Beast, what being American means is that you and I have the right to hold whatever opinion in this matter we so choose to as we have equal freedom in doing so.

The loose rope you're throwing over this situation is quite a stretch, even by your standards. To associate someone having gone on a killing spree as a political dissenter or to speak of them as if this is even relevant in such a discussion is really a bit too far fetched to make the connection.

I feel I understand the point you're attempting here and agree that this is a tactic that's been used since man became able to speak. Unfortunately lies are a big part of the spoken and written realm, but Americans and seemingly American politicians are the ones your attempting to affiliate with such deeds in this discussion surely have no lock on mistruths and misplaced suspicions.

My point, and what seems to be the "revenge rights" you alluded to, is that a person attempting to be apprehended by officers of the law have 2 choices to make in the matter. 1. Surrender and prove their innocence in a court of law or .. 2.Refuse to surrender and if armed at the time of their attempted arrest .... die.

These choices, when made by a suspected criminal, have consequences, as do all choices in life, by all people. So how is it so wrong for law officers to make the necessary choices required in their work to simply carry out the wishes exercised by the criminals choice ?

There's a great line from "Road House" that seems particularly relevant here "When a man points a gun at you, you only have 2 choices. You can either die, or you can kill the motherfucker!"

Though I can't say I have enough details to say I know everything to be known about this particular situation, it would seem the cops made the 2nd choice and he died, so be it.