Rosa Parks peaceful resistance vs Rambo’s fighting off 3 policeman during the arrest. There is a difference:
Actually, no. No, there's not much at all.
Look back at the sequence of events. When Rambo decides to walk back into town, because
he's in the right and has broken no laws, Teasle arrests him, but Rambo does
not resist. He only passively resists when they try to fingerprint him -- refusing to cooperate, but not actively resisting. Then later, Galt straight up illegally assaults while his back is turned. Then they "clean him up" by
spraying him with a fire hose. This is low-level
torture. When Rosa Parks resisted, the Montgomery police simply arrested her; they didn't physically assault her and deliberately inflict pain.
When Rambo snaps and fights off the three deputies, it's because he's having flashbacks to his torture at the hands of the NVA, and part of the reason that he's having those flashbacks
is because Teasle's deputies are acting like those NVA thugs and torturing him.
The bottom line is this: if Teasle and his deputies had stayed within the law and not exceeded their legal authority,
none of the violent events of the film would have followed. Rambo would have gotten his meal and moved on peacefully. And Galt in particular was more out of control than Rambo was -- and without the excuse of severe PTSD to boot: remember, Galt was trying to kill Rambo, in defiance of Teasle's orders, and he even threatened to kill the helicopter pilot for not making it easier for him to try to kill Rambo.
Maybe Rambo overreacted, but only after the worst sort of provocation, and again,
none of it would have happened if Teasle and his men had behaved remotely like professionals.
reply
share
strntz (12224)
2 months ago
When Rambo decides to walk back into town, because he's in the right and has broken no laws..
Except that he did. While vagrancy laws are generally off the books in many areas, they still exist even if ignored, but in the 1980s in a small town, no one would question a sheriff arresting someone for vagrancy. Rambo fit every description of a vagrant, and Teasle, douche that he was, was still within his rights to escort Rambo out of town.
Not to mention the little problem with the knife he was carrying... Sure, Teasle should have just let Rambo get something to eat before escorting him out of town, but that's a different discussion.
And really, Rosa Parks also broke a law. As hard as it is to fathom, segregation laws did exist in some states and did in Alabama in 1955. Parks actually paid a fine!
Unless the judge was just as big a douche as Teasle, Rambo would most likely have been nolled and set free after his record turned up a veteran with no warrants and a Congressional Medal of Honor to boot.
reply
share
Darren (1342)
2 months ago
Except that he did. While vagrancy laws are generally off the books in many areas, they still exist even if ignored, but in the 1980s in a small town, no one would question a sheriff arresting someone for vagrancy. Rambo fit every description of a vagrant, and Teasle, douche that he was, was still within his rights to escort Rambo out of town.
No, he's not. Taking someone anywhere against his will is a felony; it's called abduction. Teasle's
legal options in this case are two: charge Rambo for any criminal offense he has committed, or let him go. That's it. (Actually it's not: Rambo
hasn't broken any laws, so that's not truly an option, but
if he had that would be all Teasle could legally do.) Only if Teasle has probable cause to effect a custodial arrest is he legally entitled to take Rambo anywhere against his will, and in that case, there is only
one place he can lawfully take him: to his jail. He has no legal authority whatsoever to run Rambo out of town, and when Rambo tries to walk back in, Teasle has no PC on which to arrest him.
BTW, you are talking to a police detective with 24 years of experience on the job.
And furthermore, this movie was released in 1982; Washington state, where this movie is set, repealed its vagrancy law in 1975. So no, legally speaking, Teasle didn't have a leg to stand on; he exceeded his authority, and straight up broke the law he was sworn to uphold. He couldn't even charge Rambo with carrying a concealed weapon for the knife, because he had no PC to arrest Rambo and search him, so the knife is the result of an illegal search that violates Rambo's 4th amendment rights, and it gets thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree.
reply
share
strntz (12224)
2 months ago
No, he's not. Taking someone anywhere against his will is a felony; it's called abduction.
Sovcit are you?
reply
share