I seem to remember a lesson in sunday school about "sins of the father". Which is weird b/c this is the dudes mom and his shooting was clean and clear 100% self-defense
It's never self-defence when a cop kills someone because all cops violate the NAP just by being cops, and are thus always the instigators of all their interactions. For the same reason, it is always self-defence whenever a non-cop kills a cop. If you plan ahead and sneak into a cop's home and slit his throat in his sleep, it is justified as self-defence.
And that's not even accounting for their race treachery.
eh
Not all enforcement of laws is a violation of the NAP. Specifically laws that ARE a violation of the NAP. Drug law enforcement is an obvious violation...
Coercion by threat of violence is a NAP violation. Every government regulation is a coercion by threat of violence, and the threat is provided by the existence of the police, thus the police violate the NAP just by existing.
In the absence of police, real crimes get punished by the members of the community in which they take place (lynching, for example). If you're not violating the NAP, you don't need a badge. The presence of a badge threatens violence against any would-be vigilantes.
(post is archived)