My next line, which you ignored, addresses your seemingly-biased query:
Everyone has a breaking point. Some have other motivations. From one perspective those that history describe as 'patriots' are 'terrorists' by modern bureaucratic definition. Regardless, trampling innocent residents' rights is unforgivable and, in fact, deserving of retribution (the definition of which is personal to those offended and the action taken unique to their willingness to fight for their rights).
I will not address your ridiculous query regarding 'justification'.
However, HAD YOU read the rest of my comment, apropos to my comment above about 'personal to those offended' is Samuel Adams' quote.
If you have a differing opinion, I encourage that. However, attacking me for mine as a result of bias where all differing views offend you...well, perhaps you should literally refer to your own 'About' page...
I prefer to keep an open mind, particularly in an environment when those 'public servants' entrusted to 'serve/protect/defend Constitution/uphold Law' increasingly perform that which you mockingly ask of me...
My tone was intentional, and it was less attacking than it was mocking.
Your statement “[snip] the jury’s still out on Frein’s motivation”, followed by “From what I read, PA police do quite a bit to enrage law-abiding public” seems to suggest that you believe that there is a possibility that Frein’s actions were justifiable. That’s what ‘the jury’s out’ means. He might be guilty, he might not.
Your comment about breaking point seemed to underscore that he might have had a legitimate cause to hit that breaking point, for which the murder and grave wounding of another cop was justifiable.
Under no circumstances (IMHO) is hiding in the woods and shooting people a legitimate response. That’s the behavior of the Washington DC snipers a number of years ago. Sorry.
If I have misread, I’ll own that.