The second amendment was put there for the very reason that the government may become too corrupt. I don't want a civil war, but if our "leaders" keep getting chosen/bought out it may be necessary to put this country back on the right path.

Revolution is the proper term. We can only go too far before it happens again. All military personnel are sworn to uphold the constitution of the US, but not loyalty to the government. That's why the police/military forces should be the ones protecting the people, not stripping their rights away.

Revolution is the proper term. We can only go too far before it happens again. All military personnel are sworn to uphold the constitution of the US, but not loyalty to the government. That's why the police/military forces should be the ones protecting the people, not stripping their rights away.

The term "revolution" can be used for non-violent changes in government also, which is why I used the term civil war. With the grassroots movement, a non-violent revolution may still be possible, but it is probably too late for that.

Revolution is the proper term. We can only go too far before it happens again. All military personnel are sworn to uphold the constitution of the US, but not loyalty to the government. That's why the police/military forces should be the ones protecting the people, not stripping their rights away.

That statement above is correct. We do not swear loyalty to the government, but to the flag and the Constitution. We were formed to preserve all freedom within the country and around the world. But, although we do not swear loyalty to the three branches, the President, is a matter of fact our Commander In Chief. He directly commands the military and we swore to obey his or her direct command. No questions asked. (Or we'd be fired xD)

Edited April 20, 201214 yr by wmai20

The term "revolution" can be used for non-violent changes in government also, which is why I used the term civil war. With the grassroots movement, a non-violent revolution may still be possible, but it is probably too late for that.

But in most cases, a revolution is overthrowing the government, so it can be by peace or combat, it's still overthrowing the government. A civil war is when there's two organized government forces fighting.

The south shall rise again!....

...wait, never mind. Lets have it stay put.

As an LEO myself it is appalling to read some of the comments in this thread... I tend not to get involved with these types of threads on this site because they typically involve people who are responding to issues they know little or nothing about. However, I am going to address some of the comments in this thread because I simply can't let them stand as being factual.

I'm going to make a quick comment regarding the 1st Amendment because those of you in this thread are forgetting the exceptions to "Freedom of Speech" as outlined in Article 19 with the remainder of the declaration. Exceptions include but are not limited to libel, slander, obscenities, and "speech" that incites the commission of crimes. I'm not really here to argue the issue of internet piracy and the Government's attempt to stop these crimes, but I can tell you that it is not an attempt to put a vice grip on the internet. My opinion is that large cases of piracy and file sharing should be prosecuted, which is why the legislators are attempting to better define the process for doing so.

My primary issue in this discussion is the comments by Marine831 regarding cop killing to defend what you supposedly say would be a violation of your rights. It is my understanding you wish to become a Marine, so please take my comments as being educational and an effort to assist you in reaching your goals. I'll assume you are of a younger generation that tends to quickly go to extremes regarding many issues, and understand I'm basing that comment off of what I've seen in this thread already. Based on your comments in this thread (and assuming you demonstrated the same in your application process), you would be rejected from receiving the necessary security clearances to join a career in the armed forces because of such insensitive and appalling remarks when you advocate the killing of a police officer.

You highlighted Plummer v. State so I'll begin there. What this case law states is essentially you can resist an unlawful arrest with reasonable force, but what you fail to ascertain is that 99.99% of the time an unlawful arrest is not being committed. You mentioned the entering of a person's cell phone into evidence, which is a state by state issue and will not apply in certain areas. If the state has a law that allows an officer to confiscate your phone for evidence (I find it hard to believe a state would allow this without reasonable suspicion or probable cause), then it is lawful and you would be remiss to resist such confiscation. The law would remain enforceable until such time as the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, which won't be happening on the cell phone issue because the laws currently on the books in the various states fit in line with the reasonableness standard in the 4th Amendment (keeping in mind, cell phones are typically searched following an arrest and at this point you have lost your reasonable expectation privacy due to being in custody. A phone is considered a container of information, which is searchable based on certain state laws and the Constitution). Most agencies are going to secure a warrant before doing so, however, the media will make you believe that officers do it all the time.

Continuing your thought-process, if the officer pulls his firearm you then state you'd be fully clear to pull your firearm and kill the officer. What you would have done in this situation is get yourself killed, or if you kill the cop you will be charged at minimum with manslaughter. Having a CCW gives you the authorization to carry a concealed weapon, but no where does it allow you to display or use said weapon. There are states that do allow the use of reasonable force up to and including deadly force in defending yourself against an imminent life threat, but those states also include statutes that declare it unlawful to display a firearm to threaten or kill a police officer in the commission of his/her official duties.

