Posted on 12/30/2010 4:19:27 PM PST by smokingfrog
No problem friend..
They just murdered this guy...He didn't have a chance, and was basically up against a well armed platoon of paramilitary soldiers, while holding a golf club...
In fact, they shot him 3 times, once in the head...He was dead before he hit the floor.....2 seconds later, the dead guy was told to, "Get on the floor".
>>Oh, and Merry Happy New Year to you too!<<
Sorry, he did. It would appear he is correct on the second point as well.
I’m going to guess that a great many people will act as “a law unto yourself” in their own home when their door is broken down in the middle of the night.
Your attitude does more to harm the image of the LE community than any communists ever have.
No, he did not. What he did was how amateurs constantly read Court opinions. He picked through dicta and stopped reading, ignored the holding and then made a conclusory statement without any support.
The 4th Amendment contains the word “unreasonable”. That word is the key to the entire amendment, for the 4th Amendment only prohibits UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.
Libertines want to define the word for themselves, however the Constitution doesn’t give the libertines the authority to do so.
Do you have a list of approved interpreters of court opinions? Here I thought they were written for the benefit of all citizens. (amateurs)
There is nothing reasonable about a no knock entry. You have indicated their utility in limited instances. By the numbers, it is much less limited today than 30 years ago.
To what do you attribute the increase?
Perhaps it would be easier and safer for LE to classify ALL warrants as high risk and every home a stronghold? (sarcasm)
We the people have the final say, libertine or otherwise.
Dicta isn't binding. The only thing that is binding in a Court opinion is a holding. Go to law school and get a J.D. and you'd learn these things.
There is nothing reasonable about a no knock entry.
A no-knock entry is presumptively unreasonable, unless such entry is justified by limited exigent circumstances. You don't get to decide what is reasonable under the 4th Amendment. The Constitution hasn't delegated that authority to you.
You have indicated their utility in limited instances. By the numbers, it is much less limited today than 30 years ago. To what do you attribute the increase?
A combination of factors. Greater Population, more violent criminals, and to some extent overuse.
We the people have the final say, libertine or otherwise.
So each person is free to make their own law? A law unto themselves? That's anarchy, not liberty.
>You don’t get to decide what is reasonable under the 4th Amendment. The Constitution hasn’t delegated that authority to you.
Really, then what is the point of the Tenth Amendment, which says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” ?
The Constitution did NOT delegate to the United States the ability to define, or redefine, the English language. In fact, the First Amendment’s right to petition the government is EXACTLY an admission that the Government can wrong people: this INCLUDES holding such no-knock entries as “unreasonable.” Can you find me ten Citizens off the street in 48 hours who will agree that “someone barging into their house unannounced at 4 AM” is ‘reasonable,’ if so then I will GLADLY concede the point and consider no-knock warrants as ‘reasonable’ and therefore Constitutional.
Actually, I do get to decide what reasonable is, as others have done. If I am forced to do so at 3:00 AM as my door is broken in, I can assure you that your opinion and that of the USSC will be the furthest from my mind.
The constitutions check on the judiciary rests with congress, who answers directly to we the people.
I wouldn't call citizens contacting their representatives with their concerns anarchy.
Overuse? How about abuse?
*this INCLUDES holding such no-knock entries as “unreasonable.” should read instead as:
this INCLUDES holding such no-knock entries as “reasonable.”
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
So the job of interpreting the Federal Constitution has been specifically delegated to the Supreme Court, not you.
Can you find me ten Citizens off the street in 48 hours who will agree that “someone barging into their house unannounced at 4 AM” is ‘reasonable,’
Straw man. No one is talking about random people walking into your house unannounced. Nor is anyone talking about the police using such tactics willy nilly. The appropriate question would be "Can the police make an unannounced entry at the residence of a criminal for which they have obtained a lawful warrant, validated with probably cause, when they possess reasonable suspicion that announcing entry to serve the warrant would subject them or another party to a serious risk of death or serious bodily injury, or result in the destruction of evidence?"
Let's try another one. Suppose a terrorist is holding hostages and will kill them if any attempt is made to knock and announce. Should the police officers have to first knock and announce and present a warrant in order to make a dynamic entry and rescue said hostages? For the purposes of this question, assume that the officers possess a valid warrant supported with probable cause to arrest the terrorist.
Really? So what does the word unreasonable mean? Define it. The founders put that word into the Constitution for a reason.
