[Manuel_D]

What are you astonished by? Do you think lethal force in self defense against law enforcement is justified, even when the police are conducting a lawful arrest?

Let's say someone robs a liquor store at gunpoint. The police chase him down, with their guns drawn - which is totally reasonable given that they're trying to arrest a criminal who is armed with a gun. The robber turns and sees a pair of police officers with their guns trained on him. The robber shots the two cops dead.

Is this a justified shooting? By your logic, yes it is. The robber saw two police officers with their guns drawn, that meets your criteria for the law enforcement officers presenting a deadly threat.

On my end, I absolutely am astonished by your attempts to justify shooting law enforcement officers.

[wak90]

Can you maybe think of an instance in history where it might be justified to shoot law enforcement who are following the law.

Just give it 3 minutes.

[Manuel_D]

The question isn't whether there exists some other scenario would justify violently resisting law enforcement. Sure, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was justified even if the Nazi occupiers were acting within the bounds of German laws at the time. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether this scenario warrants it.

And like it or not, countries have the freedom to define their own immigration policy. If I overstay my tourist visa in Canada I'll get deported. This isn't some grave violation of human rights.

If someone decided to open fire on Canadian immigration enforcement officers to try and block my deportation, they should get prosecuted and imprisoned.

Your persistence in trying to justify shooting law enforcement is disturbing. It mirrors the thinking that motivated January 6th rioters beating up the police. Like you, they believed their mission was righteous and justified violence against law enforcement.