And when the law is violated and broken, the law breaker must be held accountable, that is not just the law breaker the steals your kids bike, it is the lawbreaker who sits in the halls of g0vt brokering power, calling itself 'the honorable'.
When a law breaker is the police, then the one whose 'rights' are being violated, must be the police on his own.
Hmmm.. what about this idea ?
It’d be nice to get a few like-minded individuals, design a nice local ordinance that rejects the authority of county and state agencies... then get it passed in the local town.
Get like-minded groups in other towns to do the same thing.
Can start with a tiny handful of people; it only takes a small group to get laws passed if you go about it the right way.
Here’s a “selling point” when pushing it through the local vote: if citizens voluntarily comply with these “external authorities”, they have the right to. We’ll give them that leeway in order to get it passed. One step at a time. So if the homeschooling family lets the jerks in, that’s their prerogative. But, all they’d have to do is pick up the phone and call local police, and they would come and physically extract the attackers and arrest them. Have it be just a $50 fine, per person, that can be waived by the local magistrate (who’s got to be “with” your group).
So there’s really no teeth to it - except that the job of the local police includes physically expelling county and state agencies from the local town, unless they are requested by local citizens in writing, individually. The request would be a waiver of the local ordinance. If there is a natural disaster, etc., the local government should have the authority to issue a single waiver to allow “external agencies” inside the town’s borders to assist - only for that single event, nothing else.
Youth, family services, etc., should all be explicitly taken over as the being under the purview of the local town.
Of course, if that were the local ordinance, if a citizen had to act before the local police arrived in order to repel an “attack” by “external agencies”, they’d simply just be doing the job the police would have legally done anyway. So, no harm, no foul, since the law would exempt from prosecution the local police or any citizen protecting their own selves and property, who, in so doing, wound up causing bodily harm to “external persons” who were “non-compliant” with requests to vacate the premises.