bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #21
The only person remotely justified to defend himself with deadly force would be the attacked homeless man. And those with a well-documented history of schizophrenia tend not to be authorized to own firearms.Come on gun grabbers step up and make your case why we don't need guns in the hands of citizens. Who protects you from cops like this?
If your scenario involves armed citizens who happened upon the attack and start shooting at the police in an effort to save the homeless man, youre exhibiting your profound and comprehensive ignorance of the law.
The Second Amendment right to self-defense means just that: self-defense. It doesnt authorize vigilantism where armed citizens who are not subject to an immediate threat may unilaterally attack a perceived attacker, particularly law enforcement officers.
The militia component of the Second Amendment ensures the people have the means to defend themselves against a government who makes it its official policy to violate the Constitution and illegally preempt the rights of its citizens.
Rogue cops committing criminal acts comes nowhere near that standard, as their actions are not officially sanctioned by any jurisdiction.
Just because they wear a badge does not give them justifacation for murder and anyone who stands by and watches it is just as guilty as the cops who murdered.