!["They wouldn't let me take out the shooter" [547x453 - 299KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/ACIBDX.png){kind=link}
Until firing, he's done nothing more than "terroristic threats". At 200ish yards, he's a possible threat but you can't be sure he's aimed at whoever is at the podium. Preemptively killing him would allow the government to write whatever claims they wanted about him that justifies them killing him.
Until firing, he's done nothing more than "terroristic threats". At 200ish yards, he's a possible threat but you can't be sure he's aimed at whoever is at the podium. Preemptively killing him would allow the government to write whatever claims they wanted about him that justifies them killing him.
Go point a gun at a cop, (((FBI))), (((SS))) or any other bootlicker and see how long you live without pulling the trigger.
There's a term for that scenario and is designed to protect the zogbots - suicide by cop.
I could make that argument, but pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault. I'm not sure about PA, but in TX you can use lethal force to stop a felony in progress, which AA is.
I don't know the laws in PA either, that's why I haven't said anything more than "terroristic threats." That and aggravated assault are pretty universal. My understanding of aggravated assault is being held at gunpoint. I don't think that applies in a ranged attack though.
Your comment actually made me laugh out loud. Thanks!
(post is archived)