Resisting arrest isn't a justification for shooting a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer had a pretty solid reason to draw his firearm, given that the rioters also had firearms.
I'm really baffled by the line of reasoning here. People, armed with guns, tried to break into a government facility. The law enforcement officers proceeded to try and arrest the rioters, and the rioters shot one of the officers.
Your interpretation of the facts and institutions here are thoroughly alien to me.
There's so much unpacking to be done I'm not sure I have the time on my smoke break but I'll give it a shot.
First, law enforcement as a concept is not static. It is a social construct. For me, the only acceptable reason for LE to draw a firearm is to exercise deadly force to protect civilians from a deadly force. For you, it seems you find it justifiable for agents of the state to exercise deadly force against people for vandalism and protest. I do not accept your view. Calling people rioters doesn't really change any facts except to bias the reader against them. Stating that the protesters were armed is not a good argument either. In Texas it is legal to open carry firearms so that is not a justification for deadly force.
You don't actually know that these people tried to break into a government facility. The case centers around the protesters allegedly luring law enforcement out of the facility. Sort of the opposite. Then the prosecution said the intent was to create an ambush.
But all of that is "well technically". The root here is that ICE is now an unaccountable irregular military equipped occupation force. When someone, anyone, raises a firearm toward you, you can either get shot to death and hope they get convicted after the fact (and again I point to Pretti and Good) or you defend yourself and then deal with survivor problems later.
Just because someone has a badge and a uniform does not mean you don't have a right to defend yourself from them, even if the courts are not honoring that right.
This group showed up at the ICE facility with a dozen sets of body armor, multiple firearms, and radios. They shot fireworks at the facility, and when the law enforcement officers went to go arrest them a member of the group shot the officer. Those facts are not disputed.
Using deadly force in self defense against law enforcement officer is only justified when that law enforcement officer is acting outside the bounds of the law. The fact that said law enforcement officer had a drawn firearm does not make it legal to shoot that officer. The officers having their firearms drawn was also reasonable given that the rioters were armed with guns. These officers were making a legal arrest, and thus any claim of self defense by the rioters is moot.
Like it or not, ICE is still law enforcement. You don't get to just say "I don't like this agency, so I am justified in gunning down any member of that agency that tries to arrest me."
> Using deadly force in self defense against law enforcement officer is only justified when that law enforcement officer is acting outside the bounds of the law.
What are you astonished by? Do you think lethal force in self defense against law enforcement is justified, even when the police are conducting a lawful arrest?
Let's say someone robs a liquor store at gunpoint. The police chase him down, with their guns drawn - which is totally reasonable given that they're trying to arrest a criminal who is armed with a gun. The robber turns and sees a pair of police officers with their guns trained on him. The robber shots the two cops dead.
Is this a justified shooting? By your logic, yes it is. The robber saw two police officers with their guns drawn, that meets your criteria for the law enforcement officers presenting a deadly threat.
On my end, I absolutely am astonished by your attempts to justify shooting law enforcement officers.
The question isn't whether there exists some other scenario would justify violently resisting law enforcement. Sure, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was justified even if the Nazi occupiers were acting within the bounds of German laws at the time. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether this scenario warrants it.
And like it or not, countries have the freedom to define their own immigration policy. If I overstay my tourist visa in Canada I'll get deported. This isn't some grave violation of human rights.
If someone decided to open fire on Canadian immigration enforcement officers to try and block my deportation, they should get prosecuted and imprisoned.
Your persistence in trying to justify shooting law enforcement is disturbing. It mirrors the thinking that motivated January 6th rioters beating up the police. Like you, they believed their mission was righteous and justified violence against law enforcement.
They were protesting an ICE facility. Sort of famous for not wearing uniforms and hiding their faces. Maybe you think these tactics are justified but it has led to a lot of police impersonation.
This was a coordinated group of people who procured body armor, radios, and firearms, and planned to break into a Federal facility. Responsibility for this incident doesn't rest exclusively on the hands of the shooter.
An analogy is Enrique Tarrio's arrest in the wake of January 6th. Right wingers complained that he wasn't even in the capital during the riot. But of course that's not evidence his innocence. Even though he didn't personally participate in the putsch, he was still held responsible for organizing it (not for long on account of his pardon, unfortunately, but he was still rightfully convicted).
Responsibility is a separate question from correctly reporting on the events that occurred. "A protestor shot someone" is correct, "a protestor shot someone and the group is culpable" could be argued, but "the protestors shot someone" is simply untrue.
No, it's entirely viable to say a group of people did something. E.g. "a lynch mob killed ______." Sure only one member of the mob actually tied the noose, but the mob as a collective took that action.
The point is they're both cases where a group of people get together to carry out a criminal act of violence. The fact that only one individual actually fired the gun or tied the noose doesn't alter the fact that the group as a whole carried out the criminal plan.
This is just a nonsensical question. The US Revolutionary War was a war. Whether or not there were non violent protests happening contemporaneously doesn't change the fact that it was a war.
