That question, even without an answer, makes most law-abiding taxpayers go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist law enforcement. In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of law enforcement, than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, When should you shoot a cop? Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of law enforcement. And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE cop-killers around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
People dont mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN country, their OWN government, and their OWN law enforcers, in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. patriotism), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting law enforcement is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they cant even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.
Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about working within the systemthe same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that the system will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should illegally resistthat if they want to achieve justice, they must become criminals and terrorists, which is what anyone who resists legal injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so illegallyi.e., without the permission of the ruling class.
If politicians think that they have the right to impose any law they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as its called law, they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the law-makers or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as law, then by definition it is up to the law-breakers to combat tyranny.
Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist war on drugs, the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of security (e.g., at airports, border checkpoints that arent even at the border, sobriety checkpoints, and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If its wrong for cops to do these things, doesnt that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries dont take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it legally or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You cant resist a cop just a little and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.
Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET law enforcers have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, its against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to break the law, and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.
There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of government agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: We dont have the right to invade your home without probable cause but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.
Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while were at it? You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us. (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. Department of Justice.) You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you. (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a plea agreement), you cant do a thing about it. What good is a rightwhat does the term right even meanif you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called rights? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.
To be blunt, if you have the right to do A, it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing Aeven if he has a badge and a politicians scribble (law) on his sideyou have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. Thats what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL government agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL government agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL government agents who try to inflict those on you.
Those who are proud to be law-abiding dont like to hear this, and dont like to think about this, but whats the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injusticeeven if the injustice is called lawthat logically implies that you have an obligation to allow government agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist government attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called government is usually very hazardous to ones health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer never to the question of When should you shoot a cop? The correct answer is: When evil is legal, become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as law, become a law-breaker. When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.
The next time you hear of a police officer being killed in the line of duty, take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the law enforcer was the bad guy and the cop killer was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.
UPDATE:
Larken Rose narrated the text he wrote, and the video below was edited by Pete Eyre, and published in November, 2012.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
A better question: How did you get into a situation where you are asking yourself this question?
misterwhite posted on 2019-07-16 08:48:11 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
No, that's not what it says. It says the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents shall not be violated. If the search and seizure is found in a court of law to be unreasonable, any evidence seized is suppressed.
misterwhite posted on 2019-07-16 08:52:06 Reply Private Reply
#3: randge To: misterwhite (#2)
randge posted on 2019-07-16 10:06:24 Reply Private Reply
#4: misterwhite To: randge (#3)
Not if the search was found unconstitutional.
misterwhite posted on 2019-07-16 14:16:50 Reply Private Reply
#5: nolu chan To: Deckard (#0)
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59408
[Larken Rose]
Actually, Rose if full of shit yet again, and is wrong on all counts. If his readers prefer to do 20 to life, or get to be executed, they are free to accept his ridiculous interpretation of legal rights.
If a cop decides to perform a search and seizure in the mistaken belief that his action would be reasonable under the circumstances, while you believe it unresonable, you have the lawful right to subsequentl initiate legal action in court. You do not have the right to violently resist or kill the law enforcement officer. Even if the search or seizure turns out to have been unreasonable, that will not absolve you of your crime of resisting or using deadly force, or killing the officer.
For those who choose to play cowboy, if the cops break down your door in the middle of the night, unannounced, you can roll the dice by shooting them dead, preferably with head shots as they tend to wear body armor. Te object is to have your story being the only one being told by a survivor. You were awakened from your sleep, you were disoriented, you did not know they were cops, and you feared for your life. Aned consult with your lawyer (a real one) before you say anything.
There were no accompanying words which said you could violently resist a search and seizure carried out on the mistaken belief that it was reasonable. A court has jurisdiction and authority to decide whether it was reasonable, you do not.
nolu chan posted on 2019-07-16 15:47:58 Reply Private Reply
#6: nolu chan To: randge (#3)
The evidence is neither indicted, nor stolen. Evidence which is suspected contraband may be seized, and anyone claiming to own the suspected contraband may claim it. The burden of showing legal ownership is preponderance of the evidence, or more likely that not. Few people choose to claim their property when it is contraband, e.g., when it is the loot from a robbery; when it is the loot from his illegal drug sales business; or items purchased with the money which was the fruit of criminal activity.
nolu chan posted on 2019-07-16 15:48:24 Reply Private Reply
#7: nolu chan To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#0)
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59408
https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55944
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56314
The embedded Youtube video features Larken Rose.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57350
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You have littered Liberty's Flame with your Larken Rose snake oil, knowing that he is lowlife scum whose very snake oil sent him and his wife to prison, and when he got out of prison he went back to peddling snake oil to the weak minded, such as yourself. Scamming the Section 861 argument was a cottage industry and took in good money from willing dupes, and led to numerous convictions, fines, and ordered payment of back taxes with penalties.
Nobody should be the least bit surprised that you have repeatedly foisted this self-professed anarchist scam artist as a source, knowing that he is a scam artist. I certainly recalled telling you before about Barkin' Larken Rose and his wife. You can't say you did not know what sort of crap you were shilling.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56537
EXCERPT:
Eric July at the article:
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_861_argument
Dr. Tom Clayton was an associate of Larken Rose.
In its Opinion on the appeal of Clifford B. Marston, upholding his conviction, the 8th Circuit noted,
United States v. Clifford B Marston, 06-4191 (8th Cir, 10 Mar 2008),l at 7-8,
Believing the natterings of Larken Rose does not seem to end well for those who act on those beliefs.
nolu chan posted on 2019-07-16 15:49:23 Reply Private Reply
#8: A K A Stone To: nolu chan (#7)
A K A Stone posted on 2019-07-16 17:03:29 Reply Private Reply