The Right to Resist

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If  someone attacks you, it is unquestioned  that you have a right to defend yourself. If, in the process, the attacker is injured – even killed – it’s fundamentally on him.defense 1

Why does this maxim not translate to our interactions with cops?

Why is it that they may attack us – and even if it is lawless attack, we are expected – required – to supinely endure it? If we are killed by the cop, the presumption is reversed – in the favor of the cop. Even in obvious cases of grotesquely disproportionate use of force, it is rare for a cop to be held accountable in the way any of us would be, having done exactly the same thing.

It is very odd.

In the same way that it’s odd how the obviously wrong act of taking what is not rightfully ours – theft – becomes acceptable rather than despicable when it is called something else (e.g., “taxes”) and done by proxies, on our behalf.

But, let’s get back to cops.

There is a great deal wrong with things as they are. People are beginning to realize this and it has made them uneasy.

There a number of things that could be done to ease this very reasonable fear. The most fundamental would be to throw this hateful concept of law enforcement in the woods – and replace it with the honest work of keeping the peace. By itself, this one reform would do more to end the epidemic of police abuse than all the marchers and sit-ins and protests put together. Because the pretext for so much of the abuses we’ve seen would disappear. Disagreements between people – so long as they remained peaceful – could be haggled and hashed out peacefully, through civil courts if need be. Most people already do it this way. Few resort to violence.thug cop 2

Those who do could be dealt with by peace keepers.

Law enforcers would become an irrelevance.

But it will take some time to get to that point because not enough people to tip the balance yet comprehend (or simply do not agree with) the notion of no harm, no crime – and its axiomatic conclusion:

No punishment.

But most people do grok self-defense. The right to ward off blows and – if need be – to hit back.

It is a concept that must be applied to our interactions with law enforcement.

For their sake as well as ours.

For the same reason we all understand it’s not only ok – but sometimes, necessary – to fight back against an ordinary bully. To take that right away is to give license to bullies. To encourage them. Which inevitably means, we’ll get more rather than less abuse – since there is no longer any meaningful check on abuse.thug cops 1

This is how we got to where things are today.

Cops run amok because they can.

Since 911 especially, their persons have been deified. Like medieval princes, we dare not touch them – even if they touch us first. Indeed, to meet their gaze has become sufficient provocation for an ultra-violent lesson in who’s the boss.

Enough, already.

It is one thing – an understandable thing, a justified thing – for a cop (like any other human being) to defend himself against an assault. It is another thing, however, for a cop to assault with impunity – and expect his victims to “stop resisting” as the blows rain down.

What does all this mean in plain English?

It means our persons are as just as sacred to us as theirs are to them. And that we have a right to resist, if it becomes necessary. To preserve ourselves from unjustified harm.

To act in self-defense.

Recently a man died who might have lived – had his wife been able to get him to the hospital in time. Instead, a law enforcer pulled the couple over because the woman was speeding. Despite their frantic please – and the obvious distress of the woman’s husband – the law enforcer refused to let them proceed, much less escort them to the hospital. Instead he used the threat of the gun on his hip and the arbitrary, mindless authority he possessed to force them to await death by the side of the road. Which came. The man died, having suffered a severe – and untreated in time, thanks to this cop – asthma attack.

These people had every human right to ignore this law enforcer and proceed to the hospital. Had the enforcer assaulted them in order to prevent their getting to the hospital, would it not be a clear case of self defense? It certainly would be regarded as such by most people if, instead of a law enforcer, the couple had been “detained” by some random stranger.

Why do random strangers in special costumes get to wield life and death power over us? And why are we told we must defer to them, even if it does cost our lives?

These are questions long overdue for answers.

If you value independent media, please support independent media. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079clover2

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provid


  1. A sudden realization came to my mind when viewing this video. The couple was pulled over for speeding and the ambulance presumably would take them to the hospital by…speeding!

    Doesn’t the foolish public safety mafia see the absurdity in that? Speeding by an unapproved person is illegal but speeding by an approved person is not. It’s just as Judge Napolitano says – it’s okay for the government to break laws but it’s not okay for you and me.


    • An excellent point, Antonio!

      Of course, they’re “trained”…. right?

      But what if one of us is also “trained” – perhaps better trained than they?

      Note that one’s actual driving – one’s skill controlling a car – is irrelevant and no defense. All that matters (as far as what happens to us is concerned) is that we’re “speeding.”

      Meanwhile, a cop (or ambulance driver) can be grossly reckless and get away with it… because they are wearing a uniform!

  2. As best I am able, I assert my right to resist. With all my strength, I assert my right to non-aggression. Most fundamentally, with all my skill and artifice, I most strenuously and arduously assert my right to non-association.

    I am not in association with the microrganisms that inhabit my body, though they are extremely proximate, I am not with them nor of them.

    Nor am I in association with the birds, tortoises, scorpions, and burros that live near me.

    Most especially I am in no association with any of you. Nor with the humans near me unless I so designate and acknowledge them. Nor with humans far away, regardless of their power. Regardless with their alleged ability to record minutae and to assert their recordations as facts alloyed into chains that they may bind me with.

