Resisting the State

[misconfig]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qggqa36UDs[/ame]

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[9lock]

Doors to knock on list.

Washington DC
Federal Reserve
Wall St.
Big Oil

 

[misconfig]

I think it's a good video for sure!

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

It is sometimes necessary to tolerate the criminality of a few, in order to preserve the natural rights of us all.

AMEN!

 

[cowboywitek]

AMEN!

May I say AMEN also! this is SICK!! I did not know that cops could write their own warrants!!!! how unconstitutional?!?! wow. not cool.
TW

 

[96firephoenix]

woohoo! Indiana made national news! woohoo!!!!

I think you guys are looking at this all wrong.

[/Purple]

 

[other guy]

You know I think you guys are looking at this wrong.What the judge said was that you do not have the right to resist if a cop wants to force his way into your house. He does not say that the cop has this right. Only, that you do not have the right to resist. You do have the right to go in front of a judge and have any evidence thrown out because of an illegaql search. Do you see trhe difference here. He is saying that if a cop wants to break the law ande enter your house illegally, fine, let him do it, don't shoot him, get your remidy in court.If you would read the ruling , this is what he said. Everyone seems to be focusing on the part that says you don't have the right to resist. This will all be straightened out in court, where it is headed.

 

[NYFelon]

I have the right to resist anyone entering my home illegaly.

 

[88GT]

You know I think you guys are looking at this wrong.What the judge said was that you do not have the right to resist if a cop wants to force his way into your house. He does not say that the cop has this right. Only, that you do not have the right to resist. You do have the right to go in front of a judge and have any evidence thrown out because of an illegaql search. Do you see trhe difference here. He is saying that if a cop wants to break the law ande enter your house illegally, fine, let him do it, don't shoot him, get your remidy in court.If you would read the ruling , this is what he said. Everyone seems to be focusing on the part that says you don't have the right to resist. This will all be straightened out in court, where it is headed.

Mother ****!!! But I DO have a right to resist. Just because some damn fooli in a black robe says otherwise doesn't change that.

 

[PatriotPride]

Mother ****!!! But I DO have a right to resist. Just because some damn fooli in a black robe says otherwise doesn't change that.

+1.

 

[INyooper]

Haven't read the whole thing but, help me out here...

Cop forcefully breaks in your house unannounced, you have no right to resist.

Anybody else forcefully breaks in unannounced, you have the right to protect your house (Castle Doctrine).

Criminals are now posing as police in their break in attempts...

Yeah, I can see things are going to get pretty interesting.

 

[lashicoN]

Haven't read the whole thing but, help me out here...

Cop forcefully breaks in your house unannounced, you have no right to resist.

Anybody else forcefully breaks in unannounced, you have the right to protect your house (Castle Doctrine).

Criminals are now posing as police in their break in attempts...

Yeah, I can see things are going to get pretty interesting.

I'm going to get Police Pajamas. If criminals break in, they'll think I'm a cop. If cops break in, I'll pretend to be a cop too and help them steal my stuff, at least I'll get to keep a fraction of it.

 

[88GT]

But the question is whether or not the thin blue line would keep you safe from prosecution for impersonating a police officer. They'e almost necessarily have to incriminate themselves to testify against you.. Wonder how that would work.

 

[Ogre]

You know I think you guys are looking at this wrong.What the judge said was that you do not have the right to resist if a cop wants to force his way into your house. He does not say that the cop has this right. Only, that you do not have the right to resist. You do have the right to go in front of a judge and have any evidence thrown out because of an illegaql search. Do you see trhe difference here. He is saying that if a cop wants to break the law ande enter your house illegally, fine, let him do it, don't shoot him, get your remidy in court.If you would read the ruling , this is what he said. Everyone seems to be focusing on the part that says you don't have the right to resist. This will all be straightened out in court, where it is headed.

Hmmm... let me guess, If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about?

