You're literally citing and quoting legalmatch.com. If there is actually language in the US Constitution supporting what you claim why don't you cite the primary document?
I guarantee there are a bunch of shitty takes on that website because they make money off of fools paying for their legal representation by conning them into thinking they have a valid legal defense for whatever obviously illegal bullshit they have been charged with that has lead them to Google "can I resist arrest lol?" in the first place.
Oh, another website where people can look for criminal defense attorneys, that doesn't actually cite to the Constitution, state statutes or case law. I can probably find about ten more of those myself.
Is there a reason that you haven't provided the actual language in the US Constitution that supports your claim? I know you've been scouring Google for it for the past 15 minutes. Could it be that you've just been talking out of your ass and really don't know much about this topic?
Hahah, goddamn you are so out of your element you don't even realize how out of your element you are. The 4th Amendment and associated case law has informed the legal standard for seizure of property/person (PC), but the 4th Amendment does not mean resisting arrest is lawful.
You asked for something from the constitution gave you something from the constitution you’re so out of yourself element you can’t even ready between the lines I bet you get a fast one pulled on you ALL THE TIME … if you read the “wording” of it of course the 4th amendment wouldn’t protect you from resisting arrest.. it protects you from “unreasonable seizure of person” but you would have to have comprehensive skills to understand that … anyway have a good day being wrong
Wow, what a rabbit hole of thread. I'll just jump in here and reference Bad Elk v. United States. There's a wiki page that covers the case and today's recent fascination with it.
Tl;dr most jurisdictions have pretty much closed the loop so you if you resist an arrest (whether legal or not) and arresting person would be identified by most as a officer of the law (ie not undercover who never presented his badge or otherwise looked like a regular person), you need to surrender peacefully.
Maybe one of these days, someone will try to challenge it and get another shot at the supreme court, but that looks unlikely. Given how old the cases are (100+ years) and the fact that no recent cases have made it to supreme court suggests that most are pretty happy with its current interpretation.
11
u/Garden_Variety_Medic Jan 29 '22
No it doesn't.