America - its all a bit odd...


Local LE does not consider the group a credible threat.
Again, ignoring the actual question.

You made these two conflicting statements:
How does he have the ability to carry out this hypothetical resistance to the Governor when he is making political statements
The citizenry does have the ability to resist what they believe is an unjust government and can match that force.
Which one is wrong?
 
Well he looked like a big guy and I’m sure I read somewhere that he did resist arrest and was no doubt combative and a handful. But once restrained that was done. The video doesn’t look good I’m not sure what the cop can possibly say to justify his actions. Horrible way for his family members to watch him die too.
I agree the video does not look good. The officer(s)will be under some intense scrutiny. If it comes down to it, he will be charged. But nobody on this forum gets to make that call.
 
So, as an American citizen, under your 2nd amendment rights if you see an agent of the state choking another citizen to death are you allowed to shoot them?
Doubtful.
There is probably some law which prevents a citizen from preventing law enforcers to carry out their duty?
 
If it is not being brandished it is not a threat.
Not looking for an argument, just trying to understand the thought process.

The ownership of guns is required to prevent tyranny of government. However, those guns cannot be used against the police or law enforcement. Seem contradictory?

Likewise, the prevention of tyranny with what Drazyl asked earlier - surely a law enforcement officer killing a member of the public is the very definition of tyranny. Yet if a passer by had drawn their legally held firearm which they had a permit for and threatened the officer to save the life of a fellow citizen, would they be protected under the Constitution?
 
Not looking for an argument, just trying to understand the thought process.

The ownership of guns is required to prevent tyranny of government. However, those guns cannot be used against the police or law enforcement. Seem contradictory?

Likewise, the prevention of tyranny with what Drazyl asked earlier - surely a law enforcement officer killing a member of the public is the very definition of tyranny. Yet if a passer by had drawn their legally held firearm which they had a permit for and threatened the officer to save the life of a fellow citizen, would they be protected under the Constitution?
AIUI, the “tyranny of government” aspect stems from the pre-Independence colonial government forces imposing soldiers into family houses and forcing the owner to feed and house them. Soldiers who were there to impose the will of the Crown.

That’s a long way from today. Any Police officer you normally find is not an agent of the Federal Government, they are typically local or state police forces, or sheriffs. Agencies such as the FBI and DEA are indeed federal agents, but unless you’re either a) in Quantico or b) being a very naughty boy indeed, you will never see them.

If the Federal Government took its brain for a shit and started with the practices of the 1700s, that’s where your “well regulated militia” comes in. Hell, even the “TA” is state-controlled, not federally controlled, to stop exactly that kind of thing. The National Guard report to their respective state governors. An example might be when Colorado legalized cannabis; had the Federal Government ordered regular troops to locate and destroy the weed farms, that’s an example where the Governor could have legitimately used his NG to oppose them of course that would have been a major constitutional crisis, but it’s an example of the modern legacy of what went down in the 1700s.

Of course the whole 9 yards is utterly out of control in regards to personal firearm ownership due to too-literal interpretation of the Constitution over too many years, and too much pork barrel politics over too many years. BATFE maintains records of who owns what firearm, as they are legally mandated to do. But they are specifically not allowed to have an electronically searchable database of those records; it is a paper record. Utterly barking that the hawks defending the situation are not told to STFU and accept it; we’re having a database. Still, those that conduct gun crime are by definition felons, and aren’t allowed firearms, so any they have will be illegally held and thus not in any future database regardless. Or in the database under “stolen”.
 
Not looking for an argument, just trying to understand the thought process.

The ownership of guns is required to prevent tyranny of government. However, those guns cannot be used against the police or law enforcement. Seem contradictory?

Likewise, the prevention of tyranny with what Drazyl asked earlier - surely a law enforcement officer killing a member of the public is the very definition of tyranny. Yet if a passer by had drawn their legally held firearm which they had a permit for and threatened the officer to save the life of a fellow citizen, would they be protected under the Constitution?
It is assumed the officer is acting in their official capacity, and acting within reason. If we use your example what happens when Gang Bangers shoot at officers arresting their fellows?? So no, they would not be protected and would more than likely end up with a few holes themselves. In this case one person is on the receiving end for breaking the law(s) of the land.

