Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 2

Internet meme section
Pretty much the only reason any reader would land on this page is because there are a lot of internet sources (none of them reliable, most of them very heavily read) that make the claim

"'Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.' Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. 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. www.infowars.com/protesters-have-the-right-to-protest-%E2%80%A6-and-to-resist-unlawful-arrest/"

You can find thousands of such pages by doing a Google search on [ "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life" "Plummer v. State" "John Bad Elk v. U.S" ].

Another editor who I highly respect and nearly always agree with recently removed the quote from our Plummer v. State article and our Bad Elk v. United States article. These sections have been unchanged since we came to a consensus in 2015.

I would like to open a discussion as to whether to remove this material. If we cannot reach an agreement I will post an RfC.

I would suggest that we discuss this at the Plummer v. State talk page and not the Bad Elk v. United States talk page in order to avoid duplication.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with including the statement, but it needs to be sourced to reliable independent secondary sources, not incredibly unreliable primary ones. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted the deletions. The sections were included by consensus, he'll need to get consensus to remove it. GregJackP   Boomer!   16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand the agument about sourcing. The question is, how should we handle the legal equivalent of pseudoscience? (Pseudolaw?) without mentioning that it exaists or who is speading it? There are a huge number of internet sources that make false claims about this law. Those false claims are most likely the cause of 90-99% of the visitors to the page. Alas, the sources are unreliable (if they were reliable they wouldn't be telling fibs about what the laws say) and very few other sources have covered the topic (these sites put out dozens of batshit crazy articles every day and nobody has the time or inclination to attempt to refute such a flood of bullshit). So what do we do? How do we properly answer the main question that most visitors to this page have? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a fair question. Freemen on the land may have some useful pointers, since that is a well known pseudolegal defense. I think we manage that without a single primary lunatic source. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia does not cover something unless reliable independent secondary sources cover it. Unreliable primary sources implies WP:OR and also violates WP:NPOV. We have deleted many articles on cranks and nonsense widely supported by mad sources like whale.to but not addressed by the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You reverted Infowars back in as a source? Seriously? Wow. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with sourcing inforwars for a claim that infowars said X? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the entire section about the Internet meme. I don't see any reliable independent secondary sources for any of it.  FYI, N o l o.com has a reasonable, likely accurate article on the subject that comes up as the third Google result from . For some reason, which I have yet to understand, we blacklisted that source and are allowing WP:OR with junk sources instead such as this ?  (the first one to come up on the Google search.)    --David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I take the original motivation for the WP article being there's bad legal advice about resisting arrest on the internet (true), and that WP should make some effort to correct that bad advice (not WP's charter). The article was all about the meme and not about the case. WP should not be in the position of offering its own legal advice to counter somebody else's legal advice. Editors are not here to right great wrongs.
 * The article got more meat and described the issues in the case rather than just the meme. The meme section is the remnant of the original motivation.
 * Cubby is offline now, but here's the archive.org copy. Cubby claims:
 * This statement led to much discussion in social media. The publication The Blaze cited an Indiana Supreme Court decision (Plummer v. State, 135 Ind 308 34 N.E. 968 (1893)) to support their contention that “citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.��? Please note that The Blaze is a right-wing publication. One would tend to think that the likes of Al Sharpton would agree with this.
 * This argument has been refuted elsewhere, stating that nowhere in the original document did the Supreme Court of Indiana make that claim or use those words. The contention voiced by Commissioner Bratton still seems credible.
 * If Cubby is an RS, then at least the first part of the removed quotation could come in, and Cubby supports the statement that the phrase does not appear in the text of the Indiana opinion (something that I would say also falls under WP:CALC).
