StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was arguing with a person concerning the legalities of resisting arrest. This only came up because he claims an officer's authority is absolute over a citizen. I claimed (Hell, I know) that it is legal to resist arrest in the event that an officer is using excessive force which would invoke a citizen's right to self-defense. After quoting the Texas law, he claimed "I don't care about Texas" and posted this comment concerning Colorado law:

18-8-103. Resisting arrest.

(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:

(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or

(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority...

So, I googled Colorado law 18-8-103 and got a link pointing me to this:

It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense.

He literally just cut off the trailing comment to prove his point, I guess thinking I would be stupid enough to take it at face value.

I responded with the following comment, after posting the full law:

Wow, you actually cut out the trailing remark which destroys your entire argument.
Seriously, you had to have read that last part. Do you even care that you're completely fabricating evidence (and poorly at that)?

The fabricating evidence part was off, but I was posting in a bit of a hurry. My question: is this really lying? I ask because on this forum, there's no real standards of evidence or anything, but accusing someone of lying is considered "Serious Business."™

Is it lying to just omit portions of the truth? Or is it just being an asshole? I've run into this before and I really don't know what to call it. Granted, he did me a favor by giving me everything I needed to prove my point.

Looks like a deliberate omission to help prove a point, and is therefore either lying or close-enough-to, so far as I'd be concerned...

It's lying because he's claiming the law claims the exact opposite of what it actually says, based on a clause he deliberately snipped in order to change the meaning.

Thanks.

At least now if I get my ass handed to me by the admin staff, I'll have a pretty good feeling I was in the right. For whatever that's worth....

Rule of Acquisition Number 42A - A feeling of righteousness plus an empty sack is worth a sack.