GA Supreme Court Launches An Outrageous Attack Against Police

[pknopp]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.

To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

Welcome to 5 decades ago.

Where have you been?

This is nowhere CLOSE to being advisable for most people. You must prove that you were in the right and that the police were making an unlawful arrest, which carries with it PLENTY of police discretion you must overcome.

Which is exactly what this person did.

He did, but it is not advisable if you have a choice in the matter. It's better to not get into a fight with police.

We need to end the reasons many become confrontational. The police need it drilled into the heads daily about what they can and can not do. They can not detain someone walking home through an alley.

You're right that they can't detain someone for just walking down the alley.

But, as in the police video on the other thread, if they get a report of a person acting "suspicious" they have a duty to stop the person in the alley and ask questions. The SCOTUS has already deemed such an encounter lawful and NOT a detention.

There is no reason to make the job of police harder by acting suspicious when they interact with you. That is escalating behavior.

The cops here would have left this guy alone had he simply walked away when they asked him to or answered some questions to help in their investigation of Busy Body's report.

They stopped him. He gave them his name. He said he was on his way home. End of stop.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The way you post can be used in certain occasions but not if you lie. I understand that those you mock often lie as you did but don't stoop to their level.

Biff normally does excellent satire. You should expect nothing else from him by now unless he's clearly indicated otherwise. He's was not "lying" there. The article states "He was charged with loitering and prowling." Stating "The caller said he was creeping around an elementary school" was just normal paraphrasing in this case. Grow a healthy sense of humor and stop badgering people for not communicating things exactly as you would. Variety truly remains the spice of life. Try to embrace and celebrate it.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Perhaps the Georgia Supreme Court has become diversified and is full of sympathetic pedophiles? Who knows. It's Murika after all.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I actually see a need for this. For example Briana Taylor. If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night I would absolutely zero reason to believe it was the police.

You would considering they announced themselves

'The warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant,' Kentucky AG says

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said Louisville Metro officers knocked and announced themselves before breaching the door to Breonna Taylor's apartment.

www.whas11.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.

To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

Welcome to 5 decades ago.

Where have you been?

This is nowhere CLOSE to being advisable for most people. You must prove that you were in the right and that the police were making an unlawful arrest, which carries with it PLENTY of police discretion you must overcome.

Which is exactly what this person did.

He did, but it is not advisable if you have a choice in the matter. It's better to not get into a fight with police.

We need to end the reasons many become confrontational. The police need it drilled into the heads daily about what they can and can not do. They can not detain someone walking home through an alley.

You're right that they can't detain someone for just walking down the alley.

But, as in the police video on the other thread, if they get a report of a person acting "suspicious" they have a duty to stop the person in the alley and ask questions. The SCOTUS has already deemed such an encounter lawful and NOT a detention.

There is no reason to make the job of police harder by acting suspicious when they interact with you. That is escalating behavior.

The cops here would have left this guy alone had he simply walked away when they asked him to or answered some questions to help in their investigation of Busy Body's report.

They stopped him. He gave them his name. He said he was on his way home. End of stop.

Here is my point, from the article in the OP:

“A lot of people, even during the course of a lawful arrest, will resist because they don’t believe it’s lawful,” said Reynolds, a former police officer and criminal defense lawyer. “That can turn into a bad situation.”

***

“I’m also a firm believer that the time not to argue with an officer is at 2 a.m. on the side of the road,” Reynolds said. “It’s best to cooperate and then, if warranted, file a complaint with internal affairs. To me, that’s the safest way to get that handled.”


Here is a more detailed description of the incident:

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2020/s19g1236.html
Glenn was on probation at the time (for something and I never learned his original conviction). That is likely the cause of the entire incident and both police and Glenn are at fault. They should have been more clear and explicit with him in explaining why he was being detained and that they were simply trying to investigate a report, and if cleared, he would be free to go shortly. Glenn should have been more cooperative and forthcoming to HELP the police conclude their investigation---unless, of course, he is guilty. Then, he should just shut up and let the chips fall where they may without resisting the arrest. The police really had nothing but "loitering" which is pretty hard to prove.

OCGA § 16-11-36 (a) (“A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”)

There's a whole lot of wiggle room on that loitering offense, and police would likely have just let it slide, but Glenn's lack of candor gave them reason to believe he was up to a whole lot more, and the facts DID give them probable cause to stop him and investigate.

Police are not going to fuck around on a sexual assault of children allegation because many times, predators lurking at schools will grab a kid and the kid is never seen alive again. There is nothing that will terrify a community like a pedo prowler. They will err on the side of investigating fully because the stakes are way too high after the deed is done. Surely you understand that?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The way you post can be used in certain occasions but not if you lie. I understand that those you mock often lie as you did but don't stoop to their level.

Biff normally does excellent satire.

It's really not that clever at all. It became over used and worn out a long time ago.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The way you post can be used in certain occasions but not if you lie. I understand that those you mock often lie as you did but don't stoop to their level.

Biff normally does excellent satire.

It's really not that clever at all. It became over used and worn out a long time ago.

Even if so, all the more reason never to expect non-satirical commentary from Biff unless explicitly presented as such.