Actually, I do get to decide what reasonable is, as others have done. If I am forced to do so at 3:00 AM as my door is broken in, I can assure you that your opinion and that of the USSC will be the furthest from my mind.
Uh huh, and you'll be dead or jailed as a result of your decision if it does not comport with the law.
The constitutions check on the judiciary rests with congress, who answers directly to we the people.
Correct, but the judiciary was also purposefully set up by the Framers, with a very specific Constitutional function. Part of the function is to interpret the Constitution, not to make new law or legislate, but to interpret what the Constitution means where it is ambiguous. The word "unreasonable" requires interpretation. Simply allowing every person to decide for themselves what the word means would lead to anarchy.
I wouldn't call citizens contacting their representatives with their concerns anarchy.
Of course not, but of course that isn't what you were suggesting either.
Overuse? How about abuse?
In some cases, and this should be dealt with.
Dictionary.com defines it thusly:
Unreasonable —adjective
1. - not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person.
2. - not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate: His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich.
3. - excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable: an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands.
4. - not having the faculty of reason.
>>Actually, I do get to decide what reasonable is, as others have done. If I am forced to do so at 3:00 AM as my door is broken in, I can assure you that your opinion and that of the USSC will be the furthest from my mind.
>
>Uh huh, and you'll be dead or jailed as a result of your decision if it does not comport with the law.
Well, in some states he may be fully in-the-right to kill: Self Defense Immunity Granted Murder Charge Dismissed (FL) <— No "Duty To Retreat" in FL.
In fact, IF THEY HAVE THE WRONG HOUSE [which has come up on this thread] then the following justifies even lethal response on part of the homeowner:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” —— Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
Thanks, archy, for that info.
>>Really, then what is the point of the Tenth Amendment, which says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” ?
>
>”The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
>
>So the job of interpreting the Federal Constitution has been specifically delegated to the Supreme Court, not you.
It says the JUDICIAL power, not LEGISLATIVE; therefore, the Supreme Court cannot legitimately make law out of whole cloth, as it did in Roe v. Wade, OR [re]-interpret the Constitution to mean something other-than-written, such as what gun-control it has allowed. {If the Second Amendment was applied as-written then the ONLY legitimate ‘gun-control’ laws the federal [or state, or county, or municipality]* could enact would be: a) mandating that a Citizen have arms; and b) mandating that arm’s basic/general properties. i.e. “All Citizens must possess a .45 ACP handgun and/or a .50 rifle.”}
*The Second Amendment is written in the Passive Voice wherein it is the action, not some actor, which is the subject; because the second amendment uses the passive-voice when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” the “who” that might do it is irrelevant and therefore ALL levels of government that are bound by the Constitution are bound thereunto. (Therefore, because the Constitution can prohibit laws at least at the state level “No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts [...]”
Nor can the Supreme Court REDEFINE the language in which the Constitution was written: Common English.
Let me reiterate, the Constitution was written in plain English, not some mystic Legalese English which we must have continually interpreted and expounded upon by the intercessions of the High Priests of the Judiciary for us to the high-gods that are the Supreme Court. [That last sentence should be read with ever-increasing sarcasm.]
If my interpretations of the Constitution are wholly invalid then my assertion that Dred Scot was a bad decision would be not only null and void but continually unsupportable in the legal realm; however, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it was in error and reversed that decision. Now, consider this carefully, if the Supreme Court had not rescinded the Dred Scot Decision then would my [original] assertion that it was wrong be invalid?
No! It would be unsupported in law, true; but it would not be invalid SOLELY BECAUSE it was contrary to the Supreme Court’s opinion up-to-this-date.
>>Can you find me ten Citizens off the street in 48 hours who will agree that “someone barging into their house unannounced at 4 AM” is ‘reasonable,’
>
>Straw man. No one is talking about random people walking into your house unannounced.
Actually YOU did, in one of your posts; specifically, the fourth paragraph of post 107. The fifth sentence.
Further along in that same post [para 18, sentence2] “For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
There it is, the subject of UNANNOUNCED ENTRY. And you, through quoting Justice Thomas, brought it up.
>Let’s try another one. Suppose a terrorist is holding hostages and will kill them if any attempt is made to knock and announce. Should the police officers have to first knock and announce and present a warrant in order to make a dynamic entry and rescue said hostages?
And here you are jumping straight into “exigent circumstances” which is not the subject of this thread except insofar as the courts have accepted that MERE ALLEGATIONS of drugs [which was the reason for the SWAT team’s arival, no?] are ‘exigent’ enough.
