Talk:False arrest

message: Would a merge of Resisting unlawful arrest and this Article be a good idea? 
If concensus deems not, I believe editors of this Article should also watchlist the other. It badly needs expert attention. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That article seems to be a orphan, with no links directing to it.  Due to it's obscure nature, I think merging is a good idea.  I will see what I can do about its content as well.Legitimus (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Your opinions

message: There was a paragraph at the end of this article that discussed a so-called "internet meme" that it is legal to resist unlawful arrest. It linked to a site "www.resistunlawfularrest.com". The Wikipedia section was written, and link posted, by the author of the site (PalmettoDude). This was inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. There is certainly a place for examination of this issue, but the appropriate way to do that is to link directly to the primary source material, rather than cite a website that gives its own conclusion. My own interpretation of the situation is that the author feels very strongly about this issue and has perhaps been involved in online arguments about it, and has tried to edit the Wikipedia page to reflect his own viewpoint.
As the author of the above mentioned removed paragraph, web site and Wiki-newbie, I apologize if I inadvertently violated wikipedia usage guidelines. The intent or the original paragraph was to clarify previous statements appearing (see 20 July 2011 version) stating that the US Supreme court found that unlawful arrest was tantamount to a violent crime. As written, the paragraph could lead someone to unfortunate decisions when dealing with law enforcement personnel. I don't think a full examination of the lawfulness/unlawfulness of resisting arrest belongs in the false arrest entry. In fact, just citing a bunch of source material (i.e. links to various court decisions) out of context would probably leave people puzzled.  At any rate, I am not asking for reinstatement of the paragraph, but would caution against reintroduction of the original paragraph which was present (and self-sourced) since 2009.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalmettoDude (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: resistunlawfularrest.com

message: This section states the officer may "arrest" the suspect only long enough to identify the suspect and give the suspect a summons.... In many jurisdictions Stop and identify statutes allow for detainment to verify identity and run license plates. This law is routinely violated upon asking for identification, without probable cause (traffic stop etc...), if an officer decides to "run" an ID for warrants or through NCIC. **Note: This is a true observation but OR without "references"**; This violation is almost impossible to "fight" as the officer can use the old "He acted suspicious" (or nervous). The federal government will never do anything about this because if a person has never been arrested, finger printed, or come up on an NCIC check they will not be in the "system" and a stop will "introduce" their name on record. It is otherwise a "free pass" for a check (local, and federal) "Free warrant and DWI and [insert offense here check". This is not usually the case on a pedestrian "stop and identify" in states that allow it. If there is "zero probable cause"  (recent crime matching your description etc...), and an officer runs a background check, you are being unlawfully detained. Otr500 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview