On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: James Rogers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >The only protection offered against illegitimate use of deadly force in
> >the U.S. is to kill the state agents/police at the time the incident
> Murder is *already* a capital offense, even if you are wearing a cop uniform
> at the time you commit the murder. So I assume what you are suggesting is
> some sort of summary execution which bypasses the jury trial process, right?
> That sounds like a really great plan. Oh, except for the minor detail
> that *no one in their right mind would become a cop*. I'm amazed that they
> can hire people as cops now to get paid marginally well to risk their lives
> every working hour of the day. And now, in addition to getting reprimanded,
> suspended, fired and sued for making an error, you think they should be
> *killed* too? Yeah, sure I might take that job...if it paid $10 million a
This is legal *now*, and always has been; I wasn't making a suggestion. It
is considered self-defense if you kill a cop executing illegal force,
whether the use of illegal force is accidental or intentional. The moment
someone threatens lethal force against you without correct legal
authority, they become fair game in the eyes of the law whether or not
they come under the color of authority.
Please note the importance of making sure the police are bearing correct
legal authority; if they are, one cannot legitimately resist them.
However, if they kick in the door of the wrong address, a violent response
is justified even if they have a warrant for that address as the warrant
is effectively invalidated by being incorrect. The courts have ruled
repeatedly that killing police while they are threatening lethal force on
an illegal or invalid pretext is to be considered justifiable homicide.
There are rules about where the lines are drawn, but the priniciple stands
on its own.
It appears that you find the lives of police to be more important than the
inconvenience of having the police actually make sure they are not killing
innocent people. I don't see how you can so easily grant the authority to
kill without making the same individuals fully responsible for their use
of that authority. I think it is a good thing that screwing up grave
decisions have grave consequences.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:33 MDT