It's weirder that people that swear they support the American flag, which stands for liberty and unity, support those who fly an altered flag of division that spits on what the American flag stands for.
>If you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will face consequences
If a law enforcement officer is violating our rights, we have a RIGHT to use force, period.
False. We have a RIGHT to use force against law enforcement unlawfully siezing us. It's a right that existed and was recognised in common law before the US existed and long after. They now try to say it's "bad law" but they should familiarize themselves with the 9th amendment. Our supreme court upheld right to use force against law enforcement can not be removed by statute.
>
Oops I said that wrong. It should read,
Our supreme court upheld the right to use force against law enforcement and that right can not be removed by statute.
4th Amendment right to be secure in your person. Bad Elk v United States, the Supreme Court upheld the RIGHT to use force, which was a common law right before this country was founded, and if you familiarize yourself with the 9th amendment which so many conveniently ignore, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Government has no authority to remove that right, and law enforcement are domestic enemies violating the peoples rights daily, as are the courts.
They do not have that authority.
Our rights are above government, government can not criminalize rights retained by the people. The Supreme Court recognized it as a right retained by the people, and while not specifically enumerated in the constitution (though covered under the 4th) the 9th makes clear it doesn't have to be. We have a right to be secure in our person, and we have a right to use force against unlawful arrest. We also have a right to use force to defend ourselves from unlawful police force.
Our government has been violating the people rights for a very long time, them saying it's ok makes no difference.
>interfering with a police officer in the lawful pursuit of his duties
How? Not saying it's the case here, but they tend to think speaking is interference/obstruction but except for threats it's lawfully not interference.
That's not interference under the law.
Like I said, our rights are above government. It ALWAYS comes down to a choice, are you willing to give up your right, or die to exercise it?
I've got news for cops, there are a LOT of pissed off people who believe in our constitution and view them as domestic enemies, and they're not afraid to die for the oath they swore, unlike the "officer safety" cowards.
I'm not fighting for domestic enemy law enforcement, I'm warning them.
Speech is not interference. An attorney advising rights is not interference.
Yes LE will soon find out.
Oh you mean the controlled oppo group?
Oh it's more than the FBI, much more. Like Q told you, there's no other way than the military, it's that corrupt. Did you really expect the tyrants to police themselves? KEK
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty, not tyranny. The greatest among us is our servant, that doesn't mean one who beats others and steals from their masters while calling themselves a servant. That doesn't mean one who puts "officer safety" above the rights they swore to uphold.
=The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.==
He's an attorney protecting his client, they should have shown him the warrant. It's not uncommon at all for law enforcement to claim they have a warrant they don't have.