Replies

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