> Isn't "lack of probable cause" crucial here? No. (Note that probable cause doesn't actually have the nice clean definition that you'd like.) > There's a di

> Isn't "lack of probable cause" crucial here? No. (Note that probable cause doesn't actually have the nice clean definition that you'd like.) > There's a difference between arresting someone when you have a probable cause and arresting someone just because you can. Yes there is, but your legal responses based on that difference do not include resisting arrest. > If the cop cannot show that there was probable cause to arrest someone, he a) should be accountable in some way Absolutely. > b) he shouldn't be able to arrest someone for resisting the arrest that he had no right to make in the first place as that's absurd. "The law" disagrees. One argument in favor of "resisting is almost always illegal" is basically that if you resist, the force continuum starts. The end-point is with someone dead. Suppose that you resist and end up dead. Is the officer guilty of murder? How about you resist and the officer ends up dead - are you guilty of murder? Do you really want to argue that the answers to those questions depends on the definition of probable cause, which is actually defined by what a court says later? > Not to mention that based on the description of the events, the "resisting arrest" in this case is an excuse and not something that actually happened. Welcome to modern policing. Whenever you ask govt to do something, you're asking police to get involved.