"All governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed". <<<< Famous statement. Some will recognize it.
All Oregon conservatives have consented to ether obey the dictates of the communists, or simply flee to other states.
How could I make such a blanket statement?
Simple. If there were still conservatives that had not already surrendered in Oregon they would be fighting back with a level of violence equal to or greater then the level used by the communists.
Yes I acknowledge a LOT of reasons given for
not doing that. ALL of which come back to
one reason.
It's dangerous!
Yes it is.
But look at recorded history and see how "safe' allowing the communist to take over will be for them and their kids.
Yes it is dangerous and it is potentially so dangerous that ALL conservatives in Oregon simply surrendered already (so far) or have fled.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." <<<< Another famous quote some may recognize.
So,
Surrender.
Fight.
Flee.
Or pretend you don't believe the lessons of history, and that somehow we, today, are not going to follow in the path of history which has been unbroken. Maybe if we ignore the truth
Hard Enough it will not longer be true????????
(Somehow I doubt that)
Lookie here;
"Citizens may resist /unlawful/ arrest to the point of taking an
arresting 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 had
been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf 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 Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; 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 reasonable 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. I; 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, the 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).
"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally.
In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in
which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story
concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never
provided for by human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of
all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply
force against ruinous injustice.'" (From /Mutiny on the Amistad/ by
Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading
of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest:
"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)
And last, look at this video;
http://www.infowars.com/democide-go...oised-to-kill-billions-more-in-the-21st/
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/0ypqhGnj/image.png)
