.
www.apfn.org/apfn/gun-law.htm
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death.
https://www.justanswer.com/law/32hbb-john-bad-elk-case-force-so.html
Hi HelloKitty, Elk v. United States has been modified over the past 110 by case law and statute in most jurisdictions. The general rule is that a person has the right to prevent unlawful arrest and that, in doing so, he may use only the amount of force that is necessary.
https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/do-you-have-the-right-to-resist-an-unlawful-arrest-2
Several years later, the Plummer decision was used as precedent during the appeals trial of one, John Bad Elk. Bad Elk, a tribal police officer in South Dakota, had killed another tribal policeman. Three policemen had attempted to arrest Bad Elk without a warrant or charges. Bad Elk was originally convicted of murder, however, his conviction was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court who issued this opinion:
COURT CASES , RESISTING ARREST – constitutiondefender.com
https://www.constitutiondefender.com/InstantForum2010/Topic146.aspx
This fundamental premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 (1900) when the court stated: “… where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction …
More Results
Bad Elk v. United States
Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an individual had the right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest and was entitled to a jury instruction to that effect. Wikipedia
Full case name:John Bad Elk v. United States
Citations:177 U.S. 529 (more) 20 S. Ct. 729, 44 L. Ed. 874, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1823
Prior history:United States v. Bad Elk (C.C.D.S.D. 1899) (unreported) |