    It is all nothing to me. I acknowledge none of it. As soon as I write this, I may shut off and ignore that part of the brain that can communicate in this manner. I write this for the other, but I will not be held to account by anyone for anything unless I so choose.

    In a dark world with insufficient light of with freedom. I am without true light. I disown the lesser lights of man and nature.

    I am just here for a moondance. For the reflected imperfect light that I can only stand so much of.

    I am just here for the now which I can wrest from these sinister false lights. There is no then, nor before, nor to be, nor future, none that is real and substantial. There is only the imperfect now immediately perceived and mitigatingly enjoyed.

    The star 8 1/3 light minutes away, or the next star 4.2 light years away. They are both bright, but neither of them are my light.

    Until a true light shines, I seek a righteous and peaceful darkness, for me it will always be night. It will always be fall. But I do not despair, ’cause it’s a marvelous night for a Moondance. Across the waters I hear a solitary lonesome wail of a Belfast Cowboy:

    With the stars up above in her eyes. A fantabulous night to make romance. ‘Neath the cover of October skies. And all the leaves on the trees are falling. To the sound of the breezes that blow. And I’m trying to please to her calling. Of her heart-strings that play soft and low.

    And all the night’s magic seems to whisper and hush. And all the soft moonlight seems to shine in her blush. Can I just have one a’ more Moondance with you, my love. Can I just make some more romance with a-you, my love. Well, I wanna make love to you tonight. I can’t wait ’til the morning has come. And I know that the time is just right.
    And straight into my arms you will run.

    And when you come my heart will be waiting. To make sure that you’re never alone. There and then all my dreams will come true, dear. There and then I will make you my own.

    And every time I touch you, you just tremble inside. And I know how much you want me that you can’t hide. One more Moondance with you in the moonlight. On a magic night. La, la, la, la in the moonlight. On a magic night. Can’t I just have one more dance with you my love.

  3. Eliminate both “qualified immunity” and total immunity” for all public officials.
    Require them to purchase “malpractice insurance” the same way medical professionals do. They might be less likely to abuse the citizenry if they knew that their “malpractice insurance” might not cover their actions.

  4. The government is a criminal gang that operates behind the fig leaf of public mandates. Even that excuse is wearing thin, as <40% of eligible voters (who are often the ones with the most vested interest in keeping the beast alive) get to decide between tweedleedum and tweeleedee.

    • Well-said, Escher.

      Let’s parse it some more. About 40 percent actually vote (one way or the other). Most elections are decided by relatively small margins, typically slightly more than half the votes cast.

      So, about 20 percent of the people rule the rest (by proxy) … so much for majority rule.

    • Dear Escher,

      I’ve been archiving some of the quips that have come up with spontaneously in my head via stream of consciousness, on a single web page, satirically entitled, “Quotations from Chairman Zhu.”

      Here’s on that echoes your sentiment.

      The government is a crime family with a flag. The social contract is an offer you can’t refuse.
      — Quotations from Chairman Zhu

    • That one is indeed good PtB. This one, by Stefan Molyneux, is even better suited to our minority community of NAP padawan learners:

      A deeply emotional look at the Christmas Truce of 1914 – which was a series of widespread but unofficial ceasefires between German and British soldiers during World War I:

      In the week leading up to the holiday, soldiers crossed trenches to exchange seasonal greetings and talk. In areas, men from both sides ventured into no man’s land on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to mingle and exchange food and souvenirs.

      There were joint burial ceremonies and prisoner swaps, while several meetings ended in carol-singing. Men played games of football with one another, giving one of the most enduring images of the period.

      “The thought that: It’s Christmas Today! – that thought, stopped war. Thought can stop war. It can be done. It must be done. We cannot as a species, climb over any more got-dammed dead bodies. There’s too many. And at some point, it will be too many to recover from.

      And then we slide back into medieval, or pre-medieval barbarism. To dark ages barbarism armed with the most savage star shredding interstellar weapons that the remnants of the free market have coughed up to plague us from here to eternity.”

  5. What was the cop’s name, the one who stopped the guy having the asthma attack? Why aren’t we publishing this idiots name, posting signs with his face and address, asking him over and over again why he thinks he isn’t culpable? Would we do any less if he wasn’t a cop?

    • there were 2 officers there. being that Officer Wendy approved his being denied treatment, I’d say the call should be made for her head. Either that or she can release the names of the 2 heroes.

      Police Chief Wendy Stelter has said the officer responded to the situation correctly and made the right call by waiting for the ambulance rather than letting the driver continue to the hospital.

      victim Casey Kressin
      driver Leah Hryniewicki

      were talking a small sprawling town of 14,000 people, there was no reason not to let her proceed except rabid psychopathy and the need to be seen as in charge

      Chippewa Falls Chief Wendy Stelter says Kressin’s girlfriend should not have been allowed to drive the rest of the way because she was hysterical.

      Stopping them was a NAP violation. Casey’s death is on their head.

