I've been trying, but you keep running away.
Here you say that firing at the police invalidates due process
What does this post mean to you?
The cops involved should be fired and be held criminally and financially responsible, IMO. 236 posted on Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:43:33 PM by Alaska Wolf
Really, are you drunk, stoned or just mentally confused?
Only that you don't justify their action in that particular instance; I gave you another incident and you justified, unlawful search & trespass.
>>you aren't intelligent enough to discuss constitutional matter
>
>I've been trying, but you keep running away.
I've not: you've been moving goalposts. -- I gave you the lawful justification my mother could have used to drive off the officer and you want case law.
Precedent *spit* -- is nothing more than the Judiciary playing the children's game 'telephone' with your legally recognized rights. Do you want proof? Here.
Summary:
The IN State supreme court declared that the State no longer recognized the right to resist unlawful police intrusion. (top of pg. 6)
Despite the state constitution's guarantee of security from unwarranted search & sieziure and bearing arms in one's own defense despite being unable to alter the constitution -- that in turn is a violation of federal law (conspiracy against rights) OR, if they are not overturning the State's Constitutional guarantee, they are rejecting the supremacy of the US Constitution, which a State judge is bound by.