Legally speaking if some one interfered or resisted wouldn't they be justified?
-
Legally speaking if some one interfered or resisted wouldn't they be justified? No clear sign they are the law and they refuse to identify themselves
De-arrests are a thing, they do and have worked against ICE kidnap attempts. But you need a critical mass of people to do it, if you go alone they'll just arrest you too or worse, shoot you.
-
I definitely agree, just bringing this up as a point since it would be encouraging to know you can legally protect yourself
There is no legally protecting yourself from the prerogative state, i.e. whatever the dictator wants. We have to follow rules. They don't.
-
There is no legally protecting yourself from the prerogative state, i.e. whatever the dictator wants. We have to follow rules. They don't.
When they no longer have to follow the rules, the rules no longer matter. Violation of the social contract to that degree renders it null and void.
-
When they no longer have to follow the rules, the rules no longer matter. Violation of the social contract to that degree renders it null and void.
Well, the police have qualified immunity and the president is immune to all law suits according to SCOTUS.
I'd say that the social contract has already been broken. Not to mention the blatant unequal application of the law according to your wealth.
-
Legally speaking if some one interfered or resisted wouldn't they be justified? No clear sign they are the law and they refuse to identify themselves
If they're cops you'll most likely get shot yourself doing that. Which may be a better outcome than getting thrown in one of these black sites. We don't have a really good idea of what happens in them.
-
A legal defense can easily be mounted. If they did not identify themselves as police officers, or had any proof of being police, you are clear to use lethal force. The victim had all right to believe that they are a victim of first degree kidnapping, a punishment that is 2nd only to 1st degree murder in US law.
Their conduct is not one you would expect of law enforcement. So I will say it. Shoot. Shoot to kill.
Is that an official legal stance? I love it, but I've also seen undercover cops do the same stuff on the internet and with laws like Qualified Immunity I reckon that there are already laws in place to support these "just" actions
-
Legally speaking if some one interfered or resisted wouldn't they be justified? No clear sign they are the law and they refuse to identify themselves
-
A legal defense can easily be mounted. If they did not identify themselves as police officers, or had any proof of being police, you are clear to use lethal force. The victim had all right to believe that they are a victim of first degree kidnapping, a punishment that is 2nd only to 1st degree murder in US law.
Their conduct is not one you would expect of law enforcement. So I will say it. Shoot. Shoot to kill.
Legal defense doesn't matter for you when you're shot or choked dead by "police" because you defended yourself against an unknown assailant.
-
De-arrests are a thing, they do and have worked against ICE kidnap attempts. But you need a critical mass of people to do it, if you go alone they'll just arrest you too or worse, shoot you.
I feel like I'd rather take them shooting me at that point, especially if I can get at least one of them to choke on blood right alongside me.
-
A legal defense can easily be mounted. If they did not identify themselves as police officers, or had any proof of being police, you are clear to use lethal force. The victim had all right to believe that they are a victim of first degree kidnapping, a punishment that is 2nd only to 1st degree murder in US law.
Their conduct is not one you would expect of law enforcement. So I will say it. Shoot. Shoot to kill.
They said they are police and took out badges.
-
They said they are police and took out badges.
I can very easily buy a fake badge, flash it at you, and say I'm police.
This is why uniforms and agency-labeled vehicles (with id numbers!) exist. The fact that we still do not know the names of these officers should be enough evidence to prove that these could've not been officers at all.
-
System shared this topic on
