Quote Originally Posted by gimmick View Post
So pleas for emotion and generally assuming the worst scenario that's usually covered by other statutes.

So lets get back to the resisting arrest. Is this, "cops who get attacked when trying to do their job, right? Cops' jobs are hard enough without dealing with assholes resisting. Now people get to resist with zero consequence", a scenario that will be dismissed now? I'll answer it for you since you have hard time admitting ever being wrong. Fuck no. Pretty much only thing that's different now is that you might get away with mouthing off, if you're wasted. Touch a cop and you get fucked. Zero change. Doesn't make much of a headline though.

With a board full of multiple lawyers to chime in i don't see the point in randomly guessing what typical cases of trespassing are. Almost any one of them can give a much more educated opinion what are the real changes to current policy. All they have to do is read my first post and ignore your hot takes.
If you slug a cop in the face, you're getting charged.

If the cop is trying to arrest you, and you're thrashing everywhere, not letting him cuff you, and/or trying to run off, you won't get charged now. In fact, if there's a scuffle where you don't clearly hit the cop, again you will walk.

LOL at "mouthing off at the cop". That's almost never part of any prosecuted resisting arrest charge, unless there's a lot more to it than that. As a great Finnish poker forum poster once said, "He probably walks a good percentage of the time anyway."

Let the system do its job without unilateral legislating by the DA. If the resisting arrest charge is BS (such as "mouthing off"), it won't be prosecuted anyway, or it won't hold up in court.

BTW, you're also overlooking that things like resisting arrest can be used to secure a guilty conviction where otherwise it could be a lot tougher. So let's say a shoplifter is being chased by police, and resists arrest (but doesn't outright attack the cop), and is ultimately arrested.

If only found with one stolen item, the shoplifter can say that he absent-mindedly forgot he was carrying the item when he walked out, and then panicked when the police shouted at him to stop. Of course, this would be BS, and indeed the shoplifter was guilty, but convincing a jury of that might be tough. With the resisting arrest charge, the DA's office can threaten to pursue both that and the theft charge, resulting in a lot of potential jail time. This could easily be the factor to where the shoplifter would plead guilty in order to avoid having to gamble against a substantial sentence, whereas he might roll the dice if it's just facing a one-item shoplifting charge.

Negotiations like this go down all the time. Many people plead guilty because there's a big pile of charges on them, and they're willing to accept responsibility for the main thing they did, in exchange for a reduced sentence and the dropping of the peripheral charges. Now that factor goes away.

The left is terrible at crime and punishment. Whenever an election in the US is a referendum on crime and punishment matters, the Democrats get absolutely clobbered. In fact, that was a large reason why Republicans not named Donald Trump did far better than expected in 2020.