Now if you are talking about living in a police state, which many people seem to think this lockdown will lead to (weather rational or not) is what the 2nd Amendment was meant to prevent. Rather like you lot and your attempts to disarm the colonials in the America's and then deny them representation and impose some very unpopular legislation upon the masses. Where the Government as a whole was mobilized to keep the masses in line. Hence the whole giving the citizens the ability to fend for themselves in times of dire need. Given the whole distrust of big brother issue here, people don't like having an all powerful state that can dictate things at a whim. Checks and balances were built into our system. 2A, three branches of government, the electoral college etc etc.

But if you are not pointing a weapon at a person but have it holstered or slung on your shoulder, that is not considered threatening behavior by reasonable people. Are you going to arrest me for having a rifle slung over my shoulder whilst on public property in the middle of nowhere? In states where open carry is legal and it is in many, you can't consider that to be a threat.
 
So, as an American citizen, under your 2nd amendment rights if you see an agent of the state choking another citizen to death are you allowed to shoot them?
A lot of vagueness in that

Is the agent of the State in uniform, On duty?
Was he performing his sworn duties before he/she decided to attempt Murder by Strangulation?
Is the person being murdered by the agent of the state a family member of the person with the firearm?

Some states actually do give the right to defend against LEO exceeding their authority


“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.”Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.”
Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.”
Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’”

 
It is assumed the officer is acting in their official capacity, and acting within reason. If we use your example what happens when Gang Bangers shoot at officers arresting their fellows?? So no, they would not be protected and would more than likely end up with a few holes themselves. In this case one person is on the receiving end for breaking the law(s) of the land.

Now if you are talking about living in a police state, which many people seem to think this lockdown will lead to (weather rational or not) is what the 2nd Amendment was meant to prevent. Rather like you lot and your attempts to disarm the colonials in the America's and then deny them representation and impose some very unpopular legislation upon the masses. Where the Government as a whole was mobilized to keep the masses in line. Hence the whole giving the citizens the ability to fend for themselves in times of dire need. Given the whole distrust of big brother issue here, people don't like having an all powerful state that can dictate things at a whim. Checks and balances were built into our system. 2A, three branches of government, the electoral college etc etc.

But if you are not pointing a weapon at a person but have it holstered or slung on your shoulder, that is not considered threatening behavior by reasonable people. Are you going to arrest me for having a rifle slung over my shoulder whilst on public property in the middle of nowhere? In states where open carry is legal and it is in many, you can't consider that to be a threat.
Interesting points (and Roadster's and Goldbricker's). However, you do seem determined to push outside a situation and introduce new examples that no sensible person would argue against.

To wit:
A police officer kneeling on a securely handcuffed suspect's neck is not the same as a shootout with gang members.

Carrying a slung rifle on private property in the middle of nowhere is not the same as turning up en masse with rifles in hand on courthouse steps.

The equivalent would be me saying "Surely concealed carry is insane, no one would agree with letting a crackhead walk through a maternity ward with a GPMG?" I'll leave it there as we're not going to agree.
 
You misunderstand. Much of the debate given here is about the right to bear arms to defend themselves against the government. Hence the question.
But shooting an LE officer who is arresting somebody does not quite fit into the same context as resisting an unlawful government.

But fyi it seems the four officers in Minneapolis have been fired for their conduct.


I imagine charges will be in their future at this rate.
 
But shooting an LE officer who is arresting somebody does not quite fit into the same context as resisting an unlawful government.
Control of the population through LE is exactly how unlawful government starts and maintains power.

At what point is a government unlawful, does it have to be all the way through from top to bottom? Does it start at the top, in which case is it OK to resist the untainted public facing part? Does it start at the bottom, in which case do you resist LE officers before it spreads to the top?
 
I agree the video does not look good. The officer(s)will be under some intense scrutiny. If it comes down to it, he will be charged. But nobody on this forum gets to make that call.
If it goes to a trial a jury will make the call and you never know arrsers could well be on it.
 

Latest Threads

Top