Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
S.W.2d 733, 735-36 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988, pet. refd) (construing it as the “experiential process ” by which control of the person is obtained); see White v. State, 601 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (noting that the force occurred while the arrest was “taking place”). Furthermore, our legislature has dictated that a person “is arrested” (past tense) “when ... actually placed under restraint or taken into custody” by an officer or another with or without a warrant. Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 15.22 (Vernon 1977); White v. State, 601 S.W.2d at 365. From this, we may conclude that the officer is no longer “effecting an arrest” once his efforts to actually restrain or control the individual are complete. Schrader v. State, supra; see Young v. State, 622 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) . So too may we extrapolate that from the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that force exerted against an officer after an arrest is complete cannot be used as the basis for prosecuting one for resisting arrest
B. holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest
C. holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer
D. holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.