I see it as being deeper than a race issue. If a person representing the government kills someone then its perfectly ok in most situations, but if its a private citizen protecting themselves then it requires the highest level of scrutiny imaginable. We see this attitude on display here in this very thread as those who were touting the race angle in the Zimmerman thread are now supporting the police actions here despite the facts. The race issue was just made up by the media trying to get more attention to an otherwise mundane story.
That is what I found fascinating in TOS reply. With Trayvon, the kid was defended but with Keith Vidal the kid was not defended. In the first cause the shooter was evil and in the 2nd cause the shooter is defended. In the case of Trayvon and Vidal, were they trying to defend themselves in what they perceived were threats? Same question can be asked in the position of Zimmerman and the unidentified cop who shot Vidal.
This isn't going to be popular what I am about to say but I'm going to say it anyway or ask it.
When it comes to the right of self defense, which I think is a paramount right, at what point is it justified to kill a cop as an act of self defense? I ask this question because if you remove the costume and badge from the scene, said person taking a life would be seen as immoral and thus a violent response in defense justified. If the claims of the cop's action are true, would you find the father guilty if he pulled out a gun and put the cop's brains on the wall had the cop not been one to begin with? A robbing crew of thugs on a home invasion spree? What about now that he is a cop under the cloak of costumer and badge? I would find him not guilty in either case and never bat an eye about it.
Does the introduction of authority negate all moral laws, these being the foundations of unalienable rights, and thus those in gov't now have special rights that the "consent of the govern" never held and thus were unable to delegate under a social contract in the first place? If the "consent of the govern" hold no special rights and thus can't delegate them to begin with, where do they come from? If we can't steal from another person, how do we delegate that power to a 3rd party and that action thus is justified if not seen as moral? Where do we get such notions of 3rd party privilege and empowerment?
Before you kneejerk react to the suggestion of killing a cop in a self defense action, think much deeper into this that goes way far beyond the average cop to begin with. The question should be as to just what authority those in power really do have. This is a thought exercise and not a call to some kind of action against cops. One can argue they are victims of the system as much as we are.
I do agree with Vidal's mother on one point, never call 9/11 and more and more people are coming to this conclusion often the hard way.
