# Talk:Bad Elk v. United States

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bad Elk v. United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


### Comments
Nicely cited.
"...discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." Shouldn't most become must?
The article states that in 1999, "sixteen states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest..." Is there a more recent version?
Same thing with this line. "By 1999, twenty-three states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute."
Addressing:

"...discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." Shouldn't most become must?
 Done  Clarified most to show that it meant "most of the cases" citing Bad Elk.
The article states that in 1999, "sixteen states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest..." Is there a more recent version?
 Done.
Same thing with this line. "By 1999, twenty-three states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute."
 Done. GregJackP Boomer!  04:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


### Verdict
 I'll put it on hold for a week. Seeing as you've retired, I might put it on hold for a bit longer. Great article, by the way. buffbills7701 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Great job. The article passes.

This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google search result as a direct source. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I am moving this section here for discussion:


### Internet meme and myths
The case has also been cited  on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State.  The most commonly quoted version is:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk 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. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."
In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

What authority do state courts or legislatures have to override a Supreme Court ruling?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.14.14 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC) 


### Discussion
This section is WP:OR - specially WP:SYN, and doesn't belong in the article.  If there were a secondary source that discussed the internet memes and discussed current law, that would be great, but as far as I can see there is not. Note - I also removed content on this from the lead, for now Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Reworded and re-inserted into the article. Try reading the refs this time. GregJackP Boomer!  21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
In your edits, You hung this all on the Cubby source from the Plummer article.  The Cubby source does not mention Bad Elk.   This is the problem with editing this way - there is no good secondary source that discusses the internet meme.  Trying to force it in without that leads to endless trouble.  At some point, some law school professor will probably write an article on all this.  Then we can add content about it.  Until then it is problematic with regard to every content policy WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE.  Maybe that law article already exists, but I looked and didn't find it. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP the content is not sourced per above.   Please justify your re-insertion of this content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't have to justify it. You have to get consensus to remove it. Which, as far as I can tell, you don't have. That's the whole purpose of WP:BRD. You boldly removed material. I reverted. Now it gets discussed. If you will look at the article, Cubby is cited to support the false quote in Plummer, which is mentioned in the material that was added. Nowhere was it claimed that Cubby mentioned Bad Elk, nor does it need to do so. GregJackP Boomer!  02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
if you restore it, you need to answer for it, yes. Please tell me:
what is the source for  "The case (which refers to Bad Elk) has also been cited  on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State"?
What is the justification for giving this any WP:WEIGHT in the article?
How is this not WP:OR?
The content if problematic in light of all three content policies.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Get consensus, then you can remove it. Right now you don't have consensus. It's sourced and I'm sick of your harassment on my talkpage and elsewhere.
-As to your questions, the most common misquote covers both cases, so it is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT. It's not anywhere close to WP:OR, which you would know if you understood the law, and this has been pointed out several times. Finally, because of your continuous harassment and bullshit claims of editing warring when someone implements WP:BRD, it is impossible to conduct further Lexis/Westlaw searches. That's because you don't understand corroborative editing, probably because you spend too much time in Alt-Med and other contentious areas.
-If you want to improve Wikipedia, you don't come in and demand answers. I don't have any problem telling you where to get off the bus, and someone who has 43K edits with only 2 articles created doesn't really impress me.
-I do not have to prove anything to you, and you are not the policy-demigod of Wiki. Where do you get off thinking that you can demand answers when others have told you that they don't agree with your interpretation of the policy? And to act unilaterally, without consensus? GregJackP Boomer!  02:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if you restore deleted content, you have to defend it.  Is pretty clear you are dug in here, so I am going to initiate DR.  I'll provide notice here in a minute. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead. I don't have a problem opening up and AN/I on your continued harassment which is designed to prevent me from researching and looking to improve the article. Why don't you try creating content instead of harassing those who can create content? GregJackP Boomer!  04:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I too am getting a bit annoyed with Jytdog's incivility and failure to understand Wikipedia policy. Referring to my good-faith efforts at properly covering this legal issue with language like "generally, when editors go wrong in WP, they go wrong many ways at once" is nothing more than an attempt to anger me and bait me into responding in kind. I am also very much annoyed with Jytdog starting a discussion about the content of a page and then editing the page away from the stable, established version into his preferred version while the discussion is ongoing. WP:BRD may not be a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 Sorry i am kind of crabby tonight.  but this is one policy-violating mess and GregJack is not providing any actual answers.   So to DR we go.  see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bad_Elk_v._United_States Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I withdrew the GAR to lower the temperature.  Maybe i did that wrong, but i tried.  Now, please actually discuss the issues at ORN. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it is at ANI now, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog, persistent harassment and disruption. I am happy to withdraw it if you will stop your harassment. GregJackP Boomer!  05:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for making this change. That makes the statement less general but it doesn't resolve  the OR problem.  As to what remains: "Cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk tend to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest".  This is still a generalization that is not supported by the sources.  Wright at p 388 does not mention Plummer or Bad Elk; instead it reviews the reasons why the right to resist is no longer relevant and provides citations to case law and legislation that took away or diminished the right to resist.  The content at Miller 358 is parallel, doing the same thing, and also does not mention Plummer or Bad Elk.  The statement still fails VERIFY and is OR. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment and suggested resolution.  I believe this issue can be resolved with some minor rewording of the content.  The Cubby source should be in the article, as it is a reliable source, and it does not give undue weight to one position over another.  There is no need to remove the bulk of the "internet meme" section.  However, I think part of the problem lies in Greg's recitation that most "cases" citing Plummer and Bad Elk .... a more accurate phraseology would be, "modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to ...." In such manner, Greg's various sources, in addition to caselaw, properly support the cited premise. Hope that helps. Minor4th 17:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of personal preference, I would place the "internet meme" section above the "common law and statutory law" (or whatever it's called). That seems to track the subsequent developments chronologically. Minor4th 17:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)OK, I can make some of those changes. GregJackP Boomer!  17:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the language per your suggestion, and changed the Miller ref from a see also to a see generally signal. I disagree about moving the meme section above the common/statutory law section. The current way goes from accurate law to inaccurate assertions on the internet. GregJackP Boomer!  17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough.  I see your point about the order of the subsections.  In this sentence, "Modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest," I would change the word "cases" to "sources" since you are talking about a variety of sources, not just cases.
Your see generally signal is more appropriate.  Good job. For the sake of balance, you might also include a But see People v Moreno, 491 Mich. 38; 814 NW2d 624 (2012), text here: [1]. Minor4th 17:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Moreno is an outlier that turns on a subtle point of statutory interpretation. It goes to legislative intent, not what the current trend is. GregJackP Boomer!  17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I struck through my suggestion re: Moreno - after rethinking it, to include that case (and it is an outlier) would be giving undue weight to a fringe notion. Minor4th 17:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
OK
The again-revised statement "Modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the sources note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest" is almost OK now.  The last part about "most of the sources say" can be simply put in Wikipedia's voice as we have two very good sources.   This should just say: "Modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force; under contemporary law in most jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest".   With that change, I am good on this.   Thanks for fixing this.
The statement that the oft-quoted sentence is actually from Plummer and not from Bad Elk is still OR - there is no source that is cited that says that.  This is a minor issue that I am willing to let go of.  Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much the only reason any reader would land on this page is because there are a lot of internet sources (none of them reliable, most of them very heavily read) that make the claim 