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

You know I think you guys are looking at this wrong.What the judge said was that you do not have the right to resist if a cop wants to force his way into your house. He does not say that the cop has this right. Only, that you do not have the right to resist. You do have the right to go in front of a judge and have any evidence thrown out because of an illegaql search. Do you see trhe difference here. He is saying that if a cop wants to break the law ande enter your house illegally, fine, let him do it, don't shoot him, get your remidy in court.If you would read the ruling , this is what he said. Everyone seems to be focusing on the part that says you don't have the right to resist. This will all be straightened out in court, where it is headed.

This is not how I interpreted what the ruling said (and I read the whole bloody thing). The ruling said "we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home." They admit that it is a persons right to resist, but that the court declines to recognize that right. My issue is this: We have a lot of rights in America. Many of them given to us by our constitution (some are inalienable God given rights). No one (especially man) can take away our God given rights. The rights given to us by our constitution are not to be infringed upon by our government. The right to resist unlawful entry into our home is a right that the government (in Indiana) is ceasing to recognize... Basically taking it from us in a legal situation. No one has the right to enter my home without my invitation (with the exception of a warrant).

A lot of it comes down to this: How many of us own or carry guns? Probably everyone on here. Why do they own or carry guns? MANY reasons including personal protection, sport, hobbies, etc. but most importantly is to simply exercise our right to bear arms. Do I have anything to hide in my home? Absolutely not. Nonetheless I don't want anyone to enter my own who isn't welcome, and if they have no right to enter my home (like a warrant), then I'm going to exercise my right to keep them out of my home, including resisting, and lethal force if necessary.

If you want to read the rest of my opinions on the ruling, you can find them here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ht_to_resist_entry_by_leos-9.html#post1883968

 

[other guy]

Haven't read the whole thing but, help me out here...

Cop forcefully breaks in your house unannounced, you have no right to resist.

Anybody else forcefully breaks in unannounced, you have the right to protect your house (Castle Doctrine).

Criminals are now posing as police in their break in attempts...

Yeah, I can see things are going to get pretty interesting.

I didn,t say that I agread with it, I was just giving their take on it. It will be challenged in court and hopefully overturned.

 

[Hustlehard]

Everyday I get Fed Up, Everyday I run outside, Everyday I see no one....WHEN WILL IT BE TIME???

 

[dross]

This is not how I interpreted what the ruling said (and I read the whole bloody thing). The ruling said "we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home." They admit that it is a persons right to resist, but that the court declines to recognize that right. My issue is this: We have a lot of rights in America. Many of them given to us by our constitution (some are inalienable God given rights). No one (especially man) can take away our God given rights. The rights given to us by our constitution are not to be infringed upon by our government. The right to resist unlawful entry into our home is a right that the government (in Indiana) is ceasing to recognize... Basically taking it from us in a legal situation. No one has the right to enter my home without my invitation (with the exception of a warrant).

A lot of it comes down to this: How many of us own or carry guns? Probably everyone on here. Why do they own or carry guns? MANY reasons including personal protection, sport, hobbies, etc. but most importantly is to simply exercise our right to bear arms. Do I have anything to hide in my home? Absolutely not. Nonetheless I don't want anyone to enter my own who isn't welcome, and if they have no right to enter my home (like a warrant), then I'm going to exercise my right to keep them out of my home, including resisting, and lethal force if necessary.

If you want to read the rest of my opinions on the ruling, you can find them here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ht_to_resist_entry_by_leos-9.html#post1883968

Right: Something you're born with.
Legal privilege: Something granted to you by law.
Power: Something the state can do to you.

By saying they don't recognize a right to resist, they were saying the right doesn't exist. The legislature will make it a legal privilege, and probably recognize it as a right.

The authorities don't have the "right" to come into your home, even with a warrant. They have the power to do so.

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it just recognizes them.

 

[Scutter01]

Everyday I get Fed Up, Everyday I run outside, Everyday I see no one....WHEN WILL IT BE TIME???

Those are dangerous words and I caution you against going down that road on INGO.

 

[UncleMike]

Those are dangerous words and I caution you against going down that road on INGO.