in the alternative that even if the initial arrest of Richardson was not based upon sufficient probable ecause, Richardson's own conduct created separate probable cause to arrest him for forcibly resisting arrest and battery on a law enforcement officer. Specifically, the State maintains that the legality of the initial arrest was an issue that was rendered moot onee Richardson elected to fight and kick the officers while they tried to peacefully place him under arrest. At common law, a person was privileged to resist an unlawful arrest. See Gross v. State, 186 Ind. 581, 583, 117 N.E. 562, 564 (1917). Our courts, however, have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today's modern society. See Fields v. State, 178 Ind.App. 350, 355, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975 (1978) (<HOLDING>); accord Dora v. State, 783 N.E.2d 322, 327
holding that a private citizen may not use foree or resist a peaceful arrest by one he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized officer performing his duties regardless of whether the arrest is legal or illegal holding that a warrantless arrest does not violate the fourth amendment if at the time of the defendants arrest police had probable cause to believe that an offense has been is being or will be committed holding that the courts determination of whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest is an independent and objective determination and an officers own subjective reason for the arrest is irrelevant holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed