“If you don’t break the law, or hang around people breaking the law, your chances of arrest are almost nil. Despite your beliefs, police are not just grabbing random people off the street and trumping up charges just to lock them up.”

No, they are just kicking in your doors, killing your dogs, injuring and killing the children and elderly, raping women, murdering innocent people in their own homes all of which is against our laws.

No knocks are FORBIDDEN by the US Constitution. Since the US Constitution did NOT give any of our governments the authority to create governmental professional law enforcement the ONLY lawful authority the LE’s have is when they keep that Oath. The US Constitution assigns those duties to the PEOPLE as the Militia so that we would protect our freedoms, hold those who serve accountable for their actions, enforce the Constitutions – federal and state.

THIS is the ONLY lawful way arrests can be carried out HERE in the USA, nothing else is allowed for;

Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As Dr Edwin Vieira states in his book “Constitutional “Homeland Security” Volume 1: the Nation in Arms”: “That means “that NONE of those tasks are assigned to the Army, to a Navy, to a (constitutionally unknown) National Guard, or least of all to any unnamed professional police, security, or intelligence agencies of the General Government or of any state or locality. Rather, the Constitution’s explicit emphasis on the Militia as the preeminent forces by politicians of a garrison, “national-security”, or police state…”

There is no such thing as “emergency powers” or “martial law” here in the USA as they are the exact opposite of the US Constitution and all in Pursuance thereof it.

James Madison: “Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves”

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” The Supreme Court of the United States

Judge Thomas M. Cooley: “Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it. . . To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume.”

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr: … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed”.
And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…
What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.”

Professional police as we know them today originated in American cities during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, when municipal governments drafted citizens to maintain order. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, police forces took on the role of crime-fighting. The goal of maintaining public order became secondary to chasing lawbreakers. The police cultivated a perception that they were public heroes who “fought crime” in the general, rather than individual sense.

This “new” role followed the law enforcement model developed in England. Our country had cut its ties with England to develop our own form of government with LESS governmental involvement in the affairs of the people. The “new” law enforcement was incorporating MORE government into the affairs of the people against the US Constitution as is done in England.

“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and … forcibly enter?” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Under the common law, there was no difference whatsoever between the privileges, immunities, and powers of constables and those of private citizens. Professional governmental law enforcement faced the same liabilities — civil and criminal — as everyone else under identical circumstances.

When the people of the USA started letting their representatives delegate their constitutionally required law enforcement duties to the professional governmental law enforcement, the laws were then relaxed to allow police to execute warrantless felony arrests upon information received from 3rd parties. Since the information received could not be confirmed, the Professional governmental law enforcement could no longer be required to be “right” all of the time, so the rule of strict liability for false arrest was lost.

The modern disparity between the rights and powers of police and citizen shows up most in the modern law of “resisting arrest”. Any US citizen was privileged to resist arrest if probable cause for arrest did not exist or the arresting person could not produce a valid arrest warrant where one was needed as individual liberty is the bedrock of our constitutional republic. It wasn’t that long ago that the United States Supreme Court held that it was permissible (or defensible) to shoot an officer who displays a gun with intent to commit a warrantless arrest based on insufficient cause. Officers who executed an arrest without proper warrant were themselves considered trespassers, and the owners had a right to violently resist (or even assault and batter) an officer to evade such an unlawful arrest.
Well into the twentieth century, violent resistance was considered a lawful remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. Even any third-party person who voluntarily assisted were lawfully able to forcibly liberate wrongly arrested persons from unlawful custody.

By the 1980s many states had eliminated the common law right of resistance for the people in order to make it easier for professional governmental law enforcement to do the work of the state, plus criminalized the resisting of arrest or anything else by the general populace of any “officer” acting in his official capacity. Then they eliminated the requirement that an arresting officer present his warrant at the scene, PLUS drastically decreased the number and types of arrests for which a warrant is required. Basically destroying the basis of our legitimate government, and the level of protection given to us by, and put into place by the Framers into the US Constitution and state Constitutions.

The right to resist unlawful arrest IS a constitutional one. It stems from the right of every person to his bodily integrity and liberty of movement, which are among the most fundamental of all natural rights. This” changing balance of power” between police and private citizens now revels itself by the unlawful power of modern police to easily use violence against the population, and to use unlawful arrest techniques with no consequences. Just because something is called a “law” or a “bill” does not make it so. There are many “color of law”, “pretend” laws that are being unlawfully enforced today.