 

[Turtlesoup]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 5, 2020 S19G1236. GLENN v. THE STATE. ELLINGTON,Justice.We granted Christopher Glenn’s petition for a writ of certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order revoking Glenn’s probation based on its determination by a preponderance of the evidence that Glenn committed the felony offense of interference with government property by kicking and damaging the door of a police car when he was detained inside. See Glenn v. State, 350 Ga. App. 12 (827 SE2d 698) (2019).1 Glenn’s 1 We note that, in Glenn,the Court of Appeals recited that “[o]nly slight evidence is required to authorize revocation” of probation. 350 Ga. App. at 15. The court subsequently disapproved of this statement of the standard of proof in Thurmond v. State, 353 Ga. App. 506, 508 n.2 (838 SE2d 592) (2020) (noting that OCGA § 42-8-34.1, which was adopted in 1988, provides that the standard for proving a probation violation is a preponderance of the evidence and disapproving of Glenn to the extent it held that only “slight evidence” of violation of the probation sentence was necessary to justify revocation of probation, as was the law before the Code section was adopted). See Caldwell


2 claim that he damaged the door in the course of exercising his common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest and detention, which was rejected by the trial court and by the Court of Appeals, raises two substantive questions: whether a person has a common-law right to attempt to escape from the detention resulting from an unlawful arrest and, if so, whether a person may damage government property in such an attempt. For the reasons explained below, we hold that the common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest includes the right to use proportionate force against government property to escape an unlawful detention following the arrest. Because the trial court found that Glenn’s arrest was unlawful but did not then consider whether the force he used in attempting to escape the ensuing unlawful detention was proportionate, we vacate the Court of Appeals’ decision with direction that the case be remanded to the trial court to make this v. State, 327 Ga. App. 471, 472 (758 SE2d 325) (2014) (“Under Georgia law, a trial court may revoke a probated sentence if the evidence produced at the revocation hearing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the violation or violations of the conditions of probation alleged.” (citations omitted)).


3 essential determination. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to revoke Glenn’s probation for violating the conditions of a June 2017 probationary sentence by committing the new offenses of loitering and prowling, obstruction of a law enforcement officer, and interference with government property. At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of three police officers and played about four and a half minutes of video with audio that was recorded by one officer’s body camera. That evidence showed the following. On May 3, 2018, an Athens-Clarke County police officer responded to a “suspicious-person” call in the area of the Oglethorpe Elementary School shortly after students were dismissed at 2:30 p.m. The responding officer drove around the school property in his patrol car, and for a few seconds he saw Glenn walking on the inside of a line of trees and shrubbery that bordered the road behind the school. The officer testified that he radioed to his dispatcher that he was “getting out [of his patrol car] with a subject matching the description given by the initial [911] caller.”


4 The responding officer approached Glenn and called out to him, “let me talk to you real quick.” Glenn asked if he was being detained. The officer responded, “yes,” ordered Glenn to stop walking and to sit down, and radioed for backup. Glenn, who remained standing,asked the officer why he was being detained and said, “I’ll tell you my name. It’s Christopher Glenn. I’m walking home.” The officer told Glenn that he was “conducting an investigation” and that, if Glenn moved, he would be charged with obstruction and, if he tried to flee, the officer would “use force” if he had to. About one minute after the responding officer’s initial contact with Glenn, another officer arrived. Each officer grasped one of Glenn’s wrists, and they began to apply handcuffs.2 Two more officers arrived in a third patrol car and ran to join the others,followed soon thereafter by another officer in a fourth car. Glenn was 2 At the revocation hearing, the responding officer testified that, when he and the second officer handcuffed Glenn, they were arresting him for loitering and prowling, although there is no evidence that any officer said so to Glenn, and for “potential other charges” for which “the incident was still under investigation.” He admitted that he and the other officers had not yet developed probable cause for any offense other than loitering and prowling.The second officer did not testify at the hearing.


5 handcuffed within two minutes of the responding officer’s initial contact with him. While the first responding officer gripped Glenn’s wrist and arm, the other officers searched his person and removedand inspected the contents of his pockets. After the search, the second officer told Glenn he was going to have to take a seat in his patrol car. Glenn said, “I want you to tell me right here, what am I being detained for?” The third officer told him, “for suspicion of a crime. A sexual assault crime against a minor.”3 The responding officer testified that, after Glenn had been detained and there were enough officers to maintain control, he left that location to continue his investigation of the suspicious-person complaint at the school.4The third officer testified that Glenn was placed in the second officer’s patrol car, and within a few minutes the second officer asked for an ambulance to evaluate Glenn, who had told him that he was 3 No other information about any alleged sexual assault complaint was put before the trial court.4 The transcript of the probation revocation hearing reflects that the trial court reviewed only the first 4 minutes, 34 seconds of the video, which was almost 44 minutes long. At that point, Glenn had been handcuffed and walked to the patrol car of the officer who was second on the scene, and the responding officer walked away, toward his patrol car. The video did not capture Glenn’s resistance to being placed and detained in the patrol car.


