The fact the a law was arround for a long time without it being struck down is absolutely irrelevant to its constitutionality. I note there are many gun laws on the books that are patently unconstitutional. I also would remind you that according to the courts in the German Republic everything done by the Nazi Party was totally constitutional. Please cite the portions of the Illinois Constitution that allow for a housing court or laws governing the enjoyment of private property. You are the one arguing that it is constitutional wher I cite the fifth amendment to the US Constitution about taking of property without due process and the right to trial by jury both of which the fourteeth applied to the states.
Nor, I suspect, are the rules "arbitrary." Health and safety rules tend to be rather well-codified, and it sounds like the condition of Mr. Wolk's house was a reasonable candidate for violation of any resonable set of standards.
Really I saw nothing in the article taht supports your stand that the condition of his home in any way was a potential threat to the health and safety of neighbors or anyone else who was not tresspassing or invited onto his property. Pehaps you would cite some specific example of how he was endangering others as this would at least provide some justification for sending armed agents of the state to invade his home and when he resisted that invasion kill him.
We don't have the luxury of deciding which laws we will and will not obey.
Actually we do that every day. When we decide or decide not to obey speed limits and many other laws.
Having resisted and avoided the rulings of a duly constituted legal body, Mr. Wolk made himself subject to physical arrest.I am still awaiting the justification of that duly constituted legal authority. I guess thats sort of like saying duly elected Chicago mayor when there is absolutely no way anyone can claim Chicago's elections are any more free and fair than those in Zimbabwe.
That's standard and acceptable legal practice, and it's why the cop was there in the first place.
It was acceptable in 1939 to rob from Jews in Germany, it was also legal and standard practice accordingto the courts at the time subsequently other courts found differently. The argument you advance has little to do with right or wrong or constitutionality. It has much to do with moral expediencey. I clearly would have retained counsel and fought this every step of the way had I been in Mr. Wolk's position but the again I would have been maintaining my home better. In short two people are dead and you are the one justifying the dynamic entry into someone's home in the nightime. You rely on words like "duly constituted" without any support for those words. Mr. Wolk chose to resist a legitimate arrest with a gun,
Once more you are asserting something as legitimate when the orders of a housing court are at best questionable and the means of carrying out that order via a nightime service on his front door with a sledge hammer something more akin to a Gestapo raid than what professional police procedure should be.
and he murdered a man who was doing his job.
Mr. Wolk killed a man doing his job. Murder is a judgement that in this case only God will be able to hand down against Mr Wolk. However, I was only doing my job is not an acceptable excuse for commiting a wrong. Clearly the tials of Henry wirtz and the trials of many lower level Nazis were based upon that principle.
Killing a police officer who is serving a legally issued warrant is murder.
You have your libertarian blinders on here. There's no point in discussing this further.