Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:17, 17 May 2015

To start a reassessment, follow this link to create the good article reassessment page for the article. Please indicate clearly how the article does not meet the good article criteria.  (If you have already created a reassessment page, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Bad Elk v. United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 4, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article follows the Law Manual of Style. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Supreme Court cases This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indigenous peoples of North America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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.

Sourcing

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

Internet meme and myths section

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 . 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.

References

1. Plummer v. State, 34 N.E. 968 (Ind. 1893).
2. Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest, Rayservers (Jan. 2, 2010, 1:00 PM); Protesters Have the Right to Protest … and to Resist Unlawful Arrest, Infowars.com (Nov. 13, 2011, 7:52 AM); Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest, Freedom-school.com (Dec. 12, 2012, 12:26 PM).
3. Wright at 388 (noting that as of 1998, 36 of the 50 states prohibited resisting unlawful arrests); see also Miller, at 953 (only 13 states allow resistance to an unlawful arrest).

dioscussion

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)

• Good article reassessment nominees
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
• Unknown-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
• WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
• GA-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• GA-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• Unknown-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles