Can you shoot a police officer in self defense?

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
Heh, they come to the door and ask to come in, I say in my tough voice and swing open the door and say (in my mean voice) "WTF do you want", with a 10 gauge pointed at his head.

please, please do this.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
Heh, they come to the door and ask to come in, I say in my tough voice and swing open the door and say (in my mean voice) "WTF do you want", with a 10 gauge pointed at his head.

please, please do this.

Police officers would be boned. Already drawn down on with a long gun.... versus holstered handguns.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

A responsible person would comply with verbal commands and as such, force would not be used.

Only if those commands are lawful.

You've been proven incorrect on at least one LE-related point so far -- and here you are, saying that the general public should able to determine whether or not they have been issued a lawful command? A bit ironic, I must say -- and if you factor in general human stupidity, drugs, alcohol, etc, your 'solution' becomes a recipe for disaster.

Which point is that. You can't have freedom without the right to refuse to obey an unjust order. Of course the general public gets to decided. It is the basis for our justice system. Or in addition to not believing in freedom do you also not believe in the jury system?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not, as you claimed, necessary for an arrest.

The general public does not decide. The court does. You, sir, are mistaken.

As for your last comment, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Did you?

Just because you have trouble with reading comprehensions doesn't mean I said something you read. I said you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a arrest is legal if you wish to charge someone with resisting arrest.

But lets make this simple, if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: TehMac
In Texas I think you can defend yourself from a police officer you think is abusing authority--but you better be damnedwell sure he is actually, or you're going to end up getting sh!t in your veins/rammed in jail.
I'm not sure, not really a lawyer, I remember reading that though.

True, in Texas if a police officer is using excessive force against you, you may defend yourself with equal or greater force that is necissary to stop the offender.
It is a legal quagmire, but luckily in Texas if a situation happened like this, the local PD doesn't do the investigation, the State Police and Texas Rangers take over, and they are usually non bias, as they don't really like the regular PD guys.

Well what if the offending cop was a Texas Ranger? What if it was Walker, Texas Ranger?!?! Then you're up sh1t creek without a paddle, or a boat.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
Heh, they come to the door and ask to come in, I say in my tough voice and swing open the door and say (in my mean voice) "WTF do you want", with a 10 gauge pointed at his head.

please, please do this.

Police officers would be boned. Already drawn down on with a long gun.... versus holstered handguns.

I think he wants motypythizzle specifically, to do this, in hopes that we'd be relieved of him on this forum.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

A responsible person would comply with verbal commands and as such, force would not be used.

Only if those commands are lawful.

You've been proven incorrect on at least one LE-related point so far -- and here you are, saying that the general public should able to determine whether or not they have been issued a lawful command? A bit ironic, I must say -- and if you factor in general human stupidity, drugs, alcohol, etc, your 'solution' becomes a recipe for disaster.

Which point is that. You can't have freedom without the right to refuse to obey an unjust order. Of course the general public gets to decided. It is the basis for our justice system. Or in addition to not believing in freedom do you also not believe in the jury system?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not, as you claimed, necessary for an arrest.

The general public does not decide. The court does. You, sir, are mistaken.

As for your last comment, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Did you?

Just because you have trouble with reading comprehensions doesn't mean I said something you read. I said you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a arrest is legal if you wish to charge someone with resisting arrest.

But lets make this simple, if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

Wrong again.

594:5 Resisting Arrest. ? If a person has reasonable ground to believe that he is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer, it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.

Why don't you familiarize yourself with how the law is written, then come back and argue...
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...ml/lix/594/594-mrg.htm

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

A responsible person would comply with verbal commands and as such, force would not be used.

Only if those commands are lawful.

You've been proven incorrect on at least one LE-related point so far -- and here you are, saying that the general public should able to determine whether or not they have been issued a lawful command? A bit ironic, I must say -- and if you factor in general human stupidity, drugs, alcohol, etc, your 'solution' becomes a recipe for disaster.

Which point is that. You can't have freedom without the right to refuse to obey an unjust order. Of course the general public gets to decided. It is the basis for our justice system. Or in addition to not believing in freedom do you also not believe in the jury system?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not, as you claimed, necessary for an arrest.

The general public does not decide. The court does. You, sir, are mistaken.

As for your last comment, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Did you?

Just because you have trouble with reading comprehensions doesn't mean I said something you read. I said you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a arrest is legal if you wish to charge someone with resisting arrest.

But lets make this simple, if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

Wrong again.

594:5 Resisting Arrest. ? If a person has reasonable ground to believe that he is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer, it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.

Why don't you familiarize yourself with how the law is written, then come back and argue...
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...ml/lix/594/594-mrg.htm

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

that is not what he asked now is it?

 

[userman]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

But that doesnt mean the officer can tell you to go kill Mr. Bob at his house and give him a clean pistol.

Ill try to find you a movie that might help.

The Contract with Morgan Freeman and John Cusack

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445946/

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

that is not what he asked now is it?

