01-04-2016, 10:03 PM
(01-04-2016, 09:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Man ain't nobody reading all that. I just hope it backs my position of this is not yet an act of terror, simply because they say they have not "ruled out" violence if attacked. WTF good would it do you to say we have ruled out violence if attacked?
So being arrested for breaking the law is being attacked? Because they said they would be violent if they attempted to arrest them. So, are you saying anyone has license to violently resist arrest because it would be self-defense?
