Not having read further, let me start with an observation, re your: "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'."
If your analogy is going to show that armed agents coming into your house firing first are (Ok, I've read further now, and this is as I thought)immune from being legally shot at and kiled, you are dead wrong. IF cops shooting first is the truth of the matter, and it is known to any reasonable judge or jury, the shooter will get off, as all righteous people will agree should be the case. I see you talk of a case where it can't be proven who shot first. Here, it could go either way, though normally the police will be both believed and honest. Less of the time, they'll be dishonest and believed. So virtually always, as you surely well know, they'll win as a practical reality(assuming they stick together when lying).
So it's funny, frankly(sorry), given your explicit example in which by design no one can prove who shot at who first nor why, that you wind up stating "Of course the criminal feared for their life, and damn well should - they just shot a cop." You write as if by your example it isn't perfectly possible fear comes to the attacked at a point when no cop has been shot yet, and the "criminal(should have been "alledged" criminal, at this point)" feared for his life ONLY because he just saw his buddy near him shot down in cold blood for nothing, and realizes there is a bullet in his own belly. THEN he shoots back and kills officers and lives. If you maintian THIS situation doesn't call for the justified shooting of officers in self-defense, you are dead wrong, officer.
Re: "Self defense applies only when you are threatened by another civilian."
This statement is false. Period. It is debunked as written, in its simple entirity, by you yourself in your very next sentence, where you
finally seem to acknowledge all I've been saying all along, at least in a small way,
Re: "It could possibly be used against a single cop, if you could prove they were crazed and going to kill you."
No "possibly" about it, and it's true if numerous cops are there shooting first, and your prove that. This sort of behavior is NOT to be condoned, and isn't under law, which is all I've ever said about this, thank-you.
After all this, you don't give up, Re: "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"
At this point, reading that makes me sick. It's bullpoopy. IF you kill one of the officers in your above circumstances, particularly if it is KNOWN you killed the one who shot at first sight(you didn't rule that out), you most certainly will NOT and SHOULD not be found guilty of murder. If you don't agree, you really don't know anything about the law of this land, nor do you have good common sense(IMO).
Were you correct about the law here, all would agree the law needs changing. You are not.
Re: "The NRA would have you believe that 'defending yourself' against law enforcement officers is valid and legal in such situations. It is not."
Yes, it is. I've never been a member of the NRA, but as I've just repeated and you've both admitted(in a ridiculously limited form), and effectively fully denied(forgetting the gist of your limited form admmission - a contradiction indeed), YES IT IS, and well should be here in America as,
Freedom Works and Vigilante Officers Shooting First May Justly Die without repercussion beyond a successful defense in court,
Dan B |