6 dehydrated. An ambulance arrived, and Glenn was placed in the treatment area of the ambulance. The supervising officer soon ordered that Glenn be removed from the ambulance, because Glenn was in custody and his condition would be assessed by jail personnel. Instead of exiting, Glenn grabbed onto a seatbelt, and the officers had to physically drag him to the rear doors of the ambulance. At the doors, Glenn flung himself toward the officers and hit the supervising officer’s head with his own forehead, causing a small abrasion on the officer’s cheek.The third officer testified that Glenn became “dead weight and resistant” as officers took him to a patrol car and tried to put him in through the rear driver side door. An officer reached in from the passenger side and pulled Glenn into the car. Glenn kicked against the driver side door and fell out on the passenger side, landing on the officer who had pulled him in and knocking the officer down. The officers then tried to put Glenn back in on the passenger side, and again another officer had to pull him in from the other side of the car. Glenn kicked against the passenger side door hard enough to


7 damage the hinges and to propel himself out of the car. He stood up on the driver side, and the supervising officer knocked him to the ground. Officers put Glenn in the patrol car for the third time. After the officers tied his legs and secured his feet to the floor, Glenn was taken to the jail.The day after Glenn was arrested, a probation officerrequested, and the trial court issued, a warrant to arrest Glenn for violating the conditions of his probation by committing the new offenses of loitering and prowling,5 obstruction of a law enforcement officer,6 and interference with government property.7 Two weeks later, the State filed a petition to revoke Glenn’s probation, listing the same offenses as violations of his probation. 5 See OCGA § 16-11-36 (a) (“A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”).6 See OCGA § 16-10-24 (a) (“Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer . . . in the lawful discharge of his or her official duties shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”). 7 See OCGA § 16-7-24 (a) (“A person commits the offense of interference with government property when he destroys, damages, or defaces government property[.]”).


8 After presentation of evidence at the hearing on the revocation petition, the State argued that the evidence showed that Glenn committed the offense of loitering and prowling by “walking along the wooded edge of an elementary school as the school was being let out.” The State argued that Glenn committed the offenses of obstruction and interference with government property by “physically resisting in multiple ways at multiple points in time” while being “detained . . . pending further investigation of the reason for [the officers’] dispatch[,] . . . resulting in property damage that rendered a police squad vehicle unable to close properly.” In addition, the State argued that, even if the arrest was unlawful such that Glenn did not commit the offense of obstruction, the unlawfulness of the arrest would not excuse his behavior in damaging government property. Glenn argued that the evidence instead showed that the responding officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for loitering and prowling, which made the arrest unlawful. He argued that under Georgia law a person is allowed to resist an unlawful arrest


9 with a reasonable amount of force and that it does not matter whether the force used to get away from an illegal detention is directed against an officer or against an object.The trial court determined that the evidence did not support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Glenn had committed the offense of loitering and prowling. Specifically, the trial court found that, on May 3, 2018, the officers did not observeGlenn in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals and found that there was no evidence of any circumstances of the type listed in the applicable statute aswarranting alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.8 The trial court noted that the officers involved failed to give 8 OCGA § 16-11-36 (b) provides: Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be


10Glenn, prior to arresting him, an opportunity to explain his presence and conduct so as to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted.9 The trial court also determined that the evidence did not support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Glenn had committed the offense of obstruction, because there had been no basis to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling. But the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.9 In Bell v. State, 252 Ga. 267 (313 SE2d 678) (1984), this Court considered a facial challenge to the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-11-36. We concluded that the statute, in authorizing conviction for conduct “not usual for law abiding individuals” that creates “a reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity,” defines the offense in terms which discourage arbitrary enforcement. Id. at 271 (1). We noted that section (b) offers “useful guidelines” to assist an officer in making the required determination. We pointed out that under section (b), “no violation [of the Code section] occurs if the investigating officer fails to afford the suspect an opportunity to dispel otherwise reasonable alarm by explaining his conduct.” Id. See also Waldrop v. State, 300 Ga. App. 281, 285 (3) ( 684 SE2d 417) (2009)(“There is some evidence of loitering when the defendant offers an inadequate explanation of his presence in a place and at a time not usual for law-abiding individuals.” (citation omitted)).



To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

So many holes in the story------Glenn was on probation from 2017 when this occurred. I haven't located the charges from them but I suspect drugs.

he was hiding in the bushes at the elementary school claiming to be walking home..........so of course the cops suspected him of doing bad. If you are walking home why are you in elementary school's bushes on their property?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 5, 2020 S19G1236. GLENN v. THE STATE. ELLINGTON,Justice.We granted Christopher Glenn’s petition for a writ of certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order revoking Glenn’s probation based on its determination by a preponderance of the evidence that Glenn committed the felony offense of interference with government property by kicking and damaging the door of a police car when he was detained inside. See Glenn v. State, 350 Ga. App. 12 (827 SE2d 698) (2019).1 Glenn’s 1 We note that, in Glenn,the Court of Appeals recited that “[o]nly slight evidence is required to authorize revocation” of probation. 350 Ga. App. at 15. The court subsequently disapproved of this statement of the standard of proof in Thurmond v. State, 353 Ga. App. 506, 508 n.2 (838 SE2d 592) (2020) (noting that OCGA § 42-8-34.1, which was adopted in 1988, provides that the standard for proving a probation violation is a preponderance of the evidence and disapproving of Glenn to the extent it held that only “slight evidence” of violation of the probation sentence was necessary to justify revocation of probation, as was the law before the Code section was adopted). See Caldwell


