
    FLEETWOOD v. COMMONWEALTH.
    
      (Kentucky Court of Appeals,
    
      January 5, 1882
    
    
      Appeal from the Scott Circuit Court.)
    
    Self Defense—Resisting Officer. The law of self defense, as applicable to recounters between private individuals does not apply to one who is resisting arrest by an officer—unless he has grounds to believe and does believe the officer is acting in bad faith ; and that by submitting to be arrested and disarmed he will be in danger of losing his life, or suffering great bodily harm.
   Hines, J.

Appellant was indicted for the murder of Mefford, tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

Appellant was at a public gathering, with a pistol in his hand, disturbing the peace by cursing, loud talking and threatening to shoot a certain person, when Mefford, a constable, attempted to arrest him, and being resisted was, by appellant, shot and instantly killed.

A peace officer has the right and it is his duty to arrest one who is committing a breach of the peace in his presence, and to use such force as may be necessary to affect the arrest, and if the person disturbing the peace resists arrest, and in so doing kills the officer, he is guilty of murder, if he knew that the person attempting to make the arrest was an officer, and guilty of manslaughter if he did not know it. The law of self defense, as applicable to recounters between private persons, does not apply unless the person resisting the arrest has reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that the officer is not acting in good faith in the attempt to arrest, but is using his official position to gratify personal feeling against the person sought to be arrested, and that by submitting to arrest and to being disarmed he will, by reason of this fact be in danger of great bodily harm or of losing his life. The officer being in the right and in the discharge of his duty, the person resisting arrest does it at his peril; and if he kill he is guilty of murder or manslaughter, as it may appear that he knew or did not know the character in which the officer was acting. This view of the law was presented to the jury more fully and with more clearness than in any case that has come under our observation. The accused has no ground of complaint that the law was not properly ex-expounded or that the whole law was not given. Mockabee v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky.; Earl’s Pleas of the Crown, Vol. 1, p. 302.

IV. C. P. Breckenridge, for appellant.

P. W. Hardin, for appellee.

Judgment ajfirmed.  