It's exactly what he asked. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him is not justified in using deadly force if the private person does not believe that the officer is authorized to use such force under the circumstances. As such, he is not to comply with the (unlawful) order.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

that is not what he asked now is it?

It's exactly what he asked. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him is not justified in using deadly force if the private person does not believe that the officer is authorized to use such force under the circumstances. As such, he is not to comply with the (unlawful) order.

no he asked " a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?" you gave a code section on if a cops requires help in a deadly situation. that is nto exactly what he asked.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: userman

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

But that doesnt mean the officer can tell you to go kill Mr. Bob at his house and give him a clean pistol.

Ill try to find you a movie that might help.

The Contract with Morgan Freeman and John Cusack

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445946/

😕

Of course it doesn't -- read the RSA!

 

[userman]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

that is not what he asked now is it?

The officer can order you to kill someone but its not a lawfull order.

EDIT.
If it turns out that its the officer is just wanting someone killed for his personal benefit.
If the officer is arresting someone or getting an escape then he can tell you to kill the perp and it will be backed by the rest of the police force.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Can you shoot a police officer in self defense?

In very, very VERY limited circumstances - IF you had reason to fear for your life (at least in NC, anyway) you may be able to use deadly force to defend yourself.

There is a reason why LE officers yell, "Police!" upon entering a residence when serving a felony warrant. Once they have identified themselves you have an obligation to comply.

Remember - they have a court order and have ID'ed themselves.

There are other circumstances where an officer may enter a dwelling without a warrant. If they have reasonable suspicion that a felony is occuring which is an immediate danger to persons or property they may initiate a police action. They must effectively idenify themselves.

There was a case in Charlotte where an officer entered a telecommunications structure upon 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime was happening. The equipment was noisy and no one knows (except the officer) whether he properly identified himself - this was not a very 'nice' part of town and the building was rather isolated. The single worker heard someone enter the structure and pulled a handgun to defend himself. He was shot and killed by the officer.

The DA did not file criminal charges against the officer based upon his 'reasonable' suspicion that a crime was underway. I believe that a civil action has been filed - and I'm guessing it will be settled quickly and quietly.

In this matter, due to the isolation of the structure and its location, the lack of 'eminent danger' and other circumstances (the worker's utility van was the only vehicle on-premise), a civil action at trial will crush the City because the officer acted without normal prudence and commonsense regardless of his 'suspicion'.

There was one post in this thread where someone noted entry into a residence and the use of deadly force. If the law enforcement officers did not identify themselves and you had reason to fear for your life, you may use deadly force to defend yourself.

It is then up to the discretion of the DA upon review of the evidence to determine if you will be charged. Good luck with that.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

that is not what he asked now is it?

It's exactly what he asked. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him is not justified in using deadly force if the private person does not believe that the officer is authorized to use such force under the circumstances. As such, he is not to comply with the (unlawful) order.

no he asked " a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?" you gave a code section on if a cops requires help in a deadly situation. that is nto exactly what he asked.

If it's only legal to follow such order under the specific circumstances outlined above, then obviously it would not be legal to comply outside of those circumstances. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept.

If by "murder" you mean unjustifiable homicide, then here's your answer: No.

Do you understand now?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

that is not what he asked now is it?

It's exactly what he asked. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him is not justified in using deadly force if the private person does not believe that the officer is authorized to use such force under the circumstances. As such, he is not to comply with the (unlawful) order.

no he asked " a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?" you gave a code section on if a cops requires help in a deadly situation. that is nto exactly what he asked.

If it's only legal to follow such order under the specific circumstances outlined above, then obviously it would not be legal to comply outside of those circumstances. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept.

If by "murder" you mean unjustifiable homicide, then here's your answer: No.

Do you understand now?

oh i understood. i just wondered why you wouldn't answer the first few times he asked.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: waggy

you have danced around his question a few times. if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

III. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him in effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified in using:
(b) Deadly force only when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force, or when the law enforcement officer directs him to use deadly force and he believes such officer himself is authorized to use deadly force under the circumstances.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...l/lxii/627/627-mrg.htm

that is not what he asked now is it?

It's exactly what he asked. A private person who has been directed by a law enforcement officer to assist him is not justified in using deadly force if the private person does not believe that the officer is authorized to use such force under the circumstances. As such, he is not to comply with the (unlawful) order.

no he asked " a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?" you gave a code section on if a cops requires help in a deadly situation. that is nto exactly what he asked.

If it's only legal to follow such order under the specific circumstances outlined above, then obviously it would not be legal to comply outside of those circumstances. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept.

If by "murder" you mean unjustifiable homicide, then here's your answer: No.

Do you understand now?

oh i understood. i just wondered why you wouldn't answer the first few times he asked.

The RSA I quoted answered the question. I wasn't aware that I had to bring it down to 3yo terminology and respond with a simple "no". 😛

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

There was one post in this thread where someone noted entry into a residence and the use of deadly force. If the law enforcement officers did not identify themselves and you had reason to fear for your life, you may use deadly force to defend yourself.

