Comment by zahlman
9 hours ago
> Conspiracy to impede and obstruct criminal behaviour is not a crime, it's legitimate self-defence.
The behaviour being impeded and obstructed is not criminal. It is, in fact, law enforcement.
> In spite of what you've been told federal LEO are bound by the law.
I have not been told otherwise, nor does my argument assume or require otherwise.
> Executing random bystanders on a whim
This objectively does not even remotely describe either killing, and I have seen no evidence for the other things. Nor can I fathom what "congressional oversight" you have in mind, nor why it would be legally necessary.
> 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.
[flagged]
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.
> 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.