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk 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. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.[2] www.infowars.com/protesters-have-the-right-to-protest-%E2%80%A6-and-to-resist-unlawful-arrest/[3] 
You can find thousands of such pages by doing a Google search on [ "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life" "Plummer v. State" "John Bad Elk v. U.S" ].
Another editor who I highly respect and nearly always agree with recently removed the quote from our Plummer v. State article[4] and our Bad Elk v. United States article.[5] These sections have been unchanged since we came to a consensus in 2015.[6][7]
I would like to open a discussion as to whether to remove this material. If we cannot reach an agreement I will post an RfC.
I would suggest that we discuss this at the Plummer v. State talk page and not the Bad Elk v. United States talk page in order to avoid duplication. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the deletions. The sections were included by consensus, he'll need to get consensus to remove it. GregJackP Boomer!  16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bad Elk v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150324232004/http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2014/12/10/the-right-to-resist-an-unlawful-arrest/ to http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2014/12/10/the-right-to-resist-an-unlawful-arrest/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If the Infowars fake quote is genuinely notable, there will be a reliable independent secondary source that quotes it. This should be used instead of infowars per WP:OR. If no such source exists, regardless of what we "know", Wikipedia should not include it. This is fringe content WP:PRIMARY sourced from a canonically unreliable source. We are providing traffic to racist nutjobbery. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no such requirement. "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article ... Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists ... Content coverage within a given article (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." --Wikipedia:Notability.

The above is in reference to this section of the article:
Internet meme and myths
The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State. One version is:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk 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. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."
Modern sources citing Plummer and Bad Elk have tended to discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force; under contemporary law in most jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest. The Plummer quote has been noted to be a fabrication, not appearing in the text of the opinion.

A google search on "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." shows many, many sources -- some with millions of readers -- that quote those words -- more than enough to support the "The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest" claim. Many are unreliable political blogs reporting the misquote as if it actually exists, but a fair number discuss the fact that it does not exist.
This has been discussed at length on this talk page and on the Plummer v. State talk page. I suggest reviewing those discussions before going over the same ground again. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, I'm purely disputing the use of Infowars and other batshit crazy primary sources. If this is notable, as you assert, then it will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources. Wikipedia policy does not permit us to decide what's important based on what we "know" or what Google tells us, and then drop the sourcing standards to the point where we can support it. We should not cite Infowars as a source. That's all. That said, I have spent some time looking without finding a single legitimate source that even discusses this. Compare this with the generic sovereign citizen bollocks, which is extensively discussed in courts and court reports. At present we have a quotation para that amounts to crazy people say X, source, people who are obviously crazy saying X - this does not seem to me to meet the letter or the spirit of WP:RS. I cannot find a single non-batshit site that quotes this form of words or anything like it. It's apparently a case of deciding that this peerless bullshit is so important hat we should cover it even though no reliable independent secondary source does. Which is a great way of warning off the nutbags, but not actually compliant with policy as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You make some compelling points regarding policy. I am unwilling to invoke WP:IAR unless at least a few editors agree that this (documenting something that is very widely spread, but only on very dodgy sites) is an area where we should ignore the rules. I could post an RfC, but let's just ask; does anyone else have an opinion on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The RfC has been closed, and the result was to keep the material in. See Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)