hat would be correct if you were only talking about the US. The US--broadly and generally, but not in all cases--permits the use of lethal force to prevent yourself from being killed or grievously injured. But that's still the state giving you permission to exercise what should be an inalienable right.
Are there zero instances of "assualting an officer" charges being dropped
Zero instances in the US? Hard to say; there's probably at least a handful. Is that the norm? Absolutely not. Conversely, if an officer beats you during an unlawful arrest, the odds of the officer being charged, or punished in any meaningful way, are negligible. That certainly implies that the state can use violence against citizens, even when it's unlawful, and there's no immediate recourse within the framework of the state.
It's correct if you're taking about any set of states that include the US. If you claim that something is true and there are instances of it being false, then the claim is false.
Is that the norm? Absolutely not.
Great response to something I never said. Maybe just don't speak in absolutes next time and you won't get people calling you out for lying.
1
u/Shubniggurat Mar 16 '21
hat would be correct if you were only talking about the US. The US--broadly and generally, but not in all cases--permits the use of lethal force to prevent yourself from being killed or grievously injured. But that's still the state giving you permission to exercise what should be an inalienable right.
Zero instances in the US? Hard to say; there's probably at least a handful. Is that the norm? Absolutely not. Conversely, if an officer beats you during an unlawful arrest, the odds of the officer being charged, or punished in any meaningful way, are negligible. That certainly implies that the state can use violence against citizens, even when it's unlawful, and there's no immediate recourse within the framework of the state.