[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Rodney Howard-Browne, Megachurch Pastor Who Flouted Virus Rules, Arrested

FDA fast tracking makes Houston Methodist first hospital to treat COVID-19 with recovered patient’s blood

Chuck Norris Warns of Rebellion, Martial Law if America's COVID Strategy Doesn't Change

The Black Panther Party For Self Defense: The Original Police The Police

Appeals Court Says No Immunity For Cops Who Shot A Man Standing Motionless With His Hands In The Air

Start your Monday smart: Pandemic, stay home, equal pay, US census, culture online

Fed up - Trump blasTs Michigan Gov. ... ‘Half’ WhiTmer --- for public complainTs abouT ed’s coronavirus response

The missing six weeks: how Trump failed the biggest test of his life

We must invent a new world order now to stop Covid-19

Duke University uses vaporized hydrogen peroxide to clean N95 face masks for reuse

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has now treated 699 coronavirus patients with 100% success using Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate, Zinc and Z-Pak

U.S. virus deaths could reach 200,000, Fauci warns as medical supplies run short

Biden campaign adamantly denies allegation of sexual assault

Police, Military Begin Door to Door Searches to Hunt Down New Yorkers Seeking Refuge

3 Ways We Can Pray for Our Nation

Nancy Pelosi Says .... House Democrats Will Vote --- To Block Trump’s Travel Ban

Joe Biden Said He Believes All Women. Does He Believe Tara Reade?

Who is Thomas Massie? ‘Masshole’ infuriates DC with coronavirus aid stunt

The NIH had 13 years to prepare for coronavirus but still didn't

Fighting Coronaphobia?

Like Cordwood

Dylan Sings Truth About the JFK Assassination

Marvel introduces superheros “Snowflake” and “Safespace” (and more Absurdity)

University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7’s Collapse on 9/11

Cops Ticket, Arrest Disabled Woman for Legally Riding Her Assistive Scooter on the Sidewalk

Unhinged AcTor Michael RapaporT ... Goes AfTer Barron Trump --- in UnThinkably Evil Tirade

The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved by Evangelicals

Johns Hopkins Covid-19 tracking site (Interactive Map)

Coronavirus - new Lays Champions League commercial (funny edit)

Video of Cop Shooting Tiny Chihuahua So Bad, Cop Found Guilty of Animal Cruelty

Our President

Beware a Government of Fear

Former Vice President Joe Biden Keeps Pushing Misinformation About Coronavirus. Here Are 5 Examples

NYPD is Raiding Sleeping Truckers Hauling Supplies During Outbreak, Impounding Cargo

Massive $6 Trillion Coronavirus Stimulus Package a ‘Robbery in Progress’ Critics Warn

As 911 Gets Calls for Coughing Neighbors, Hotline Allows People to Snitch to Govt During Outbreak

Two Hundred and Thirty Years of Rights and Liberties Shredded: Why I Oppose The Lockdown

Coronavirus Patent (2007)

Good Vibrations (The Fendertones cover)

Amid COVID-19 Outbreak, Arrests Plummet, Departments Close and Chaos Does NOT Ensue

Is Wearing a Face Mask in Public To Ward Off COVID-19 a Crime?

Iconic plant's end spells doom for struggling coal industry

The Netherlands Is Letting People Get Sick to Beat Coronavirus

A Pandemic Movie as “Predictive Programming”

“This Too Shall Pass”: 3 Things to Remember Amid Coronavirus Panic

Calling Those Who Oppose Totalitarian Covid-19 Measures

Italian priest dies of coronavirus after giving respirator to younger patient

Twin Black Brothers Accused of Robbing Their Own Home, Beaten, Arrested in Their Yard

Suspending the Constitution: Police State Uses Crises to Expand Its Lockdown Powers

Pot Shops Called “Essential Infrastructure” As Commerce Shuts For Coronavirus


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: When Should You Shoot A Cop? (Another shit article from Decktard)
Source: From The Trenches/Cop Block
URL Source: https://fromthetrenchesworldreport. ... -should-you-shoot-a-cop/250484
Published: Jun 28, 2011
Author: Larken Rose
Post Date: 2019-07-16 05:38:32 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 536
Comments: 8

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 don’t 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 can’t 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 system”–the 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” resist–that 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 “illegally”–i.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 it’s 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 aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t 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 can’t 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, it’s 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 don’t 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 we’re 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 can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a “right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if 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 “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s 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” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called “law”–that 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 one’s 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.

https://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

[Thread Locked]   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.

#5. To: Deckard (#0)

Add another article to Liberty's Flame legal scam artist collection featuring the legal opinions of convicted felon and former guest of the Bureau of Prisons, Larken Rose.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=59408

[Larken Rose]

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s 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” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called “law”–that 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.

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 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.

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 ET  [Locked]   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 5.

        There are no replies to Comment # 5.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com