Posted on 12/30/2010 4:19:27 PM PST by smokingfrog
Interesting take on the matter! Makes sense, too!
Well said. I just viewed the video I damned near got sick. Murder pure and simple.
TigersEye brought up the point that the USSC should be tried for the murder of more than 47,000,000 “without due process of law;” sadly, this can never happen: the Supreme Court will simply declare that abortions are not murder and refer to all the case law from Roe v. Wade and all the cases based thereon.
As FreedomWarrior998 pointed out in post #220, despite the clear writing within the State Constitution—which I presented in post #217—, the judiciary has set itself above the law of the Constitution:
“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).
But let’s see what the court is REALLY saying here:
1 — “The societal interest in the orderly settlement of disputes between citizens and their government outweighs any individual interest in resisting a questionable search.”
translates to “The rights of the group to be undisturbed invalidate any right of the individual who might disagree-with or resist a questionable search performed by the Government’s agents.”
2 — “One can reasonably be asked to submit peaceably and to take recourse in his legal remedies...”
translates to “because a citizen MIGHT be able to appeal his arrest and confinement the citizen MUST surrender all rights to any liberties and apply to the government to have them reinstated; therefore, the Citizen is obligated to submit, unquestioningly, to agents of the Government.”
3 — “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” because it obviously makes sense that a search pursuant to an ILLEGAL arrest is LEGAL!! Obviously! Would we, your government, lie to you?
4 — “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...”
means “we can’t overplay our hand by out-and-out declaring that an illegal arrest is legal... if we did that there would be no ‘out’ should the police ever try to arrest judges! Yikes!”
5 — “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”
translates to “Because there are so many laws that a police officer cannot enforce them without breaking them, ‘breaking a law’ cannot invalidate a police officer’s authority; further; because they ‘must be free to carry out their duties without being subjected to interference’ there is no point at which a Citizen may interfere; even if he comes home to see his wife being raped by a police officer —which is obviously the ‘faithful execution’ of the law concerning rape— he cannot interfere because, damnit, it’s a police officer!”
{The above should have been read with ever-increasing sarcasm and cynicism.}
“It is not permitted to the most equitable of men to be a judge in his own cause.” — Blaise Pascal
“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).
I don't really have a problem with those statutes as written and as intended to apply. But not one thing in those statutes addresses the reason I will meet no-knock warrants with lethal force if I so choose. A no-knock warrant served as a so-called dynamic entry is a violent armed home invasion. That is a completely separate matter from the legality of the search. I'm fine with settling questions regarding the warrant, the search or the arrest with lawyers. If those things aren't right then I'll press for the lawsuit lotto.
But a surprise attack with battering rams, screaming orders and obscenities, slamming people and property around and shooting anything that hesitates a millisecond? That has nothing to do with the warrant or the arrest that's just plain old-fashioned barbarism and anyone who engages in it deserves to die on the spot. Or later at my convenience.
I got your back on this, for reasons I’ll go into at a later time, since sleep is YELLING at me to get there, like right NOW!!!
DC, Thank you.
Semper fi from a former USAF guy. (’62-’68)
But yet you know who is a socialist, a libertine, a Marxist, communist, an amateur, cop hater and drug lover?
None of those would be an ad hominem would they?
Oooh, question marks, I was wondering if you knew what they were since you avoided so many questions in this thread.
You would have to provide some evidence that they have done this before I could speculate as to their motives.
Same for the other questions.
I will point out that the police have done just fine destroying their own image without any help.
Drugs I worship?
Boots you lick.
Understood. I tend to ignore the sandman until he starts using a scoop shovel myself. :-)
I’m looking forward to hearing those reasons.
I WILL get to posting it soon, I swear!!! (Though cussing’s something I do less and less of!)
Good point...
Those seizure statutes are based on pre-constitutional admiralty law, 18th-century British law that has been received intact and which "went around" the Constitution and has never been "synchronized" or tested against constitutional principles.
Red-light camera laws are also based on admiralty law, precisely to obviate the criminal justice system and the protections it affords defendants.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex., ret.) has been waging a small one-man crusade in retirement against the spread of admiralty law to traffic law and (eventually) criminal law.
bump, ping, bookmark
bump, ping, bookmark
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.