A black goes shopping in a Walmart, picks a pellet gun off the shelf and continues shopping. A cop runs in a shoots him dead.
A white brings a long-gun into a Walmart, loads and racks it. Shoppers flee the building and the staff hide in the safe room. He is not shot by the police. He is not even arrested due to open carry laws.
One thing I’ve never heard of: An African American open carry activist. I’m sure at least one is out there somewhere, but I haven’t heard of any. Do blacks in this country feel free to exercise their Second Amendment rights to the fullest? Maybe we should get the NRA on the case! Or what about a Muslim open carry activist, wearing a turban, just happens to chant “Allahu Akbar!” while openly carrying?
Obviously, they aren’t doing anything illegal, so nothing should happen to them. Right?
In bikinis!
It’s all good, man. It’s a post-racial society, ain’t you heard ?
I’m awakened by sounds on my front porch. I, a law abiding member of my community, grab the shotgun I keep under my bead and go to investigate. As I walk toward my front door, the jamb splinters and the door flies inward. I shoot the first intruder. It’s later discovered that the dead intruder was a cop serving a no-knock at the wrong address.
Now, you and Smapti say people can defend themselves, but you also seem to think I’ve done something wrong here. 
Well, it’s pretty much the racism that gets in the way of the full discussion.
No, I’m fairly certain that in the scenario you describe, you would legitimately have the right to shoot in self-defense - you have a legitimate reason to feel your life is in danger, and you have no way of knowing the first intruder is a cop.
As a matter of practicality, the second intruder is going to shoot you dead. He would also be justified in doing so because at that point he has every reason to believe that you are a threat to his life, regardless of the fact that he was sent to the wrong address. That’s the police’s fault, for sure, and I would expect your next of kin would make out like bandits in the inevitable lawsuit.
Really? Doesn’t your reasoning justify gun duels in the middle of the street? Once both guns are drawn, both parties can reasonably fear for their lives; is anyone guilty of an illegal homicide if either party is killed?
It worked in Bodie.
There were no murders in Bodie–all self-defense.
As I understand it, a number of states have laws against dueling.
Would such laws conflict with an individual’s right to defend himself?
The San Francisco Bulletin summed up the situation: “The Bad Man from Bodie is a sort of a generic term for all the bad men in the State.” An offended Bodie newspaperman recoiled at the insult. **“Bodie is one of the quietest, most law-abiding mining districts” in both California and Nevada, he bragged, asserting that no one had been convicted of murder there in more than a year and a half. ** Although factual, his boast concealed a disturbing truth. Twenty or so homicides had been tried in court during that time, without a single guilty verdict. Accused killers consistently won acquittals by merely blaming the deceased for starting the trouble. Mono County juries, the columnist revealed, “have in every instance found the killing was done in self defense.”[18]
So what about :
The WalMart shotgun incident demonstrates that lots of people were put in fear of their lives by the guy’s perfectly legal open carrying.
Seems pretty hard to argue that a reasonable person would not have been justified in shooting him.
Yup. If there had been another open carry activist (or an off-duty cop) in the store, they’d likely have killed the guy with the shotgun. If they were smart, they would have done so without a warning, because the last thing you want to do is give the guy a chance to spin and fire that thing at you. That stupid bastard presented himself as an imminent threat to everyone.
I concede the point. In this very specific, narrowly constructed scenario, it is possible for an innocent citizen to lawfully shoot a cop in the line of duty.
That’s an interesting question, which to my knowledge has never been tested by the courts. If I were a judge on a panel being asked to assess the matter, I would conclude that the nature of agreeing to a duel indicates that the dueler is deliberately placing themselves in a state of danger in which they would not otherwise be, and that it therefore does not comprise a situation in which standard rules of self-defense apply; the participant could completely and effectively have defended himself simply by refusing the duel. I do not, however, know whether any judicial precedent exists in regards to this matter which would be contradicted by my personal opinion.
So an individual’s right to defend himself when he feels threatened is not absolute?
How sure should a cop be that his life is in immanent danger before he takes action?
The current view of some of the above posters seems to be that if the cop feels threatened at all it is better to not take any chances and shoot the perpetrator, rather than risk being shot himself.
So being generous, let’s say we require that there is a at least a one chance in three that not shooting suspect, will mean that the suspect will shoot them before they can take any additional action. Effectively this is saying that we are willing to accept 3 mistaken shootings to save one cop being shot. This may seem a bit unbalanced, but then again maybe this makes sense after all the cop should have the right to value his own life higher than that of a random person.
Scenario 2. Suppose the cop is being shot at, but there is a convenient bystander near by. Should the cop grab the bystander as a human shield if it means that the bystander is three times more likely to get shot than the cop is? In terms of outcome, this is basically the same scenario first one.
Effectively by saying a officer can shoot anyone he feels threatened by we are saying that he should risk the lives of members of his community to keep himself safe, effectively reducing them to human shields. This seems to me a rather unusual reading of the motto to serve and protect.
The Police Chief said that no one was threatened. How do you justify using deadly force if there was no imminent danger? Do you think a jury would believe you? Or the Police Chief?
According to people in this thread, it isn’t about a third party’s perception of threat, nor is it about the reality of the threat. It is whether the shooter was in fear for his life.
As I said, there’s plenty of empirical evidence from the Wal Mart incident to show that people were in fear for their lives. You can’t suddenly invoke reality or third party opinions randomly.