>For the purposes of this question, assume that the officers possess a valid warrant supported with probable cause to arrest the terrorist.
The Officers, being hyped-up and dyslexic, enter the wrong house and kill Uncle Fred who was minding his own damn business cleaning his guns after a day of shooting. Would Fred be justified in taking aim at the police? Would he be justified in killing them?
The dictionary.com definition is not a legal definition, but regardless, it proves my point. It's subjective, not objective. Hence, the Constitution gives the Courts the power to set an objective standard for measuring the word.
Well, in some states he may be fully in-the-right to kill: Self Defense Immunity Granted Murder Charge Dismissed (FL) <— No "Duty To Retreat" in FL. In fact, IF THEY HAVE THE WRONG HOUSE [which has come up on this thread] then the following justifies even lethal response on part of the homeowner: “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” —— Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
LOL! You don't know how many times I've seen conspiracy nutjobs repost that bit of tripe. This is a good lesson on why you don't rely on internet lawyers anymore than you would rely on a jailhouse lawyer.
When you look at a legal opinion, (any legal opinion, but especially one from 1900), you have to Shepardize it to make sure that it is good law. If you Shepardized John Bad Elk, you would find that it has been superseded, and is no longer good law, ANYWHERE in the United States.
When the Supreme Court decided John Bad Elk, it applied the Common Law (which the Courts did prior to Erie Railroad v. Tompkins.) The Common Law rule has been abrogated by Statute in every single State. There is no where in the Country that permits the use of deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest. Hence, if you do so, you will ALWAYS be a criminal in the eyes of the law.
As for your second case, "Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306." well, it doesn't exist as cited. There is no such case as "136 Ind. 306." Simply doesn't exist. It's fantasy. Some internet libertine wacko made up an official sounding citation and splattered it all over the internet for fools to soak up. Anyone with half a brain would have attempted to check the citation first. You know, that little thing called verifying your sources. If one had taken the care to do so, they wouldn't end up looking so foolish.
The REAL case is Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308 (1893). So wait, why would the internet libertines purposefully change the cite? Why wouldn't they want people looking up the case for themselves? Seems like a pretty foolish thing to do. Well there was a perfectly good reason for doing so, the quoted phrase "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Simply isn't in the opinion. Not there. At all.
So what was in Plummer?
"We are constrained to hold that Dorn, if he even had the right to make the arrest without a warrant, abused that authority by striking Plummer over the head with his policeman's club. Had he informed Plummer that he intended to arrest him, and requested him to submit to such arrest, and then Plummer had refused to submit and resisted, or threatened to resist arrest, with any demonstration of force, a very different question would have been presented. In such a case, the officer, as we have seen, having authority to arrest, would have been justified in using force sufficient and necessary to overcome such resistance, even to the taking of the life of the person he was attempting to arrest."
So in essence, whoever purposefully mangled the Plummer cite, actually changed around some words to make things say the opposite of what they really said.
Moreover, Plummer, like John Bad Elk, is no longer good law, and has been abrogated by Statute.
In Fields v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court said: "We are of the opinion that the common law rule is outmoded in our modern society. A citizen, today, can seek his remedy for a policeman's unwarranted and illegal intrusion into the citizen's private affairs by bringing a civil action in the courts against the police officer and the governmental unit which the officer represents. The common law right of forceful resistance to an unlawful arrest tends to promote violence and increases the chances of someone getting injured or killed."
Just this year, the Indiana Supreme Court, reaffirmed this rule:
"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 that a private citizen may not use force or resist a peaceful arrest by one he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized officer perform-ing his duties, regardless of whether the arrest is legal or illegal); accord Dora v. State, 783 N.E.2d 322, 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied; Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. In 1976, the Legislature, recognizing this modern trend, enacted the resisting law enforcement statute, Indiana Code section 35-44-3-3, which makes it a crime to “(1) forcibly resist[], obstruct[], or interfere[] with a law enforcement officer or a person assist-ing the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer‟s duties[.]” Additionally, Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(B), makes battery, if committed upon a law enforcement officer, a Class A misdemeanor. Id. (“A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misde-meanor. However, the offense is[] (1) a Class A misdemeanor if . . . (B) it is committed against a law enforcement officer . . . .”).
Next time, get a legal opinion from someone with a J.D. rather than retards on the internet.
Thanks, archy, for that info.
