Although stated in typical inflammatory tone, it's a legitimate question.
For me, it's when I determine that the officer or soldier has become my enemy instead of my guardian. When they knowingly violate their oaths to protect and defend, and instead become something against which I must be protected and defended, they are legitimate targets.
I yield certain of my liberties in favor of the collective, in return for which I am given certain guarantees and provided certain services. That is the definition of social contract. When the other party abrogates the contract, it is no longer binding on me either.
This administration has violated that contract on any number of occasions, and for the paltriest of reasons. It has lost its legitimacy.
When they barge into your house without a warrant......
“”Since you brought it up, exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or a soldier in the head?”
When I ask a liberal if the law he just proposed is so important that would he shoot his own grandmother in the head should she peacefully decline to obey it, well, sometimes I see a head explode, metaphorically speaking. Stammer, stammer, well, that is the price we pay for having a civil society, comes the reply.
I just say, if you as concerned about personal rights as you claim, then you would only want laws to address crimes that are so egregious that the potential bloodshed their enforcement implies is comparable to the crime. But liberals are all about forcing people to obey them, and every way they think people must think and act. It is never about civil society, or else they would be outraged when, for example Earth First activists put ceramic spikes in trees to prevent lumbering, an act that could result in serious injury to the operator of the chain saw. But they never are. Quite the opposite.
When they violate the Bill Of Rights.
Well said. +1