FREEDOM FORUM: Discussion

Make a Comment

Comments in Response


Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:

Latest addition - OathKeeper Founder Stewart Rhodes is interviewed by Tucson TV just before the March:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2MYkUO7uzo

Ed 


Comment by Ryan Masters
Entered on:

Hope everyone  has now seen the information just released by PCSD revealing what kind of scum Guerena really was. You sure hitched your mule to the wrong wagon.

There's much more to be revealed about Jose's (and his family's) criminal ring, and his wife's lies will be exposed, too.

Bon voyage, amigos.

 


 


Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Attempts to becloud the Guerena killing …These 1,607 words will set you free. Somehow, those were suppressed. I need you to read it. Chances are, you might be able to save yourself and help fight "police thugs".

At Gunpoint Is This Cross-Eyed Look At

Liberty And Freedom Which Is Dangerous

 

Dear Editor …[FP.com]

Let me have this opportunity to save our readers from being blind-sided -- from knowing the right way how to resist arrest, search and seizure under their Fourth Amendment Right [Fourth AR], before any of them is shot dead. We could have saved the life of ex-Marine Jose Guerena ... alive, he could have his only chance to declare himself innocent until proven guilty in the court of law.

The vision is flawed when one starts looking at Fourth AR the way cross-eyed do. If they can see clearly what this constitutional right looks like, they would know when to resist arrest, search and seizure that could save their lives.

The right of every citizen to resist with force or even to "shoot and kill" police officers [in the gun sights of anarcho-libertarian extremists in the physical or philosophical sense], especially SWAT personnel that barged into your home is self-defense under the Fourth AR if the citizen is subjected to an UNLAWFUL ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE. But this Fourth Amendment Right cannot or does not protect that citizen when arrest, search and seizure is lawful or when a warrant was issued based on probable cause to stop an unlawful wrong or to suppress criminal activities.

The problem is when there is an immediate invasion of the Fourth AR by law-enforcement officers, the suspect, whether or not engaged in any unlawful or criminal activity, has no time to find out or determine when such arrest is unlawful or a search and seizure is illegal before the act of self-defense commences. The victim may probably be already injured or fatally shot as in the case of the ex-Marine [Jose Guerena] who was found with an assault weapon on the floor by the side of his dead body.

In this Guerena case, that SWAT team raid conducted with element of surprise under what may be legally viewed as a "sneak and pick" warrant issued by Pima County, there was no time for the ex-Marine to use the weapon he had prepared in handy for self-defense as a matter of right guaranteed to every citizen under the Bill of Rights [the Fourth AR]. This is almost always the case when the raid is necessarily carried out under a shroud of secrecy or conducted by surprise and the victim has a screwed up understanding of his Fourth Amendment Right and do a Rambo like what the guru of violence Larken Rose suggested.

But this constitutional guarantee [Fourth AR] is not essentially collateral to the issue as to whether or not the suspect [the decease Jose Guerena] has the right to self-defense under the circumstances he was gunned down and killed. In fact that right does not exist when the surprise forcible entry was performed pursuant to a legally issued warrant of arrest, search and seizure based on probably cause.

Hence when forcible entry is conducted under a protected warrant of surprise, no one should presume [it would be foolish to assume] that the raiding police officers – persons in authority who are wearing their badges and law enforcement uniforms with bullet-proof vests -- are "thugs" [as Larken Rose call them] who just showed up for the sole purpose of invading your home to take away your Fourth Amendment Right as angry Libertarian extremists think it is. That would be the craziest scenario for one to think of, the stupidest option to make, and the silliest thing to do – unnecessarily exposing your life to danger and that of your family, and anyone inside the house at the time of the arrest, search and seizure that caught you by surprise.

Here are the crucial points I would like certain Libertarian bandits [angry anti-Statist Libertarians who rob you the right to think straight when they throw you under the bus] who look at liberty and freedom as a form of State banditry, to take note of carefully and very seriously: Police officers could kill innocent citizens with impunity – facts. But facts should be differentiated from reality.

The reality is, even a slightest physical contact of aggression by a citizen with a police officer while conducting a lawful arrest, search and seizure, can be prosecuted as "battery on an officer". While in the performance of their duty, the law protects police officers from criminals, not the other way around which State haters are projecting as a suspect’s right until proven guilty.