If your or archy tries to act on that erroneous information, you will find yourselves on the wrong side of the law.
The more you know!
The Court isn't making up law whole-cloth when it interprets the word "Unreasonable", it's applying the text of the Constitution and performing the functions that were delegated to it by the Constitution.
The Second Amendment is written in the Passive Voice wherein it is the action, not some actor, which is the subject; because the second amendment uses the passive-voice when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” the “who” that might do it is irrelevant and therefore ALL levels of government that are bound by the Constitution are bound thereunto. (Therefore, because the Constitution can prohibit laws at least at the state level “No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts [...]”
Nor can the Supreme Court REDEFINE the language in which the Constitution was written: Common English. Let me reiterate, the Constitution was written in plain English, not some mystic Legalese English which we must have continually interpreted and expounded upon by the intercessions of the High Priests of the Judiciary for us to the high-gods that are the Supreme Court. [That last sentence should be read with ever-increasing sarcasm.]
LOL! In "Common English" the word "unreasonable" needs interpretation, for what might be reasonable to one might not be reasonable to another. Thus, it is the job of the COURT to define the term, not you.
If my interpretations of the Constitution are wholly invalid then my assertion that Dred Scot was a bad decision would be not only null and void but continually unsupportable in the legal realm; however, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it was in error and reversed that decision. Now, consider this carefully, if the Supreme Court had not rescinded the Dred Scot Decision then would my [original] assertion that it was wrong be invalid? No! It would be unsupported in law, true; but it would not be invalid SOLELY BECAUSE it was contrary to the Supreme Court’s opinion up-to-this-date.
You are rambling now. Dred Scott was the law of the land until it was abrogated by a Constitutional Amendment.
Actually YOU did, in one of your posts; specifically, the fourth paragraph of post 107. The fifth sentence. Further along in that same post [para 18, sentence2] “For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” There it is, the subject of UNANNOUNCED ENTRY. And you, through quoting Justice Thomas, brought it up.
Except neither me, or Justice Thomas was talking about random people walking into a house unannounced. The case was about a police officer, with a valid warrant, who happened to execute that warrant without knocking and announcing. That's different than your "man on the street" question.
And here you are jumping straight into “exigent circumstances” which is not the subject of this thread except insofar as the courts have accepted that MERE ALLEGATIONS of drugs [which was the reason for the SWAT team’s arival, no?] are ‘exigent’ enough.
Wrong again. Not mere allegations, but allegations supported by probable cause. You know, the standard that the CONSTITUTION sets.
The Officers, being hyped-up and dyslexic, enter the wrong house and kill Uncle Fred who was minding his own damn business cleaning his guns after a day of shooting. Would Fred be justified in taking aim at the police? Would he be justified in killing them?
It depends.
LOL - Now you just prove yourself to be unreliable; "probable cause" is perhaps THE most misused phrase/idea in LEOdom/Judiciarydom. The Constitution requires that WARRANTS [for search or seizure], and not arrests, be based on 'probable cause'... IOW, a straight reading of the 4th amendment makes a huge portion of what the police do suspect, if not outright invalid.
Even though he's talking about the 5th here, there is some overlap to the 4th: Why You Should Never Talk to the Cops
Oh, by the way, this guy DOES have one of those JDs you sou vaunt.
Perhaps you should be more concentrated on eliminating the "us vs. them" mentality that cops have for us mere civilians/peons. It is actually quite ironic that the police were AGAINST having to enforce traffic laws; why? "Because it will fundamentally change the relationship between the officer and the citizen to that of an adversar[ial relationship]."
So the word was included to provide latitude for future courts in their interpretation?
How does this interpretation of reasonable square with self defense laws?
What consequences if any should there be when LE acts in error as they often do?
As OWS points out, LE has lost much respect as a result of the shift from safeguarding the rights of citizens to acting on behalf of the state, enforcing mala prohibita laws to generate revenue and treating the citizenry as an enemy.
That is precisely what I am suggesting.
So is it your view that “worthless dopers” should be executed without being found guilty?
What!? What!?
It's an UNLAWFUL arrest!
Ok, so let's go with a SPECIFIC example.
I live in New Mexico, our State Constitution says the following:
| Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] |
|---|
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) |
| Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.] |
|---|
| All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness. |
Inherent —adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
2. Grammar. standing before a noun.
3. inhering; infixed.