It is then up to the discretion of the DA upon review of the evidence to determine if you will be charged. Good luck with that.

That pretty much puts you into a "normal" home invasion situation. If you hear someone enter your house and they're sneaking around, you have every right to shoot to kill. If you turn the lights on and find out it was a cop, oh well. You'll still be facing a mountain of legal problems, accusations, and of course the blue wall, but it was still the right thing to do.

 

[SilthDraeth]

It might have been posted already, but as far as I know Texas is the only state that has laws that protect people from protecting themselves against illegal police activity.

That is, if a police officer breaks into your house without a warrant, you can shoot him for breaking and entering if you feel your life is in danger. Or you can knock him the F out.

Now, that isn't to say that you won't get arrested and stand trial, and have to prove that the officer was breaking the law, and you had broke no prior laws.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
It might have been posted already, but as far as I know Texas is the only state that has laws that protect people from protecting themselves against illegal police activity.

That is, if a police officer breaks into your house without a warrant, you can shoot him for breaking and entering if you feel your life is in danger. Or you can knock him the F out.

Now, that isn't to say that you won't get arrested and stand trial, and have to prove that the officer was breaking the law, and you had broke no prior laws.

I don't think it NEEDS to be specified as law, especially if your state already has a "castle doctrine" law. If someone breaks into your home and doesn't identify himself as a police officer, you have no choice but to assume that he's there to cause you harm. Especially if its dark, or he's not obviously in uniform.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

A responsible person would comply with verbal commands and as such, force would not be used.

Only if those commands are lawful.

You've been proven incorrect on at least one LE-related point so far -- and here you are, saying that the general public should able to determine whether or not they have been issued a lawful command? A bit ironic, I must say -- and if you factor in general human stupidity, drugs, alcohol, etc, your 'solution' becomes a recipe for disaster.

Which point is that. You can't have freedom without the right to refuse to obey an unjust order. Of course the general public gets to decided. It is the basis for our justice system. Or in addition to not believing in freedom do you also not believe in the jury system?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not, as you claimed, necessary for an arrest.

The general public does not decide. The court does. You, sir, are mistaken.

As for your last comment, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Did you?

Just because you have trouble with reading comprehensions doesn't mean I said something you read. I said you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a arrest is legal if you wish to charge someone with resisting arrest.

But lets make this simple, if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

Wrong again.

594:5 Resisting Arrest. ? If a person has reasonable ground to believe that he is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer, it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.

Why don't you familiarize yourself with how the law is written, then come back and argue...
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...ml/lix/594/594-mrg.htm

Section 627:4
627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. ?
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
(d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.

Source. 1971, 518:1. 1981, 347:1, 2, eff. Aug. 16, 1981.

My section beets your section. Not that it matters because the right to self defense has been supported by all the courts in the nation. Including shooting and killing a police officer making an illegal arrest.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: CadetLee

A responsible person would comply with verbal commands and as such, force would not be used.

Only if those commands are lawful.

You've been proven incorrect on at least one LE-related point so far -- and here you are, saying that the general public should able to determine whether or not they have been issued a lawful command? A bit ironic, I must say -- and if you factor in general human stupidity, drugs, alcohol, etc, your 'solution' becomes a recipe for disaster.

Which point is that. You can't have freedom without the right to refuse to obey an unjust order. Of course the general public gets to decided. It is the basis for our justice system. Or in addition to not believing in freedom do you also not believe in the jury system?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not, as you claimed, necessary for an arrest.

The general public does not decide. The court does. You, sir, are mistaken.

As for your last comment, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Did you?

Just because you have trouble with reading comprehensions doesn't mean I said something you read. I said you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a arrest is legal if you wish to charge someone with resisting arrest.

But lets make this simple, if a police officer order you to murder someone is it illegal to ignore their order?

Wrong again.

594:5 Resisting Arrest. ? If a person has reasonable ground to believe that he is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer, it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.

Why don't you familiarize yourself with how the law is written, then come back and argue...
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u...ml/lix/594/594-mrg.htm

Section 627:4
627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. ?
I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
(a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
(b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
(c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.
III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or
(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or
(c) Comply with a demand that he abstain from performing an act which he is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the actor has provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter.
(d) If he is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting him at his direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, he need not retreat.

Source. 1971, 518:1. 1981, 347:1, 2, eff. Aug. 16, 1981.

My section beets your section. Not that it matters because the right to self defense has been supported by all the courts in the nation. Including shooting and killing a police officer making an illegal arrest.

I said you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a arrest is legal if you wish to charge someone with resisting arrest.

Wrong. See 594:5:

594:5 Resisting Arrest. ? If a person has reasonable ground to believe that he is being arrested and that the arrest is being made by a peace officer, it is his duty to submit to arrest and refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting it, regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest.

You are legally compelled to submit to an arrest, whether or not there is a legal basis for said arrest. Show me what court cases uphold the "right" to murder an officer performing an arrest. Perhaps you could clarify exactly which section of RSA 627:4 that you believe upholds your claim.