The Sun-Times has documented four unmarked cars carrying federal officers without required plates, offering another way to shield their identities. Federal officials say they’re meeting regulations.
honest answer: they will be shot and killed in return. in the rare case they are not killed they will be given the most lacking “proper trial” possible. even in castle doctrine states with no obligation to retreat, things like the 2nd amendment are only really (in effect) applicable on a civilian to civilian case. The state will always “extra judicially” take care to shock and awe in retaliation. cf: philly move bombing, waco, and the recent bombing of “drug runner boats” in international waters.
That is the answer, and I don’t think confusion would play any part here.
If the kidnapping victim in this scenario somehow survives, they’ll surely be held in custody pending trial. When it comes to legal firearm use, they would need to make the case that A) they reasonably felt in imminent danger for their lives, and B) that they acted to eliminate the threat. Even in an ideal world where a jury acquits them, they still get to live with “I killed someone”.
If you’re carrying, you have to have already been doing everything right before any incident where you are forced to eliminate a threat to your person. If you did anything provocative, you’re fucked. After the threat is eliminated, you need to stop shooting, because if you take any harmful action after threats have been eliminated, you’re fucked.
But the fact is that if you’re in that situation, where you have to draw and fire, there’s going to be multiple people (threats) on you. The odds that you are able to eliminate all of those threats before being killed yourself are low.
honest answer: they will be shot and killed in return. in the rare case they are not killed they will be given the most lacking “proper trial” possible. even in castle doctrine states with no obligation to retreat, things like the 2nd amendment are only really (in effect) applicable on a civilian to civilian case. The state will always “extra judicially” take care to shock and awe in retaliation. cf: philly move bombing, waco, and the recent bombing of “drug runner boats” in international waters.
That is the answer, and I don’t think confusion would play any part here.
If the kidnapping victim in this scenario somehow survives, they’ll surely be held in custody pending trial. When it comes to legal firearm use, they would need to make the case that A) they reasonably felt in imminent danger for their lives, and B) that they acted to eliminate the threat. Even in an ideal world where a jury acquits them, they still get to live with “I killed someone”.
If you’re carrying, you have to have already been doing everything right before any incident where you are forced to eliminate a threat to your person. If you did anything provocative, you’re fucked. After the threat is eliminated, you need to stop shooting, because if you take any harmful action after threats have been eliminated, you’re fucked.
But the fact is that if you’re in that situation, where you have to draw and fire, there’s going to be multiple people (threats) on you. The odds that you are able to eliminate all of those threats before being killed yourself are low.
Self defense applies to other selves, as well. Not just your unique self. It extends to other people. Meaning YOU don’t have to be the one in danger.
Yes this is true. It also adds an extra layer of “are you making the right decision”, so take extra care.
Depends on the laws of the specific state.
Justified and legal in Indiana: https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/indiana-stand-your-ground-law
again: this won’t apply if you’re dead. or if the state has sufficient desire to ignore the law and case history.
Beats a death camp.
That’s next
Well I don’t think they’d bring a corpse to a death camp
Sure they would. Crematoriums can be used as power or heat sources for those willing to hold their noses.