The original question was: were the BDs right in 'defending themselves' by firing at federal agents? I'll use a simple analogy to show why they had no right to supposedly 'defend themselves'.
A local chapter of the NRA holds a meeting in a house. The leader is a gun fanatic; collects them, worships them, is almost religious in his devotion to the 'gun culture'. He collects both legally and illegally, and owns a number of illegal machine guns.
The cops get a tip, and a search warrant to look for illegal weapons. They show up at the door, all in body armor, and bring a urban assault vehicle for additional protection, as there are reports that the gun owner has operational 50 caliber machine guns.
As they attempt to serve the warrant, the gun owner appears at the door, branishing a weapon. In the confusion, a shot is fired - it is not clear by whom. Both the officers and the people inside the house start shooting. Officers are shot and killed, as are some in the house.
Are those in the house who participated in the shooting innocent by reason of self defense, or guilty of murder?
The answer is: murder. You never have the right to shoot at peace officers who are performing their legal duty, such as serving a warrant, even if you fear for your life. Why? Because a criminal could use that as a defense anytime they shot of cop. Of course the criminal feared for their life, and damn well should - they just shot a cop. You will never see someone get off from a charge of murdering a clearly identified peace officer by that defense.
Ok, so you bring up the issue of them not firing when the agents retreated. Maybe right, maybe not, maybe they were incapable of firing more, who knows. It does not matter. If you shot 4 cops, then let others run away, you are still guilty of the murder of those four officers
Self defense applies only when you are threatened by another civilian. It could possibly be used against a single cop, if you could prove they were crazed and going to kill you. You could possibly use it against an undercover cop, arguing that you didn't know he was a cop and you thought he was just a drug dealer bent on killing you. But you'll never win a case where you kill an officer in a group of officers who are serving a warrant.
Now that we've clearly shown that you are guilty, what if the officers shoot first? Then, they may later be brought up on charges, possibly even including manslaughter or even murder, depending on their actions. What if the officers use excessive force, or a bad battle plan, or didn't properly protect hostages, or as a matter of policy used a tear gas that had deadly side effects? Then they, or their superiors, may be guilty of crimes, or there may need to be changes in policies and procedures.
But, if you kill one of them in the above circumstances, you are still guilty of murder. Period
The NRA would have you believe that 'defending yourself' against law enforcement officers is valid and legal in such situations. It is not. There is no justification for the actions of Koresh and his followers. All the arguments about whether Koresh killed them all or they committed suicide are beside the point. Those who died did so because they believed in a wacked-out Jesus-wannabe who was really just a power-hungry pedophile with delusions of grandure. They should have left when they had the chance. They died in the same way as the Jonestown followers; killed by the man they mistakenly took as a man of God. |