2 claim that he damaged the door in the course of exercising his common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest and detention, which was rejected by the trial court and by the Court of Appeals, raises two substantive questions: whether a person has a common-law right to attempt to escape from the detention resulting from an unlawful arrest and, if so, whether a person may damage government property in such an attempt. For the reasons explained below, we hold that the common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest includes the right to use proportionate force against government property to escape an unlawful detention following the arrest. Because the trial court found that Glenn’s arrest was unlawful but did not then consider whether the force he used in attempting to escape the ensuing unlawful detention was proportionate, we vacate the Court of Appeals’ decision with direction that the case be remanded to the trial court to make this v. State, 327 Ga. App. 471, 472 (758 SE2d 325) (2014) (“Under Georgia law, a trial court may revoke a probated sentence if the evidence produced at the revocation hearing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the violation or violations of the conditions of probation alleged.” (citations omitted)).


3 essential determination. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to revoke Glenn’s probation for violating the conditions of a June 2017 probationary sentence by committing the new offenses of loitering and prowling, obstruction of a law enforcement officer, and interference with government property. At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of three police officers and played about four and a half minutes of video with audio that was recorded by one officer’s body camera. That evidence showed the following. On May 3, 2018, an Athens-Clarke County police officer responded to a “suspicious-person” call in the area of the Oglethorpe Elementary School shortly after students were dismissed at 2:30 p.m. The responding officer drove around the school property in his patrol car, and for a few seconds he saw Glenn walking on the inside of a line of trees and shrubbery that bordered the road behind the school. The officer testified that he radioed to his dispatcher that he was “getting out [of his patrol car] with a subject matching the description given by the initial [911] caller.”


4 The responding officer approached Glenn and called out to him, “let me talk to you real quick.” Glenn asked if he was being detained. The officer responded, “yes,” ordered Glenn to stop walking and to sit down, and radioed for backup. Glenn, who remained standing,asked the officer why he was being detained and said, “I’ll tell you my name. It’s Christopher Glenn. I’m walking home.” The officer told Glenn that he was “conducting an investigation” and that, if Glenn moved, he would be charged with obstruction and, if he tried to flee, the officer would “use force” if he had to. About one minute after the responding officer’s initial contact with Glenn, another officer arrived. Each officer grasped one of Glenn’s wrists, and they began to apply handcuffs.2 Two more officers arrived in a third patrol car and ran to join the others,followed soon thereafter by another officer in a fourth car. Glenn was 2 At the revocation hearing, the responding officer testified that, when he and the second officer handcuffed Glenn, they were arresting him for loitering and prowling, although there is no evidence that any officer said so to Glenn, and for “potential other charges” for which “the incident was still under investigation.” He admitted that he and the other officers had not yet developed probable cause for any offense other than loitering and prowling.The second officer did not testify at the hearing.


5 handcuffed within two minutes of the responding officer’s initial contact with him. While the first responding officer gripped Glenn’s wrist and arm, the other officers searched his person and removedand inspected the contents of his pockets. After the search, the second officer told Glenn he was going to have to take a seat in his patrol car. Glenn said, “I want you to tell me right here, what am I being detained for?” The third officer told him, “for suspicion of a crime. A sexual assault crime against a minor.”3 The responding officer testified that, after Glenn had been detained and there were enough officers to maintain control, he left that location to continue his investigation of the suspicious-person complaint at the school.4The third officer testified that Glenn was placed in the second officer’s patrol car, and within a few minutes the second officer asked for an ambulance to evaluate Glenn, who had told him that he was 3 No other information about any alleged sexual assault complaint was put before the trial court.4 The transcript of the probation revocation hearing reflects that the trial court reviewed only the first 4 minutes, 34 seconds of the video, which was almost 44 minutes long. At that point, Glenn had been handcuffed and walked to the patrol car of the officer who was second on the scene, and the responding officer walked away, toward his patrol car. The video did not capture Glenn’s resistance to being placed and detained in the patrol car.


6 dehydrated. An ambulance arrived, and Glenn was placed in the treatment area of the ambulance. The supervising officer soon ordered that Glenn be removed from the ambulance, because Glenn was in custody and his condition would be assessed by jail personnel. Instead of exiting, Glenn grabbed onto a seatbelt, and the officers had to physically drag him to the rear doors of the ambulance. At the doors, Glenn flung himself toward the officers and hit the supervising officer’s head with his own forehead, causing a small abrasion on the officer’s cheek.The third officer testified that Glenn became “dead weight and resistant” as officers took him to a patrol car and tried to put him in through the rear driver side door. An officer reached in from the passenger side and pulled Glenn into the car. Glenn kicked against the driver side door and fell out on the passenger side, landing on the officer who had pulled him in and knocking the officer down. The officers then tried to put Glenn back in on the passenger side, and again another officer had to pull him in from the other side of the car. Glenn kicked against the passenger side door hard enough to


7 damage the hinges and to propel himself out of the car. He stood up on the driver side, and the supervising officer knocked him to the ground. Officers put Glenn in the patrol car for the third time. After the officers tied his legs and secured his feet to the floor, Glenn was taken to the jail.The day after Glenn was arrested, a probation officerrequested, and the trial court issued, a warrant to arrest Glenn for violating the conditions of his probation by committing the new offenses of loitering and prowling,5 obstruction of a law enforcement officer,6 and interference with government property.7 Two weeks later, the State filed a petition to revoke Glenn’s probation, listing the same offenses as violations of his probation. 5 See OCGA § 16-11-36 (a) (“A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”).6 See OCGA § 16-10-24 (a) (“Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer . . . in the lawful discharge of his or her official duties shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”). 7 See OCGA § 16-7-24 (a) (“A person commits the offense of interference with government property when he destroys, damages, or defaces government property[.]”).


