IMHO, the jury’s still out on Frein’s motivation. From what I read, PA police do quite a bit to enrage law-abiding public.
<><><><
So in your extensive research about the PA police, can you share your findings that relate to Frein specifically, such that you would hold out the possibility that his motivations are pure and appropriate? Or that the specific policemen that he shot were in some way deserving of being shot?
Certainly you’d agree that a sane person would exact their retribution on those that have done him wrong, right? You certainly cannot be justifying the cold blooded murder of the cop and the grave wounding of the other based on some nebulous notion that he reached his breaking point, right?
Call him a common criminal, call him a terrorist. don’t care.
If he doesn’t get called home to his Lord, I sure hope he gets called by a number for the remainder of his life on this planet.
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...