I told you I'm a philosopher, I've made it clear I'm looking at the overall not a particular instance. How does that then make me a "criminal apologist", especially given that I've consistently been using Constitutions as my basis for reasoning?
I'm interested in the particulars of this instance, but the underlying philosophies present.
> I gave you the lawful justification my mother could have used to drive off the officer
>
> You go ahead and shoot at a police officer, neighbor kid, delivery person, standing on or crossing your property, and see what happens to you.
And you called me unbalanced!?
Where did I give any indication of shooting someone who wasn't breaking the law?
"Breaking the law" doesn't give you the right to shoot someone.
I've made it clear I'm looking at the overall not a particular instance.
In regards to all the criminal apologists, I am too.