Read my post again and you just may, maybe, understand the point being made...I will not provide assistance.
Here. I have no pressing engagements for the next few minutes. I'll do it.
O.K., Timmy. Go get your big boy chair and have a seat.......
At no point did he say the law is irrelevant because it is old. (Which is the meaning you
read into it.
He said "That don't (sic) apply in today's modern LE environment." meaning: Even though you may be in the right, you will most likely be killed, and the victors will write the history books.
Whereupon, the truth of the matter will be "He resisted arrest, went for his gun, and was killed before he killed me."
Nobody will blink an eye. Who will contradict the
reasoning of this explanation? Not you. You're dead, remember? They could even have it on videotape. Video would probably even support the (known only to your cooling corpse) false narrative.
No.
In today's modern LE environment this antique law is exactly that: antique.
It is still applicable. It is still relevant. It is still just.
It is NOW more likely to get you killed with your face plastered on the news next to the words "attempted cop killer" and nobody the wiser.
Ever heard of being "dead wrong"?
Well, being "dead right" isn't much of an improvement.
(Did I just coin a phrase?)