      Chief Wendy’s Welcome

      My name is Wendy Stelter and I am the Police Chief for the City of Chippewa Falls. First, thank you for visiting the Chippewa Falls Police Department’s site. We also have a Facebook page, so please join the many others and “friend” us.
      CFPD has 27 dedicated employees to serve your needs.

      Police Chief Wendy Stelter 715-726-2704
      Administrative Assistant Julie Johnholtz 715-726-2707
      Lieutenant of Field Operations Matthew Kelm 715-726-6942

      Lieutenant of Investigations
      Brian Micolichek

      Sensitive Crimes Investigator
      Deborah Brettingen


  6. What would Clover say? Probably something like this: “we can’t let people speed and do what they want or need to do, just because there’s an occasional death from a police stop when someone’s on the way to the hospital”.

    Clover’s don’t care about deaths in a principled manner. They only care about deaths in a “greater good” manner. Like lords of war, it’s mere collateral damage to the clover–the price we pay for a safe society. Safety is freedom to the clover. Liberty be damned.

    • Hi Ancap,

      Yes, but Clover cares a great deal about “officer safety.” The death of a law enforcing “hero” is a source of extreme angst. Ordinary people?

      Not so much.

  7. Dear Eric,

    More evidence, as if any was needed, that even if we could “restore the Constitution,” it would not do any good.

    It is becoming more and more obvious that “good enough” is no longer good enough. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the mere existence of government is the source of the evil we suffer under. People are becoming radicalized beyond what even they themselves expected by the abuses of power that have no limit and will never end.

    The problem is not that governments sometimes violate human rights. The problem is that government itself is a violation of human rights.
    — Quotations from Chairman Zhu

    • When I first googled Ron Paul’s name back in 2010, I would never have dreamed of how radical I would become. David of 2014 would absolutely obliterate David of 2010 in a debate…

      But most will not follow my path. Its too radical for them.

      • Hi David,

        It’s only radical if you don’t base your politics on principles!

        This, of course, is a huge problem.

        Most people, I fear, are simply not intelligent enough – or intellectually disciplined enough – to operate on other than a situational/catch-as-catch-can basis.

        It is why, as a for instance, we have a population that overwhelmingly supports locking people up for “dealing” so-called “drugs” that also overwhelmingly buys another “drug” (alcohol) from dealers and thinks (rightly, of course) there’s nothing criminal about it.

        • for the many people who are intelligent enough— is there any possible way to get them to recognize the reality of American government ?

          if not, what’s Plan B ?

          • Too many ‘americans,’ even if born intelligent, do not, indeed, cannot, think, because the gunvermin ‘skules’ train them NOT to think, but to submit.

          • Dear OT,

            Alan Watts, the late great Anglican priest turned Zen philosopher used to say that

            “A fool who persists in his folly will become wise.”

            I can testify to this from first hand experience.

            When enough LEOs murder enough mere mundanes, even some clovers may begin to realize “it ain’t working.”

            The sheeple of the world, including ‘Murcans will eventually catch on, the hard way if not the easy way.

            The downside to this is that it could take a couple of more centuries. We will be dust in the wind by then.

            • yes you are probably right, things will have to reach an overall crisis situation before the general public recognizes the problem. the kettle will have to reach a boil

        • Eric, we agree on almost every political issue. And yes, we agree, its the average American that is “radical”, not us.

          I was using the terms from the vantage point of how I was back in 2010.

          Now, a political pragmatist (which most Americans are) could try to justify the war on some drugs by saying that some drugs are so harmful to society that its morally OK to use preemptive force to stamp them out. Mind you, I think that’s repulsive, and I don’t think political pragmatism goes well with Christianity anyway (I say this only because most people I debate with outside this website are also Christians), but it can still be consistent if one is consistently utilitarian. Most people aren’t, though. I also think that they’d lose that utilitarian argument as well.

          Then again, I’ve seen some VERY intelligent people get stupid on this issue to the point where they deny that police actually use violent force to enforce their edicts… Brainwashing runs deep, either that or some people will just deny the truth that’s right in front of their faces in order to win a debate or in order to avoid a conclusion they do not wish to take.

  8. “Indeed, to meet their gaze has become sufficient provocation for an ultra-violent lesson in who’s the boss.”

    Simply to stand up for one’s rights and legally remove their perceived right to fine, beat up and imprison you is deemed a personal assault.

    Then they’ll lie, call in backup and intimidate until you give in. They’ll push the situation to a point where they then stand a legal chance to arrest you for something completely unrelated to the original stop.

    If that couple hadn’t stopped and continued on to park outside the hospital doors, things might well have been different.

    Don’t stop for police. Common Law confers no special power on them to do so. A lonely roadside is the perfect place for them to commit their crimes.

  9. William Norman Grigg, I think, found out Texas had a very good law enabling resistance against unjustified police aggression. I don’t know if it has ever been used.

    • law (any law, including Texan) does not protect you. that’s the problem.

      the courts will generally not enforce laws (like assault & battery) against the police, but they will prosecute average people to the hilt with every law (real or contrived). Police, Prosecutors, and Judges all operate outside the law (Immunity) and expecting them to back you up against law-breaking by individual policemen is foolish.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here