Talk:Bad Elk v. United States/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely cited.
"...discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." Shouldn't most become must?
The article states that in 1999, "sixteen states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest..." Is there a more recent version?
- Same thing with this line. "By 1999, twenty-three states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute."

Addressing:

"...discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most also note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest." Shouldn't most become must?

Done Clarified most to show that it meant "most of the cases" citing Bad Elk.

The article states that in 1999, "sixteen states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest..." Is there a more recent version?

Done.

- Same thing with this line. "By 1999, twenty-three states had eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest by statute."

I'll put it on hold for a week. Seeing as you've retired, I might put it on hold for a bit longer. Great article, by the way. buffbills7701 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job. The article passes.