There really is no situation where you can legally kill a police officer, and I particularly find it appalling that you would even consider such action. Such a rash and extreme defiance of the law is going to be a problem for you entering the armed forces, so I hope you've taken my comments constructively as I urge you to understand the issue from both sides. Now I understand fully that civilians simply can't grasp the concept of my job as a law enforcement officer because you've never been in my shoes, but I do urge you to make an attempt at understanding the laws of our great nation and how they are enforced by myself and fellow officers. You or any other citizen does not determine the constitutionality of any action or law, so you are unable to play judge in a situation where an officer MAY or may not be violating your rights. There is a judicial process, even including after you have been arrested and charged with a crime (doesn't mean you will be prosecuted). I can't think of any situation beyond gross negligence where a police officer would violate a person's rights to the extent that deadly force would be a reasonable option in self-defense against the officer.

Now I'm going to let my hair down a bit:

-----

That's a possibility. If you resist an unlawful arrest and an officer pulls a gun on you, you either get rid of him or he shoots you.

This is concerning for me and let me explain why. Myself as a Sheriff's Deputy in Florida would need to have a strong reasonable belief that I'm in danger to draw my weapon and point it at a person. This is something I'd have to be able to explain in court, otherwise I'd be guilty of committing an Aggravated Assault on you. If a situation presents itself where you are staring down the barrel of an officer, your options are to conform with his/her lawful orders or he is going to physically make you comply unless you present a clear and imminent threat to the officer's life, then he would have the option of shooting you. You have to be exhibiting behavior consistent with deadly force where any reasonable person would believe they are in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

-----

It's not as simple and black and white as you seem to portray. Once again, please understand my comments are constructive and intended to inform you of the facts regarding the judicial process in the US. Obviously I couldn't cover every caveat or scenario you have described or may describe in further posts, but my intent was to show you that these issues are complicated and that there are many lawful reasons behind what cops do on a day-to-day basis. Try to understand what I'm saying before continuing to spout off about killing cops or further sharing inaccurate information regarding legal concepts. I've been in a shooting on the job and I've had to kill a suspect, so I can speak from first-hand experience what it is like to be in these types of situations and thus you may understand my passion for this topic. And I don't plan on attending any more funerals of my fellow brothers and sisters in law enforcement so I'll do my part to ensure we all go home safely to our families each and every day. One aspect of that is educating the public regarding our profession. :smile:

Edited April 20, 201214 yr by Bailey23

As someone who takes law class in school, I understand the law quite well. I never jumped to conclusions and said to kill a cop because he asked for my phone. You fail to understand that what I said can only be done in legal ways. If an officer attempts an arrest of you, and you know it is unlawful, Plummer vs State makes it legal to fight back, using any force necessary, up to taking the officer's life. Under the constitution, self defense is legal, therefore, if there is an unlawful arrest attempted, you can fight back, and fighting back usually results in an officer pulling a gun on you, which in turn should lead to you pulling your gun on them. There ARE unconstitutional laws out there, and the supreme court is near useless when it comes to declaring them so. This means that even if a state/federal law states something that violates constitutional rights, that law in itself is not required to be followed, and if enforced, Plummer vs State comes in.

A scenario would be something like this;

I get pulled over for speeding, the officer asks for my license, etc, and I give it to him. He returns, asking me to step out of the vehicle. Knowing I did nothing wrong (other than speeding), I step out. He then tries to put handcuffs on me, claiming that it's not an arrest. I can resist that unlawful arrest, and then he pulls out his weapon. This threatens me, who is currently carrying a pistol. I quickly pull out the weapon and point it at him, as he is not only threatening the life of a citizen, but also violating the fourth amendment. As a public officer sworn to defend the constitution, it is legal for a regular citizen to fight back if that officer tries to violate the constitution. Officers should not enforce unconstitutional laws, only laws that follow it. As a police officer, you should know the difference between the two. I don't encourage killing a police officer, but I do encourage defending our rights, which may lead to death.

It's not people like me that need to be educated, it's those who allow cops to do things like this that need to be educated. I know my rights, and know that if I did nothing wrong, I can legally fight back, and if he threatens my life, I have a right to defend myself. Wearing a uniform and a badge means nothing at all, as many believe, as well as you seem to. Right above, wmai, who IS a Marine, agreed with me.

While you seem slightly educated in constitutional laws, I don't think you yet realize that there are police officers out there who use their badges as something of power, and abuse their very little rights. As you said, it's not all black and white like you seem to portray it.

Edited April 20, 201214 yr by Marine831

Marine831, you are taking classes in school. Bailey23 is a police officer. I think he knows his stuff more than you know yours.

EDIT: And if you pull a gun on him, he is permitted to shoot you. Police seem to be held to a looser standard for drawing a gun; AFAIK, they *are* allowed to draw because of the possibility of needing lethal force. It is entirely possible that he is justified in drawing his weapon. You really don't know why he's arresting you or cuffing you; using force could easily be resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. Also: Police *do* have legal protections that don't apply to you. You AREN'T legally their equal.