Inalienable —adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
Liberty —noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
—Idiom
9. at liberty,
a. free from captivity or restraint.
b. unemployed; out of work.
c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.
(Definitions #1, #3, #4 are the possibly relevant definitions.)
Now because the State has recognized that "defending life and liberty" is an inseparable and non-repudiatable right of "All Persons" the state has recognized the "defending of [a person's] freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint [possibly due to an arbitrary or despotic government control]" as such. Note now that there are NO QUALIFICATIONS laid upon that defense; it is NOT "defending life and liberty, except in those cases wherein deadly force is, or might be, used."
It is now proven that your statement "There is no where in the Country that permits the use of deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest. Hence, if you do so, you will ALWAYS be a criminal in the eyes of the law." is false.
Having now proved that one can (at least in New Mexico) legally defend one's own freedom; I return to the case on which we originally started: that of illegal arrest. New Mexico has a State Statute "NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty" which [obviously] makes it illegal for one to carry a firearm on university premises... the law itself, however, is in direct conflict withthe State Constitution which says "[n]o law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense."
The state statute actually abridges the rights of the Citizens [who live in on-campus housing] to either keep OR bear arms! That's right, according to this law they cannot keep, in their home, a firearm; though they could legally keep it in their vehicle that assumes that they possess a vehicle.
So then, is an arrest for violation of NMSA 30—7—2.4 legal?
How can it possibly be legal? (The statute itself is illegal!)
The question becomes, would the State honor its own Constitution and allow me my freedom if I defended my Liberty with the use of deadly force or would it call and convict me as a murderer? If a murderer, why?
In fact, to help you out, let's look at the Crime "Murder."
| NMSA 30-2-1. Murder. |
|---|
| A. Murder in the first degree is the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death may be caused: (1) by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing; (2) in the commission of or attempt to commit any felony; or (3) by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind regardless of human life. Whoever commits murder in the first degree is guilty of a capital felony. B. Unless he is acting upon sufficient provocation, upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, a person who kills another human being without lawful justification or excuse commits murder in the second degree if in performing the acts which cause the death he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another. Murder in the second degree is a lesser included offense of the crime of murder in the first degree. Whoever commits murder in the second degree is guilty of a second degree felony resulting in the death of a human being. |
Specific parameters? ROTFLMAO... how progressive of you.
You are just rambling now. The 4th Amendment requires the same standard for both arrests and warrants. You are simply twisting the Amendment now into something that is unrecognizable and incomprehensible. You think you are a law unto yourself. You think you can make up the rules as you go along. You think you that rules don't apply to you. Of course, we both know what you are doing is nothing more than internet bluster, so it really doesn't matter anyway.
You haven't proven anything. You rambled a bunch of nonsense and made conclusory statements.
The fact is, in your State, your contentions are nothing but rambling fantasy:
"Self-help measures undertaken by a potential defendant who objects to the legality of the search can lead to violence and serious physical injury. The societal interest in the orderly settlement of disputes between citizens and their government outweighs any individual interest in resisting a questionable search. United States v. Ferrone, 438 F.2d 381, 390 (3rd Cir. 1971), Cert. denied, 402 U.S. 1008, 91 S.Ct. 2188, 29 L.Ed.2d 430 (1971). Accord, State v. Hatton, 116 Ariz. 142, 568 P.2d 1040 (1977); State v. Miller, 282 N.C. 633, 194 S.E.2d 353 (1973). One can reasonably be asked to submit peaceably and to take recourse in his legal remedies... We hold that a private citizen may not use force to resist a search by an authorized police officer engaged in the performance of his duties whether or not the arrest is illegal. The question remains whether the use of force in resisting a search pursuant to an illegal arrest constitutes a battery upon a police officer acting in the “lawful discharge of his duties,” as set forth in s 40A-22-23... A police officer who makes an arrest should not lose all his authority if the arrest is subsequently judged to be unlawful. Police officers must be free to carry out their duties without being subjected to interference and physical harm." New Mexico v. Doe, 583 P.2d 464, 467 (N.M. 1978).
You can throw a tantrum if you like, but the fact is, the law does not support the nonsense that you are rambling here. And we both know that you don't actually believe your own rambling either. If you think you are right, why don't you go open carry on the premises of a University? Then make your case in Court? If you are so sure that the statute is illegal, why don't you prove it?
Ah, because we both know that you don't actually believe the tripe you are posting here.
If you REALLY believed what you were saying, you'd live according to those beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.