This is the reality that I am talking about which is separate and different from the prevailing facts.

Libertarian bandits most reasonable Libertarians are up against, shouldn’t insinuate the use of force to resist at this critical point where fully armed law agents with license to kill could fire at will. Those violent-lecturing bandits are not the ones who get killed … the foolish ones who heard and believed them are the ones who catch the bullets.

In one case, the Court ruled that a suspect wielding a "flyswatter" during a police raid was planning a "felonious assault’ on a policeman." The assault rifle found beside the ex-Marine’s dead body was more than just a flyswatter. It was obvious to the raiding police officers, that the Fourth AR doesn’t state they should wait for the ex-Marine who was holding a riffle whether the weapon was loaded or not, or whether the safety pin is off or on, to fire at them first before they could shoot him dead.

This kind of judicial interpretation showing how strict is the prohibition that to resist arrest, search and seizure is against public policy [the Indiana Court ruling which Larken Rose attacked as "Full Frontal Fascism", FP.com 05-13-2011 ] fuel the "growing public outrage". Public instigators the likes of Larken Rose and Co. simply throw gasoline into this raging emotional conflagration. The time has come that the need to save the public from this philosophically-induced killing madness is now so real than just apparent, and to take action against it has become critically urgent before the number of killings grow to an uncontrollable or epidemic proportion.

If you want to survive this unfortunate incident that came to your life like a thief in the night, don’t listen to those knee-jerk, anti-State Libertarian extremists who urge you, right or wrong, to resist and shoot it out because they tell you that police in uniform are jackboots "thugs" that are good only when they are shot dead.

Those angry preachers who spread the gospel of violence in fact fit the descriptions of what they really are – violent hoodlums or "thugs"… and their handiwork of "thuggery". The description does not fit police officers that took their oath to perform their police duty to protect the public from criminals, which those philosophical ruffians incredibly ostracize. These angry R3volutionaries are but just a lost command composed of libertarian mavericks who want you to forfeit your life under this delusional claim that you should value freedom and liberty more than your life. This kind of thinking is not only fundamentally wrong but also poisonous and dangerous to the public; and in an open public debate its stupidity is beyond reproach … just as its impeccable foolhardiness and idiocy are beyond anyone’s comprehension.

So by order of exigent priority, survival first, before you decide to resist arrest, search and seizure with force that would land you six feet below the ground. It is in the court of law that you resist UNLAWFUL ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE – not in the scene of the crime where law enforcement officers had turned themselves into criminals. It does not mean that by not resisting arrest, search and seizure at the scene of the crime, you forfeit your liberty and freedom. It is just NOT like acting stupid. In fact it is just acting smart so that when you are alive you can fight for your liberty and freedom at the right place [court of law] at the right time [when resisting arrest, search and seizure with the stronger force of law, are filed in a criminal or civil court proceeding].

Generally, this right of legal challenge under the Fourth AR applies only to UNLAWFUL arrest, search and seizure. It means that the challenge in court under the Fourth AR may meet tremendous difficulties and may not succeed if the action proceeds from a lawful arrest, search and seizure.

But here are some of the legal options or "tricks" employed by lawyers they learned from their several years of practice of law: In the legal battle, I always look at the windows of opportunity that are available in a case to case basis on how to challenge a legally issued warrant that infringed on the rights of clients:

[1] When the police affidavit was recklessly prepared in seeking the issuance of warrant or when there was fraud or dishonesty involved.

[2] When the Judge or Magistrate was blatantly biased or prejudiced in the issuance of warrant of which he/she should have been inhibited.

[3] When the warrant itself shows fatal defects, i.e. lack particularity, etc.

But overall, don’t react to this Guerena tragedy like a headless chicken. Know what your rights are under the Fourth AR. Better still, don’t try to hoodwink the public with your R3volutionary fervor. You are not going anywhere.

If you stop bawling and cease throwing punches in the air like what Larken Rose and his look-a-likes are doing, you will not only survive but chances are you will also know when and how to "kill"— in self-defense – those ugly law enforcers who went overboard … without even firing a single shot.

 

 

Make a Comment