8 After presentation of evidence at the hearing on the revocation petition, the State argued that the evidence showed that Glenn committed the offense of loitering and prowling by “walking along the wooded edge of an elementary school as the school was being let out.” The State argued that Glenn committed the offenses of obstruction and interference with government property by “physically resisting in multiple ways at multiple points in time” while being “detained . . . pending further investigation of the reason for [the officers’] dispatch[,] . . . resulting in property damage that rendered a police squad vehicle unable to close properly.” In addition, the State argued that, even if the arrest was unlawful such that Glenn did not commit the offense of obstruction, the unlawfulness of the arrest would not excuse his behavior in damaging government property. Glenn argued that the evidence instead showed that the responding officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for loitering and prowling, which made the arrest unlawful. He argued that under Georgia law a person is allowed to resist an unlawful arrest


9 with a reasonable amount of force and that it does not matter whether the force used to get away from an illegal detention is directed against an officer or against an object.The trial court determined that the evidence did not support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Glenn had committed the offense of loitering and prowling. Specifically, the trial court found that, on May 3, 2018, the officers did not observeGlenn in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals and found that there was no evidence of any circumstances of the type listed in the applicable statute aswarranting alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.8 The trial court noted that the officers involved failed to give 8 OCGA § 16-11-36 (b) provides: Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be


10Glenn, prior to arresting him, an opportunity to explain his presence and conduct so as to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted.9 The trial court also determined that the evidence did not support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Glenn had committed the offense of obstruction, because there had been no basis to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling. But the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.9 In Bell v. State, 252 Ga. 267 (313 SE2d 678) (1984), this Court considered a facial challenge to the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-11-36. We concluded that the statute, in authorizing conviction for conduct “not usual for law abiding individuals” that creates “a reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity,” defines the offense in terms which discourage arbitrary enforcement. Id. at 271 (1). We noted that section (b) offers “useful guidelines” to assist an officer in making the required determination. We pointed out that under section (b), “no violation [of the Code section] occurs if the investigating officer fails to afford the suspect an opportunity to dispel otherwise reasonable alarm by explaining his conduct.” Id. See also Waldrop v. State, 300 Ga. App. 281, 285 (3) ( 684 SE2d 417) (2009)(“There is some evidence of loitering when the defendant offers an inadequate explanation of his presence in a place and at a time not usual for law-abiding individuals.” (citation omitted)).



To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

So many holes in the story------Glenn was on probation from 2017 when this occurred. I haven't located the charges from them but I suspect drugs.

The rest of the story goes:

If anyone has a duty to fully cooperate with police, it is a person on probation. Nothing good can come from fucking around when you are a suspect in a police investigation and you have done nothing wrong.

 

[pknopp]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.

To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

Welcome to 5 decades ago.

Where have you been?

This is nowhere CLOSE to being advisable for most people. You must prove that you were in the right and that the police were making an unlawful arrest, which carries with it PLENTY of police discretion you must overcome.

Which is exactly what this person did.

He did, but it is not advisable if you have a choice in the matter. It's better to not get into a fight with police.

We need to end the reasons many become confrontational. The police need it drilled into the heads daily about what they can and can not do. They can not detain someone walking home through an alley.

You're right that they can't detain someone for just walking down the alley.

But, as in the police video on the other thread, if they get a report of a person acting "suspicious" they have a duty to stop the person in the alley and ask questions. The SCOTUS has already deemed such an encounter lawful and NOT a detention.

There is no reason to make the job of police harder by acting suspicious when they interact with you. That is escalating behavior.

The cops here would have left this guy alone had he simply walked away when they asked him to or answered some questions to help in their investigation of Busy Body's report.

They stopped him. He gave them his name. He said he was on his way home. End of stop.

Here is my point, from the article in the OP:

“A lot of people, even during the course of a lawful arrest, will resist because they don’t believe it’s lawful,” said Reynolds, a former police officer and criminal defense lawyer. “That can turn into a bad situation.”

***

“I’m also a firm believer that the time not to argue with an officer is at 2 a.m. on the side of the road,” Reynolds said. “It’s best to cooperate and then, if warranted, file a complaint with internal affairs. To me, that’s the safest way to get that handled.”


Here is a more detailed description of the incident:

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2020/s19g1236.html
Glenn was on probation at the time (for something and I never learned his original conviction). That is likely the cause of the entire incident and both police and Glenn are at fault. They should have been more clear and explicit with him in explaining why he was being detained and that they were simply trying to investigate a report, and if cleared, he would be free to go shortly. Glenn should have been more cooperative and forthcoming to HELP the police conclude their investigation---unless, of course, he is guilty. Then, he should just shut up and let the chips fall where they may without resisting the arrest. The police really had nothing but "loitering" which is pretty hard to prove.

