Sadly, in our haste to be freedom loving we have lost the ability to actually study the law. Your post is the best example from the 5 or 6 criticizing my statement.
Lay persons think that it is the order from LE that has to be lawful. Not so.
It is the lawfulness of the LEO that determines whether a citizen has to comply.
Most of you above are too stupid to get the difference. Well meaning, but stupid.
Let me see if this will help.
If a police officer is properly sworn in, on duty in the jurisdiction of his employment, directing traffic, he is acting lawfully.
And, if he instructs you to drive over the double yellow line (which is illegal) or turn off your headlights, or step out of the car leaving it on the highway in a lane of traffic, he is giving you a “lawful order.” Now, his orders may turn out to be wrong later, but it is not the substance of the order that a citizen may test. It is the authority of the office to give the order.
OK, all cleared up folks?
you are so incredibly wrong and so staggeringly unamerican.
Keep digging.
Ive tried to explain this before. Never works out. Lol
Didn’t work so well at Nuremberg. Must be a lawful order to be valid. The fine points of the law were already in agreement between medical and law enforcement services for procedures. The officer acted in violation of law and precedent.
Roid rage type behavior is not acceptable when a narrow exception to police authority exists, which results in frustration to an officers goals.
Traffic laws are not the same as those which relate to our person. You are trying to conflate what’s “lawful” at a traffic stop, with the federal laws which are supreme to state and local traffic laws. Sorry you are still dumber than a box of rocks.
What department are you with?
Stop diggin, son.
Lay persons think that it is the order from LE that has to be lawful. Not so. It is the lawfulness of the LEO that determines whether a citizen has to comply.
Let me see if this will help. If a police officer is properly sworn in, on duty in the jurisdiction of his employment, directing traffic, he is acting lawfully. And, if he instructs you to drive over the double yellow line (which is illegal) or turn off your headlights, or step out of the car leaving it on the highway in a lane of traffic, he is giving you a “lawful order.” Now, his orders may turn out to be wrong later, but it is not the substance of the order that a citizen may test. It is the authority of the office to give the order.
OK, all cleared up folks?
Absolutely! It's all cleared up! So, if the lawfully sworn in and in his jurisdiction, his Lawfullness allows him to tell you to commit lawless acts.
Therefore if he orders you to take a firearm and kill someone, it's perfectly lawful. If he orders you to rape a young girl, it's perfectly lawful.
All cleared up now!
Glad that's all cleared up.