Is a citizen entitled to act in self-defense or defense of others against law-enforcement-officers if he has a reasonable-belief that there is an imminent-or-immediate use of excessive-force by those officers and that such action is necessary to prevent injury from such excessive-force, or is he required to wait until the excessive-force and resulting-injury has already occurred?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is a citizen entitled to act in self-defense or defense of others against law enforcement officers if he has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent or immediate use of excessive force by those officers and that such action is necessary to prevent injury from such excessive force, or is he required to wait until the excessive force and resulting injury has already occurred? This is an important and recurring issue of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court. 2. Cana confession or other incriminating post-offense statements alone suffice to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or is substantial independent corroborating evidence of each element of the alleged offense required to prevent convictions based on false confessions, as this Court ruled in Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954) and a series of other Supreme Court precedents? This is an instance in which the Ninth Circuit ruling conflicts with established Supreme Court precedents. 3. Can rulings that are unexplained, and/or are supported by citations to evidence that is contrary to the record and do not support the conclusions, be upheld on appeal? ii