OCGA § 16-11-36 (a) (“A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”)

There's a whole lot of wiggle room on that loitering offense, and police would likely have just let it slide, but Glenn's lack of candor gave them reason to believe he was up to a whole lot more, and the facts DID give them probable cause to stop him and investigate.

Police are not going to fuck around on a sexual assault of children allegation because many times, predators lurking at schools will grab a kid and the kid is never seen alive again. There is nothing that will terrify a community like a pedo prowler. They will err on the side of investigating fully because the stakes are way too high after the deed is done. Surely you understand that?

To arrest someone because you "believe" they might be up to something is a violation of that person's civil rights.

The police were wrong and that is why the courts ruled that way.

 

[Grumblenuts]

he was hiding in the bushes at the elementary school

Bullshit.

If anyone has a duty to fully cooperate with police, it is a person on probation. Nothing good can come from fucking around when you are a suspect in a police investigation and you have done nothing wrong.

The story provides plenty of evidence to the contrary. Who exactly was "fucking around" when

Glenn said, “I want you to tell me right here, what am I being detained for?” The third officer told him, “for suspicion of a crime. A sexual assault crime against a minor³”

? Footnote

³ No other information about any alleged sexual assault complaint was put before the trial court.

 

[Grumblenuts]

My research implicates a very different Christopher Glenn in Florida.

Though Glenn often used his own name, he also used a collection of aliases, which included Fernando Albergue, Derek John Michael, Yusef and "El Gringo."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.

To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

Welcome to 5 decades ago.

Where have you been?

This is nowhere CLOSE to being advisable for most people. You must prove that you were in the right and that the police were making an unlawful arrest, which carries with it PLENTY of police discretion you must overcome.

Which is exactly what this person did.

He did, but it is not advisable if you have a choice in the matter. It's better to not get into a fight with police.

We need to end the reasons many become confrontational. The police need it drilled into the heads daily about what they can and can not do. They can not detain someone walking home through an alley.

You're right that they can't detain someone for just walking down the alley.

But, as in the police video on the other thread, if they get a report of a person acting "suspicious" they have a duty to stop the person in the alley and ask questions. The SCOTUS has already deemed such an encounter lawful and NOT a detention.

There is no reason to make the job of police harder by acting suspicious when they interact with you. That is escalating behavior.

The cops here would have left this guy alone had he simply walked away when they asked him to or answered some questions to help in their investigation of Busy Body's report.

They stopped him. He gave them his name. He said he was on his way home. End of stop.

Here is my point, from the article in the OP:

“A lot of people, even during the course of a lawful arrest, will resist because they don’t believe it’s lawful,” said Reynolds, a former police officer and criminal defense lawyer. “That can turn into a bad situation.”

***

“I’m also a firm believer that the time not to argue with an officer is at 2 a.m. on the side of the road,” Reynolds said. “It’s best to cooperate and then, if warranted, file a complaint with internal affairs. To me, that’s the safest way to get that handled.”


Here is a more detailed description of the incident:

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2020/s19g1236.html
Glenn was on probation at the time (for something and I never learned his original conviction). That is likely the cause of the entire incident and both police and Glenn are at fault. They should have been more clear and explicit with him in explaining why he was being detained and that they were simply trying to investigate a report, and if cleared, he would be free to go shortly. Glenn should have been more cooperative and forthcoming to HELP the police conclude their investigation---unless, of course, he is guilty. Then, he should just shut up and let the chips fall where they may without resisting the arrest. The police really had nothing but "loitering" which is pretty hard to prove.

OCGA § 16-11-36 (a) (“A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”)

There's a whole lot of wiggle room on that loitering offense, and police would likely have just let it slide, but Glenn's lack of candor gave them reason to believe he was up to a whole lot more, and the facts DID give them probable cause to stop him and investigate.

Police are not going to fuck around on a sexual assault of children allegation because many times, predators lurking at schools will grab a kid and the kid is never seen alive again. There is nothing that will terrify a community like a pedo prowler. They will err on the side of investigating fully because the stakes are way too high after the deed is done. Surely you understand that?

To arrest someone because you "believe" they might be up to something is a violation of that person's civil rights.

The police were wrong and that is why the courts ruled that way.

To arrest them, yes. To detain them during an investigation when they fit the description of the reported suspect? NO!

The issue is not whether police were wrong (they partly were). The issue was whether or not Glenn's probation would be revoked, sending him to prison for the previous crime.

 

[pknopp]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.

To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

Welcome to 5 decades ago.

Where have you been?

This is nowhere CLOSE to being advisable for most people. You must prove that you were in the right and that the police were making an unlawful arrest, which carries with it PLENTY of police discretion you must overcome.

Which is exactly what this person did.

He did, but it is not advisable if you have a choice in the matter. It's better to not get into a fight with police.

We need to end the reasons many become confrontational. The police need it drilled into the heads daily about what they can and can not do. They can not detain someone walking home through an alley.

You're right that they can't detain someone for just walking down the alley.

