Comment by TheOtherHobbes

Comment by TheOtherHobbes 4 days ago

Conspiracy to impede and obstruct criminal behaviour is not a crime, it's legitimate self-defence.

The fact that federal agents are breaking the law doesn't change that. At all.

In spite of what you've been told federal LEO are bound by the law.

Executing random bystanders on a whim, operating without visible ID, failing to allow congressional oversight of facilities, failing to give those captured access to a lawyer - among many, many others - all put this operation far outside of any reasonable claim to proportionality or legality.

zahlman 4 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 6 replies

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago

> The behaviour being impeded and obstructed is not criminal. It is, in fact, law enforcement.
If the behavior appears criminal at a glance, it is reasonable to step in; law enforcement should be aware of this and exhibit accordingly professional behavior such that it does not appear to be so criminally violent. The simple fact they're law enforcement is moot to whether said behavior is criminal, seeing as law enforcement can still be charge with crimes.

Reply View | 0 replies
ddtaylor 4 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View | 4 replies
- oceanplexian 4 days ago
  
  If you believe that, then the right process is for the legal system to deal with it. If you feel aggrieved by the legal system you should vote to change it. Nowhere in the social contract is it even remotely acceptable to act as a vigilante and respond with violence.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  TheCoelacanth 3 days ago
  
  Following the social contract in the face of gross violation of the social contract is a foolish and immoral enablement of even larger violations.
  When the other party to a contract violates the contract, you don't keep following your side of the contract. That is literally not how contracts work.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago
  
  > Nowhere in the social contract is it even remotely acceptable to act as a vigilante and respond with violence.
  That's not a truism, as evidenced by the word "revolution". If a law is unjust, one is perfectly justified to openly flaunt it and even be proud while doing so.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  ddtaylor 3 days ago
  
  Would you say the same thing about slavery?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies