SC GOP official refuses to step down for liking a CopBlock.org article on Facebook...

[Zatch]

SC GOP official refuses to step down for liking a CopBlock.org article on Facebook titled "When Should You Shoot A Cop"

News story: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60053.html

CopBlock article: http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

[Unelected]

Good. There's no need for libertarians to waiver in their principles because of the neocon authority fetish.

[aGameOfThrones]

When should you defend yourself against a common trespasser(cops included):

"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 such right. What might 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."(JOHN BAD ELK V. UNITED STATES, 177 U. S. 529)

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

[Zatch]

As a Republican in South Carolina, he probably would have got in trouble for liking any CopBlock.org article.

[pcosmar]

http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.


Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.)

Good article. I like it too.

[fisharmor]

He hasn't posted my comment:

This article contains a factually incorrect assertion.
The US Constitution was written on rag paper, not parchment.
(The rest is spot on.)

[pcosmar]

He hasn't posted my comment:

This article contains a factually incorrect assertion.
The US Constitution was written on rag paper, not parchment.
(The rest is spot on.)

I thought it was Hemp Paper.

whatever.

[jkr]

I thought it was Hemp Paper.

whatever.

1st 2 drafts...

[fisharmor]

I thought it was Hemp Paper.

whatever.

Well, did my homework, and consensus seems to be iron gall ink on parchment.
I thought that printing killed this sort of thing, but aside from writing style and lack of other pigments, this is identical technology to what monasteries were using to copy bibles up until Guttenberg.