But, as in the police video on the other thread, if they get a report of a person acting "suspicious" they have a duty to stop the person in the alley and ask questions. The SCOTUS has already deemed such an encounter lawful and NOT a detention.

There is no reason to make the job of police harder by acting suspicious when they interact with you. That is escalating behavior.

The cops here would have left this guy alone had he simply walked away when they asked him to or answered some questions to help in their investigation of Busy Body's report.

They stopped him. He gave them his name. He said he was on his way home. End of stop.

Here is my point, from the article in the OP:

“A lot of people, even during the course of a lawful arrest, will resist because they don’t believe it’s lawful,” said Reynolds, a former police officer and criminal defense lawyer. “That can turn into a bad situation.”

***

“I’m also a firm believer that the time not to argue with an officer is at 2 a.m. on the side of the road,” Reynolds said. “It’s best to cooperate and then, if warranted, file a complaint with internal affairs. To me, that’s the safest way to get that handled.”


Here is a more detailed description of the incident:

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2020/s19g1236.html
Glenn was on probation at the time (for something and I never learned his original conviction). That is likely the cause of the entire incident and both police and Glenn are at fault. They should have been more clear and explicit with him in explaining why he was being detained and that they were simply trying to investigate a report, and if cleared, he would be free to go shortly. Glenn should have been more cooperative and forthcoming to HELP the police conclude their investigation---unless, of course, he is guilty. Then, he should just shut up and let the chips fall where they may without resisting the arrest. The police really had nothing but "loitering" which is pretty hard to prove.

OCGA § 16-11-36 (a) (“A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”)

There's a whole lot of wiggle room on that loitering offense, and police would likely have just let it slide, but Glenn's lack of candor gave them reason to believe he was up to a whole lot more, and the facts DID give them probable cause to stop him and investigate.

Police are not going to fuck around on a sexual assault of children allegation because many times, predators lurking at schools will grab a kid and the kid is never seen alive again. There is nothing that will terrify a community like a pedo prowler. They will err on the side of investigating fully because the stakes are way too high after the deed is done. Surely you understand that?

To arrest someone because you "believe" they might be up to something is a violation of that person's civil rights.

The police were wrong and that is why the courts ruled that way.

To arrest them, yes. To detain them during an investigation when they fit the description of the reported suspect? NO!

The issue is not whether police were wrong (they partly were). The issue was whether or not Glenn's probation would be revoked, sending him to prison for the previous crime.

There was no suspect. You don't get your probation revoked for walking home.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.

To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

Welcome to 5 decades ago.

Where have you been?

This is nowhere CLOSE to being advisable for most people. You must prove that you were in the right and that the police were making an unlawful arrest, which carries with it PLENTY of police discretion you must overcome.

Which is exactly what this person did.

He did, but it is not advisable if you have a choice in the matter. It's better to not get into a fight with police.

We need to end the reasons many become confrontational. The police need it drilled into the heads daily about what they can and can not do. They can not detain someone walking home through an alley.

You're right that they can't detain someone for just walking down the alley.

But, as in the police video on the other thread, if they get a report of a person acting "suspicious" they have a duty to stop the person in the alley and ask questions. The SCOTUS has already deemed such an encounter lawful and NOT a detention.

There is no reason to make the job of police harder by acting suspicious when they interact with you. That is escalating behavior.

The cops here would have left this guy alone had he simply walked away when they asked him to or answered some questions to help in their investigation of Busy Body's report.

They stopped him. He gave them his name. He said he was on his way home. End of stop.

Here is my point, from the article in the OP:

“A lot of people, even during the course of a lawful arrest, will resist because they don’t believe it’s lawful,” said Reynolds, a former police officer and criminal defense lawyer. “That can turn into a bad situation.”

***

“I’m also a firm believer that the time not to argue with an officer is at 2 a.m. on the side of the road,” Reynolds said. “It’s best to cooperate and then, if warranted, file a complaint with internal affairs. To me, that’s the safest way to get that handled.”


Here is a more detailed description of the incident:

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2020/s19g1236.html
Glenn was on probation at the time (for something and I never learned his original conviction). That is likely the cause of the entire incident and both police and Glenn are at fault. They should have been more clear and explicit with him in explaining why he was being detained and that they were simply trying to investigate a report, and if cleared, he would be free to go shortly. Glenn should have been more cooperative and forthcoming to HELP the police conclude their investigation---unless, of course, he is guilty. Then, he should just shut up and let the chips fall where they may without resisting the arrest. The police really had nothing but "loitering" which is pretty hard to prove.

OCGA § 16-11-36 (a) (“A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”)

There's a whole lot of wiggle room on that loitering offense, and police would likely have just let it slide, but Glenn's lack of candor gave them reason to believe he was up to a whole lot more, and the facts DID give them probable cause to stop him and investigate.

Police are not going to fuck around on a sexual assault of children allegation because many times, predators lurking at schools will grab a kid and the kid is never seen alive again. There is nothing that will terrify a community like a pedo prowler. They will err on the side of investigating fully because the stakes are way too high after the deed is done. Surely you understand that?

To arrest someone because you "believe" they might be up to something is a violation of that person's civil rights.

The police were wrong and that is why the courts ruled that way.

