First, to balance the roles of the small states and the large states. In the electoral college, each state gets 1 elector per representative and senator. As the House of Representatives is based on population that gives a degree of influence to the larger states. However, each state has the same number of senators which gives the small states a degree of influence.

Second, the constitutional convention did not believe that a national electorate really would have sufficient information and knowledge about the candidates to intelligently vote. The Constitution was written at a time when there was no internet, no television, no radio, no telephone, and no telegraph. The primary method of communication between communities was by mail. For the most part, what a resident of Savannah, Georgia knew about what was going on in Philadelphia or New York depended on the contacts of the local newspapers. The framers thought that letting the state legislatures pick a group of informed citizens to participate in the election of the president was the best way of getting a somewhat knowledgeable vote.

Third, even with that, the framers really did not expect too many clear choices to emerge other than the rare George Washington. The rules that the constitutional convention established (two votes per elector, with no more than one from any state) were meant to serve as a mechanism for nominating candidates with the House to actually choose the President and Vice-President. (This part of the reasoning failed as the framers did not think that national parties would form. They were wrong. As a result, the rules got changed after the election of 1800).

This last reason — intended to make the final choice of the President rest with Congress in most elections — is why the electoral college was not designed to strengthen the executive branch. The framers thought — as the only popularly elected part of the government — the House of Representatives would be the strongest "branch."
References :

DUI check points – You don’t have to go through them, or consent to search or seizure.
Same with TSA thing.

Again with the last example we find that it is not uncommon for a criminal to resist or refuse their rights to trail and are killed or injured during attempts to enforce laws that they are deliberately disobeying.
Basically if you are going to announce that you are waging war against america and you do so then it is not much different than announcing "you will never take me alive!" and having a shoot out with the police.

I would think that it would be easier to find stronger examples then the ones you have provided.
References :