EDIT EDIT: This is REALLY off-topic.

Edited April 20, 201214 yr by cp702

@Marine I was agreeing to your statement on Law Enforcement/Government not stripping away personal rights, not encouraging the use of lethal force. Quoting from a much older post, I do not encourage lethal force upon actions made by the Government.

Edited April 20, 201214 yr by wmai20

Marine831, you are taking classes in school. Bailey23 is a police officer. I think he knows his stuff more than you know yours.

Then you seem to be someone who needs to be educated on the boundaries of a police officer. My educational status and his occupation mean nothing. I know my rights, I know his rights, I know his boundaries, and it seems that he does not.

@Marine I was agreeing to your statement on Law Enforcement/Government not stripping away personal rights, not encouraging the use of lethal force. Quoting from a much older post, I do not encourage lethal force upon actions made by the Government.

I know, I just meant in general you agreed that they do have boundaries. I don't encourage lethal force on the government, but if it's completely necessary, as in your life is in danger, then it's acceptable.

Edited April 20, 201214 yr by Marine831

Then you seem to be someone who needs to be educated on the boundaries of a police officer. My educational status and his occupation mean nothing. I know my rights, I know his rights, I know his boundaries, and it seems that he does not.

Are...are you serious? Law class at school now means you know more than someone who deals with these rules on a frequent basis, and is *required* to know them?

Please try to keep this as a friendly discussion.

I can sense tension among users in this thread, if anything rises from it I will be forced to take action.

TL:DR; Just don't insult other members, everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Are...are you serious? Law class at school now means you know more than someone who deals with these rules on a frequent basis, and is *required* to know them?

You're only helping my point. You pretty much just said "Hes a cop, so I have to do everything he says, he knows better than me".

You're only helping my point. You pretty much just said "Hes a cop, so I have to do everything he says, he knows better than me".

While I don't want to become involved in this, I think a person who's served in the police for a countless amount of years and most likely also studied law has much more knowledge on the subject

I'm pretty sure I'm not helping your point, but never mind that. This discussion has nothing to do with the topic. Can we please get back there?

This thread is about CISPA, keep the discussion related to CISPA.

I don't intend for this to become a fight of any sorts so for those chiming in please keep it civil. CP702, my occupation doesn't automatically make me right or wrong on any issues, but thank you for the comment.

Marine831, I'm going to respond to your scenario and state why you would be in the wrong (again, based on state laws that vary by state). In Florida, for example, I have the legal right to detain you by placing you in handcuffs if I can articulate that I wanted to demobilize you for my safety while I conduct my investigation. Absent my development of probable cause for an arrest within a reasonable amount of time, I would then remove the handcuffs and release you. If you resist my lawful detention I'm going to use all force necessary to arrest you for obstruction of my investigation. If you resist me violently, I'm going to arrest you for resisting with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer.

I don't intend to continue a back and forth argument regarding scenarios with you, but I can tell you don't have a grasp on this concept although you do seem educated to some extent regarding the Constitution. I will agree with you that a badge and gun mean nothing, and I also agree there are cops out there who show disrespect for the public and abuse their authority. They should be fired and/or prosecuted for doing so, but I can tell you individuals who do so are the minority and I don't believe it is fair to attribute that moniker to all of us.

I can also tell you that I follow the Constitution and all laws when performing my duties as a Sheriff's Deputy, and I've never had any problems nor any accusations regarding my conduct on the job. I think that record speaks for itself regarding my ability to stay within my boundaries. I would expect my fellow deputies to do the same, and I'd be the first to correct any behavior of others who work with me (I've done it before).

I do wish you the best in your endeavor to become a Marine. I just hope you don't run across a police officer that you believe is conducting himself unlawfully, because your opinion may not be accurate and it could be a bad day for you or for the officer if you act similarly as you describe here.

wow this has went way off topic... Well lets just see if any more information comes out with this bill. Then we can judge. It is still in the early stages.

wow this has went way off topic... Well lets just see if any more information comes out with this bill. Then we can judge. It is still in the early stages.

As far as I know, it's going for vote on Monday.

Shane Allen Wilson v. State of Indiana (2006) is a further look on Plummer v. State and states that the IF the arresting officer is using excessive force that will cause death or great body harm, the arrestee can defend themselves or flee in order to protect themselves.

We concluded that a citizen has the right to resist an officer that has used unconstitutionally excessive force in effecting an arrest, but the force used to resist the officer's excessive force may not be disproportionate to the situation.

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=20061285842NE2d443_11265.xml&docbase=CsLwAr2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7