To arrest them, yes. To detain them during an investigation when they fit the description of the reported suspect? NO!

The issue is not whether police were wrong (they partly were). The issue was whether or not Glenn's probation would be revoked, sending him to prison for the previous crime.

There was no suspect. You don't get your probation revoked for walking home.

I agree.

But, you don't get to tell police to fuck off when they have you pinned as a suspect in a police investigation.

 

[pknopp]

In Georgia, it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest, but may still be a bad idea

Georgia's highest courts rule that suspects being unlawfully arrested in the state can use force to resist arrest, but there's a catch. . The court said you must use a permissible — or “proportionate” — amount of force when resisting unlawful arrest.

www.ajc.com

"Christopher Glenn insisted he was doing nothing wrong. So when Athens-Clarke County police officers handcuffed him and took him to a patrol car, he was having none of it. Kicking and flailing, he strongly resisted arrest. At one point, Glenn lunged forward, smacking a sergeant’s face with his forehead. When officers finally got Glenn into the cruiser, he kicked at the door so violently he damaged its hinges.

As it turned out, the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glenn for loitering and prowling outside Oglethorpe Elementary School in Athens -- Glenn’s appeal of the incident led to a landmark Georgia Supreme Court ruling to find that not only was Glenn within his rights to use force to resist the unlawful arrest, he could also damage government property while doing so."

I was always under the impression that Georgia was for the most part; a sane conservative state, so how can their Supreme Court essentially be the most radically leftist communist court in the whole country?? Do they honestly think it is a good idea to tell citizens they can resist unlawful arrests? If the police are arresting you; it is automatically lawful --- a mere citizen doesn't get to tell law enforcement what is or isn't lawful.

To make matters worse, this Glenn guy is basically a pedophile....he was creeping about and prowling around an elementary school; someone called 911...police arrived at the scene and it was then Glenn should have complied with police commands....instead he resisted arrest and violently fought with the police. The police obviously had probable cause to detain Glenn because he was loitering outside a school; possibly there to kidnap children. Now because of this ruling; the Supreme Court is basically siding with the criminal instead of the police.

Welcome to 5 decades ago.

Where have you been?

This is nowhere CLOSE to being advisable for most people. You must prove that you were in the right and that the police were making an unlawful arrest, which carries with it PLENTY of police discretion you must overcome.

Which is exactly what this person did.

He did, but it is not advisable if you have a choice in the matter. It's better to not get into a fight with police.

We need to end the reasons many become confrontational. The police need it drilled into the heads daily about what they can and can not do. They can not detain someone walking home through an alley.

You're right that they can't detain someone for just walking down the alley.

But, as in the police video on the other thread, if they get a report of a person acting "suspicious" they have a duty to stop the person in the alley and ask questions. The SCOTUS has already deemed such an encounter lawful and NOT a detention.

There is no reason to make the job of police harder by acting suspicious when they interact with you. That is escalating behavior.

The cops here would have left this guy alone had he simply walked away when they asked him to or answered some questions to help in their investigation of Busy Body's report.

They stopped him. He gave them his name. He said he was on his way home. End of stop.

Here is my point, from the article in the OP:

“A lot of people, even during the course of a lawful arrest, will resist because they don’t believe it’s lawful,” said Reynolds, a former police officer and criminal defense lawyer. “That can turn into a bad situation.”

***

“I’m also a firm believer that the time not to argue with an officer is at 2 a.m. on the side of the road,” Reynolds said. “It’s best to cooperate and then, if warranted, file a complaint with internal affairs. To me, that’s the safest way to get that handled.”


Here is a more detailed description of the incident:

https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2020/s19g1236.html
Glenn was on probation at the time (for something and I never learned his original conviction). That is likely the cause of the entire incident and both police and Glenn are at fault. They should have been more clear and explicit with him in explaining why he was being detained and that they were simply trying to investigate a report, and if cleared, he would be free to go shortly. Glenn should have been more cooperative and forthcoming to HELP the police conclude their investigation---unless, of course, he is guilty. Then, he should just shut up and let the chips fall where they may without resisting the arrest. The police really had nothing but "loitering" which is pretty hard to prove.

OCGA § 16-11-36 (a) (“A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.”)

There's a whole lot of wiggle room on that loitering offense, and police would likely have just let it slide, but Glenn's lack of candor gave them reason to believe he was up to a whole lot more, and the facts DID give them probable cause to stop him and investigate.

Police are not going to fuck around on a sexual assault of children allegation because many times, predators lurking at schools will grab a kid and the kid is never seen alive again. There is nothing that will terrify a community like a pedo prowler. They will err on the side of investigating fully because the stakes are way too high after the deed is done. Surely you understand that?

To arrest someone because you "believe" they might be up to something is a violation of that person's civil rights.

The police were wrong and that is why the courts ruled that way.

To arrest them, yes. To detain them during an investigation when they fit the description of the reported suspect? NO!

The issue is not whether police were wrong (they partly were). The issue was whether or not Glenn's probation would be revoked, sending him to prison for the previous crime.

There was no suspect. You don't get your probation revoked for walking home.

I agree.

But, you don't get to tell police to fuck off when they have you pinned as a suspect in a police investigation.

There was no investigation. The court ruled he could because they had NO reason to stop him.