The Crime Of Not Being Properly And Rapidly Boot-Licking
They pop up like blades of grass between sidewalk cracks these days -- the ridiculous arrests of non-criminals on ridiculous charges.
William Norman Grigg posts on LewRockwell.com:
Phyllis Bear, a convenience store clerk from Arizona, called the police after a customer threatened her. The disgruntled patron, seeking to purchase a money order, handed Bear several bills that were rejected by the store's automated safe. Suspecting that the cash was counterfeit, Bear told him to come back later to speak with a manager.The man had left by the time the cops arrived, and Bear was swamped at the register. Offended that she was serving paying customers rather than rendering proper deference to an emissary of the State, one of the officers arrested Bear for "obstructing government operations," handcuffed her, and stuffed her in the back of his cruiser.
A few minutes later, while the officer was on the radio reporting the abduction, his small-boned captive took the opportunity to extract one of her hands from the cuffs, reach through the window, and start opening the back door from the outside. The infuriated captor yanked the door open and demanded that the victim extend her hands to be re-shackled. When Bear refused to comply, the officer reached into the back seat and ripped her from the vehicle, causing her to lose her balance and stumble into the second officer.
Bear, who had called the police in the tragically mistaken belief that they would help her, was charged with three felonies: "obstruction" - refusal to stiff-arm customers in order to attend to an impatient cop; "escape" - daring to pull her hand out of the shackles that had been placed upon her without lawful cause; and "aggravated assault" - impermissible contact with the sanctified personage of a police officer as a result of being violently dragged out of the car by the "victim's" comrade.
The first two charges were quickly dropped. During a bench trial, the prosecution admitted that the arrest was illegal. Yet the judge ruled that Bear - who had no prior criminal history -- was guilty of "escape" and imposed one year of unsupervised probation. That conviction was upheld by the Arizona Court of Appeals, which ruled that although the arrest was unwarranted and illegal, Bear had engaged in an illegal act of "self-help" by refusing to submit to abduction with appropriate meekness.
Decades ago, when Arizona was a more civilized place, the state "followed the common-law rule that a person may resist an illegal arrest," the court acknowledged. But that morally sound and intellectually unassailable policy was a casualty of what the court called "a trend ... away from the common-law rule and toward the judicial settlement of such disputes." Referring to the act of unlawfully seizing another human being and holding that person by force as a "dispute" is a bit like calling ... rape a "lover's quarrel."
Disgustingly:
It's not necessary for a police officer to explain why the arrest was made; according to the court, "only the fact of [an] arrest is a necessary element" for the victim to be charged with "escape."
Sound like the America you were expecting to live in?
Not allowed to resist an illegal arrest? That is a new one for me.
Of course, even though the court ruled that the arrest was illegal, the cops will not have been prosecuted.
a_random_guy at February 22, 2014 11:36 PM
I hope she sues for the false arrest. If I were on the jury, I'd vote for any amount of damages. This decision should be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
MarkD at February 23, 2014 8:22 AM
What happens if you make it legal to attempt escape from what you believe to be an "illegal" arrest? How many people know the difference? How many would pretend not to know the difference, or (more likely) decide that extenuating circumstances make their arrest illegal? ("Well, I had kids at home, so I can't be arrested; therefore, I believed my arrest was illegal.") Wouldn't lots of people just press their luck? What if they get seriously injured attempting an escape?
I'd like to know exactly what led the officers to say "fuck this" and arrest her. She had phoned them because she believed she was in danger, and presumably they sped to the scene. Did she say, "One second, officers?" Or did she ignore them repeatedly while they tried to get an explanation from her so they could do their job (which may have required them completing paperwork before they could leave)?
I'm not saying she should have been arrested, but I hate how those details get lost in articles like these. It seems very unlikely to me that they ran into the store and then arrested her when she didn't *instantly* pay them "deference."
Insufficient Poison at February 23, 2014 8:34 AM
Maybe Arizona is becoming part of that bizarre opposite-America, like Kansas.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 23, 2014 9:30 AM
Insufficient Poison, I agree; there are important pieces missing from this story.
Yes, if I were the cop called to the scene and the clerk said something like, let me take care of paying customers first I would be like WTF? Arresting her might be going too far. But, come on, she called the cops, she should make herself available when they show up. It would be a different situation if they simply showed up without her calling them - in that scenario they can wait.
Further, if I were a paying customer and the cops needed to talk to the clerk I would be mortified if she insisted on helping me first.
Even more, since the author decided to resort to hyperbole and use the "slave" analogy I lost respect for what he had to say.
Charles at February 23, 2014 9:36 AM
Did you actually read the article?
Jim P. at February 23, 2014 8:05 PM
The lack of common sense the cops demonstrated here is scary. People who don't have any damn common sense shouldn't be in positions of any kind of authority. Too bad so many are.
Flynne at February 24, 2014 8:36 AM
Leave a comment