It is big....I wonder what kind of force and how much...Do you know?
"...And when being unlawfully arrested, the ruling said, a person must only “use the proportionate force necessary to resist” — meaning a suspect cannot use lethal force to escape if the officer is using non-deadly force to detain...."
Again though, we know that police have and will escalate to lethal force near 100% of the time. It is reasonable to assume that any arrest attempt is potentially fatal to the victim so "proportionate force necessary to resist" to have any chance of success will have to involve lethal force.
In fact, a victim cannot even inform an officer of the consequences of an attempted illegal arrest to warn them off as that would be a crime. "Threatening a government official" or the equivalent.
It seems to come down to a fast draw high noon duel and to read it as written, the perp/officer gets to draw first. -and of course the perp/officer will be armored.
And then the victim would have to survive the inevitable rabid 100+ police officer manhunt before he/she can make their case to a court.
It is big, but it is also a mess. You have to wonder what world the justices think they live in.
The only practical application might be a defense against obstruction, resisting arrest, and injury to an officer charges once you have been arrested, jailed, charged, and no doubt "tuned up" by members of the arresting dept and jail guards.