 * I'm not in the Cubby is an RS camp, and I'm not sure the bogus quotation meets WP:DUE. Cubby is a retired police captain from New Jersey. Maybe if the Blaze is an RS then Cubby can be brought in to refute it. The WP cited Blaze article, however, is advocating moderation by the police rather than encouraging protesters to resist arrest and/or kill policemen. (Maybe there's another Blaze article.)
 * I'm not sure where "This argument has been refuted elsewhere" happened. Maybe that was in a reliable source.
 * In any event, there are not a lot of RS out there about either side of this issue. That's bad news for WP:DUE. Cubby's "much discussion in social media" is not "much discussion in reliable sources."
 * Glrx (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I reverted the deletion of the sources, again, until some sort of consensus appears on this page. It has been there for several years, and this discussion has only been for 4 days so far, and no clear consensus to delete yet exists. The material was included by consensus, so you really need the same to remove it. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Above reference was made to pseudoscience.  The way we handle that, is by citing actual RS that discuss the pseudoscience; we don't cite the unreliable sources that are spewing the pseudoscience themselves.   (we never cite Mercola or NaturalNews for example).  If there are not RS discussing X, we don't discuss it at all.   In the realm of health, we are fortunate that there are some people like David Gorski who regularly criticize/debunk crackpottery about health, and we can cite what he and similar folks produce.  All of that is completely in-line with the policies and guidelines including WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGEN.  Is there really nobody in the legal profession who debunks this kind of stuff?   No legal article that has commented on the internet malarky?  Really?  Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No there is no "skeptics" division of law. It's called UPL or Unauthorized Practice of Law as part of Legal ethics (<-- there's an article that needs way more attention than this one!).  I believe the Bar associations typically deal with it.  In Ohio the Ohio Supreme Court deals with it.  .Perhaps you can find some exciting cases for your amusement there.  This one talking about realtors and UPL should qualify as WP:RS, but not for this article, which just sounds like an unnotable myth.    --David Tornheim (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If such a source addresses this that would be great. That is the place to look, not for the people spewing the FRINGE.  Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I reverted the deletion of the sources, again, until some sort of consensus appears on this page. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a clear case of giving bureaucracy priority over the needs of the reader. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * WARNING ABOUT EDIT WARRING. This material has been in the article for years, and that status quo should remain until there is a clear consensus for removal. The very next person to remove it will be reported at ANI for edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * GregJackP you have said many times that you are a practicing lawyer. So what solid secondary sources within the legal profession discuss the internet meme and provide its claims so we can quote them ? Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * GregJackP will you respond? thx Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, So GregJackP provided the kind of ref I was asking for above, which says that the passage is oft misquoted and misused, so I did this. The bad sources are gone, the content is sourced to reliable secondary sources to show that is deserves WEIGHT.  I think we are good now. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edits are an improvement. However, although, the article claimed as WP:RS gives an interesting perspective from police regarding the death of Eric Garner, I am not convinced it constitutes WP:RS for this article on a court case or its legal application and interpretation.  It is written from an experienced police officer, but not from a person with a degree in Jurisprudence.  (J.D.).   As I'm sure you all know, it is generally unwise to obtain legal advice from police officers, because (1) they are not lawyers (2) they are allowed to lie (3) you are not their client.     (I have seen better RS for this).  Some of the clues the author is not an attorney: "Nowhere in any of all that training did an officer ever hear anything about the citizen’s right to resist arrest. I never did in any training courses I attended above and beyond my academy training."
 * Although the officer is not a reliable source on the law, I do think his expertise in law enforcement might make it WP:RS for some things stated in the article. I should also point out that this appears to be a non-neutral publication.
 * So, I still say without secondary reliable sources, it has to go.   --David Tornheim (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a WP article, not legal advice. The source is fine and if you want to challenge it for this use please take it to RSN.  Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

moved here; under discussion above
Plummer v. State is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted.
 * Internet meme

"'Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.' Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. 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.'"

The above Plummer v. State quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion. Modern sources describe Plummer and Bad Elk as applying when there is an unlawful use of force rather than when there is an unlawful arrest; under contemporary law in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * WARNING ABOUT EDIT WARRING. This material has been in the article for years, and that status quo should remain until there is a clear consensus for removal. The very next person to remove it will be reported at ANI for edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well yes to the first part.  Local consensus doesn't override policies and guidelines, and the defending-this-content-to-the-death edit warring is not OK.  I just reported GregJackP who has gone over 3RR. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are aware that 3RR refers to a 24-hour period? Because your referral just got closed as no violation. Get consensus, and then remove it. Ask for an RfC. Do it properly, by seeking consensus. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not wait for the other person to start the RfC—one of you just do it. El_C 19:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:El_C We don't need an RfC necessarily. The question is about sourcing - the content above is sourced from a google search (and searches are not reliable sources per RS) and from infowars - a primary source the use of which is SYN here. If we can find a reliable source that discusses the meme we could resolve this.  What GregJackP is doing here is just is using litigator tactics to keep this bad content instead of using his expertise and access to legal refs to resolve it. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Infowars is a problematic source, GregJackP. Maybe try to find a reliable source for a better citation. El_C 19:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , as I stated at the EWN, I don't have a problem with Infowars being removed. That's not what they're doing, they're blanking the entire section. Now one of Jytdogs buddies, whose has never edited here before, showed up to delete the same section. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * New references. See the following for what the case actually says:
 * , 302 (2016).
 * Rollins M. Perkins, The Tennessee Law of Arrest, 2 509, 657 (1948-1949).
 * Cubby remains a source for the error in the meme.  GregJackP   Boomer!   19:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The lack of independent sources shows there is a WEIGHT problem. The content appears to be WP:TRIVIA. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT clearly says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" Alex Jones (radio host) meets the requirements of being a prominent adherent. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon you are commended for not joining in the edit war. El_C 22:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the passage has been in the article for years, you could have waited a few days for the discussion to resolve, Jytdogs and QuackGuru. You two did not have to edit war to, aggressively, get the new-removed version up while the discussion is still ongoing. El_C 22:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Continuing to add unreliable sources such as blogs does not meet Wikipedia standard for reliable sources. We can clear the unreliable sources and may keep a shortened version. The version with the blog does not pass Wikipedia's rules. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is besides the point. What's a few more days in the context of years? You may be right on the content (I really don't know—I haven't read the article closely), but you two are wrong on the impatience front. The bad blood between GregJackP and Jytdogs sure doesn't help. El_C 22:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is there should not continue to be tolerance for unreliable sources after it was pointed out they are unreliable. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Which is why I added additional refs. Simple Justice is a reliable source, widely read in the legal community, and is at least as reliable as Patently-O, if not more so. You may want to ask JYTDog about his use of legal blogs as references in legal articles before you arbitrarily decide that one is not reliable. Greenfield's blog has been cited by federal and state courts across the country (including state Supreme Courts), was recognized as a Top 100 legal blog by the American Bar Association from its first Top 100 list until 2012, when it was placed in the ABA blog Hall of Fame, right next to the entry for SCOTUSBlog. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is to avoid edit warring, which both sides are guilty of. All of you, collectively, make an RfC appear like it's such a hurdle, when it is really not. El_C 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, just to let you know, at 2:00 PM tomorrow (local time), I'll revert the last change back to the long-term version, and I'll continue to do so until you get consensus to remove the material. GregJackP  Boomer!   22:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no you won't. This RfC-less, battleground mentality will not stand. El_C 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will if you don't do something about this. This is BS, to allow it to be changed without consensus. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Like what? Why not list an RfC (or pursue any other dispute resolution options you prefer)? Be the bigger man. El_C 23:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog and QuackGuru didn't have the patience to wait a few days while an RfC runs its course—why not you join Guy Macon and be the patient side. El_C 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They never have the patience, and admins never have the balls to stop them. Being patient with them means that the article gets screwed up. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused as to what admins do, as well as lacking in decorum. El_C 23:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what admins do and do not do. Plus, I figure that if JYTDog can get away with and  without any admins caring, my blunt but accurate comments here shouldn't be a problem. Or is he in a special category?  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not with me, he isn't. I wasn't around for that. But it is disconcerting, though I lack context. Anyway, it's best to avoid generalizations and restrict ourselves to the here and now. El_C 00:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * How about discussing it GregJackP. What is wrong with it in your view? Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean aside from completely screwing up the internet meme section? OK, let's look at how you and QG screwed it up. Bad Elk v. United States is not properly introduced in the section, and since it's the only place that it occurs, it means that the reader doesn't have a clue why Bad Elk appears in the second paragraph. It doesn't talk about the fact that both Plummer and Bad Elk are misquoted, which is covered by Cubby and generally by Greenfield. Greenfield doesn't address the material quoted however, and the reference should be moved back to the string cite with Wright and Miller, where I had placed it originally along with the appropriate Bluebook signal. CIR. GregJackP   Boomer!   23:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No you won't, because I've fully protected the article for a week. That should be plenty of time to arrive at an actual consensus on the wording. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you'll fix what they screwed up (see my response to JYTDog, above)? Or that we'll let it set there for a week? GregJackP   Boomer!   23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Make an edit request (change x to y). El_C 23:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? So I can spin my wheels? This isn't my first rodeo, and it's not the first time that he's screwed up content in the legal arena. If you want it fixed, I can fix it, but my time is too valuable to do it as an exercise so an admin can decide that they aren't going to make the change. Let me know. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your prerogative. My time is valuable too, and you have had enough of it for the day. El_C 01:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Versions of Internet meme subsection

 * Older version

Plummer v. State is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted.

"'Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.' Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. 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.'"

The above Plummer v. State quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion. Modern sources describe Plummer and Bad Elk as applying when there is an unlawful use of force rather than when there is an unlawful arrest; under contemporary law in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.


 * Revised version

Plummer v. State is often wrongly characterized, for example characterizing it as supporting the claim that “citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.”

Modern sources describe Plummer and Bad Elk as applying when there is an unlawful use of force rather than when there is an unlawful arrest; under contemporary law in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

Now we can discuss them. I do see that we could well use a WL to Bad Elk in the second paragraph. That would be good, yes. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a wikilink would solve all of the problems, except of course that the reader still won't have a clue why Bad Elk is even mentioned, since that part of the section was deleted. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Step one: find out where you can compromise—find out where you can't. Step 2: list an RfC about the latter. El_C 00:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know how to create and build articles, I've got five featured articles, all in the legal area. I've got a bunch of good articles, too. It's appropriate to quote Wehwalt here:

"'This isn't an attempt to build an ideal society. We are building an encyclopedia here and the reader does not give a flying duck about what goes on behind the scenes. We are constrained by the legal and social limits of 2015, but as I have often said, we are not here to sing Kumbaya but to build an encyclopedia and this is the shop floor. Do you think anyone who visits, say, St. Peter's, while admiring, say, the stonework, would think the authorities in the 12th century should have suspended the chief stone mason from work for saying something nasty, or think the person who judges between the stone mason and the guy carting away the rubble should be someone who has expressed a hostile attitude towards skilled workers?' Wehwalt, 2015."
 * The problem arises when those who don't have competence in a particular field, especially a technical field like law, start screwing things up. This isn't the first time that I've dealt with this issue, and with the same individual. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We can just add a note that Bad Elk is (ab)used the same way. This is not complicated.   See below.  Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Further revised version

Plummer v. State and Bad Elk v. United States are both often wrongly characterized as supporting the claim that people can use violence and even kill police officers to resist unlawful arrest.

Modern sources describe Plummer and Bad Elk as applying when there is an unlawful use of force rather than when there is an unlawful arrest; under contemporary law in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that it is still screwed up. Whichever one of you moved the Greenfield reference didn't bother to make sure that it supported the material cited. It doesn't support the quoted material and needs to be moved to where it was when I added the reference. The section now also doesn't say anything about the cases being misquoted nor that Bad Elk is no longer good case law. I can fix it, but I'm not going to waste my time if the admins aren't going to post it, nor do I really feel like having to go behind you and QG to double-check your work. This is pretty much what happens every time you start to edit a legal article, from the time you started following around to try and "fix" his articles.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Greenfield ref supports the statement that both cases are the bad elk case is wrongly characterized. It was the ref we needed for that and I glad you brought it.  The place where you had originally put it, was in the last paragraph that says it is no longer good case law (diff). So what you write there is just ... strange.  Unclear why you pinged Praceptor. Canvassing I reckon.  Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC))
 * No, it doesn't. Scott didn't mention Plummer at all. But if you want, I can email him to make sure what he was saying - but I can probably predict what he would say. Second, I haven't canvased anyone, I pinged Preceptor because I mentioned him in the discussion. When I get the RfC ready, I'll post it like I have before, as WP:LAW and WP:SCOTUS. That's not canvassing either. Of course, every time we've done that before, almost all of the legal editors point out that your position is not correct, from your problems understanding Bluebook to the actual matter cited from cases and secondary authorities. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes Scott doesn't mention Plummer, only Bad Elk.  So the use is correct in the re-revised version.  The quote is here: "More to the point, I doubt Dorf (or LII’s Bruce) realizes how many people still contend that the Supreme Court’s John Bad Elk decision, authorizing the use of deadly force against an illegal police arrest, remains good law."   Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you please propose a version that doesn't rely on invalid FRINGE sources like infowars or invalid sources like a google search? It is not impossible to reach agreement through discussion.  Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You do understand that you can quote a fringe source for what idiocy that the fringe source actually said, so that you can then point out why it is fringe with a reliable source, don't you? GregJackP   Boomer!   02:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually no, we don't do that. This was discussed above. In any case we can resolve this locally if you would present a version without those kinds of sources.  Would you please do that?  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do. I'll prepare an RfC, like I said, but I'm not going to write a legal article based on your guidance. We'll let the community decide. Again. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)