Flier at Occupy Phoenix asks, “When should you shoot a cop?”

reply to post by Ben81


I suspect trying to citizen arrest a cop may not be a good idea.
Different states have different laws, not all states even allow citizen arrests.

Many places do have laws for interfering with police, though
If you unlawfully detain anyone YOU could get in trouble for kidnapping.

Risky business.

California Prosecutor in Orange County California Tell Judge Napolitano who is charging two Fullerton cops with the death of Homeless man by Police Brutality. Prosecutor who is charging officers says People have a right to self defense when the police cross the line and break the law. People do have a right to defend themselves when Police Break the law.

I live in Phoenix, and have gone to the protest a couple of times, just to get a handle on the particpants there.

All I have to say is, Maricopa County, and Sheriff Joe.

Need I say more?

reply to post by SirMike


As an retired civil servant (firefighter) I say shame on you Mike for helping spread this non-American neo-con propaganda. Shame on you for not being on the peoples side. Shame on you for not understanding that the founding fathers did not believe in what this country has become with the corporations and the banks stealing the American dream.

Shame on you for using that avatar that you have NO idea what it really means.

May our great nation one day become a country by the people for the people once again.

Not a country that only the very rich get listened to. that is what America has NEVER been about.

Be an American, not an Amerikan.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


pdf is clean download
unless your afraid of being visited by the government

in answer to both questions in your post:

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
Your Rights as a U.S. Citizen Against Unlawful Arrest ..........

“Citizens may resist Unlawful arrest to the point of taking an officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S., 529. The court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense was commited.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh V. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. 1; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260.





“Each Person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, ther person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self defense.” State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100.

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910.

“The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.”
Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol. 2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197.

I am sure some Police Officers in this Country are Unaware about these Court Decisions when Overstepping their Authority . People who know the Law should Remind them about it from Time to Time for the sake of their Own Safety . The Woman in this Video was Intimidated by that Police Officer because she was just Not Aware of her Rights and cowed down to his Intimidation of her Ignorance . She should take this matter to a Lawyer Immediately and press charges against him IMO .

reply to post by FortAnthem

If one were to take the time to actually READ the flyer, they would see that there is more of a right-wing attitude in the flyer; they talk about defending your 2nd amendment rights and freedom of speech. They use examples of communist atrocities to show what happens when we give the "lawmakers" too much power.

indeed OP seems to be at great pains to immediately rule out possibility of a plant

it seems to me that the previous "let them eat cake/eat SHT and die" flyer [see here www.abovetopsecret.com... ]having failed
it's no great stretch of the imagination that TCOTBIP have merely changed gears
and are trying something else [blindly] hoping to discredit this interesting movement

powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...

The authoritarian-corporatist-militarist system victimizes untold millions of individual human beings, as well as many other forms of life as we see again today, both here and abroad. That would be a momentous evil in itself, but this particular evil is unsatisfied with only this first form of destruction.

Thus, the victims are targeted a second time, and they are forced to become collaborators in their own destruction. It is crucial to understand that these two forms of destruction are not separate manifestations of separate evils. They are the consequences of the same evil, and the two forms of lingering torture and death (psychologically at a minimum, and frequently existentially as well) are part of one overall design.

...

Focus on the critical sentence: "Yet, when a victim explodes or acts out in unacceptable ways, these same officials are shocked and indignant."

What exactly are these "unacceptable ways" of exploding or acting out? Who decided they were "unacceptable"? Why is it that "reluctant school officials" will not "take definitive action" against the bullies -- thus tacitly conceding that the bullying itself is not all that "unacceptable" -- while the same officials are "shocked and indignant" when the victim protests too strongly?

This pattern, and certain of its origins, will be found throughout history, in every culture around the world. The pattern is a simple and deadly one: the oppressor -- that is, those who are in the superior position, whether they are parents, school officials, or the government, or in a superior position merely by virtue of physical strength -- may inflict bodily harm and/or grievous, lifelong emotional and psychological injury, but the victim may only protest within the limits set by the oppressor himself. The oppressor will determine those forms of protest by the victim that are "acceptable."
...

Think about this very carefully for a moment. The oppressor may inflict unimaginable cruelties on innocent victims -- but the victims may only protest in ways which the oppressor deems "acceptable." The profound injustice is obvious, but not in itself remarkable or unexpected: this is how oppression operates. But ask yourself about the deeper reason for the prohibition. This is of the greatest importance: the victims may only protest within a constricted range of "permissible" behavior because, when they exceed the prescribed limits, they make the oppressors too uncomfortable. They force the oppressors to confront the nature of what they, the oppressors, have done in ways that the oppressors do not choose to face.

unfortunately i am seeing too much of the above described behavior from those who are against OWS, telling indeed.

i don't believe in the viability of mass movements as they are all too easy to subvert and be misrepresented by the MSM
as an anarchist [and former objectivist] i simply removed my consent a loooonngg time ago.

but i'm liking OWS more and more the apparently intentional no leaders/no unified message has really got TCOTBIP confused and scared.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


perhaps you could dig a little deeper and see if the officer that fired a rubber bullet in that poor fellows head has been identified and appropriate disciplinary actions, up and including dismissal and charges laid against, have been applied, mmmm-kay

would make a much better argument IMO

oh my...

looks like the 1% and/or it's minions have upped the ante to sex attacks

a very good reason to shoot and kill anybody, let alone a cop:

OWS protester sexually assaulted by someone not associated with protests
www.abovetopsecret.com...