And you don’t have to ask him why he is running. It’s perfectly legal to help a stranger in need without asking them if they broke the law. In fact, it used to be seen as the most Christian thing to do by not judging.
If you find "I keep a loaded shotgun at my door and am not afraid to kill fascists rather than be taken by them" to be keyboard warrior talk then damn, son, you must live a pathetic fucking life
This isn't true. Harboring someone from the police after they commit a crime makes you an accessory, not a primary.
Edit: to be more concrete and actually cite what I'm saying (my bad), we'll use federal law since they clearly crossed state lines multiple times in the stages of committing this act of heroism crime:
An accessory after-the-fact is someone who, knowing a crime was committed, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the offender or in any manner aids them to escape arrest or punishment. See: U.S. v. Triplett, 92 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1991). The aid provided by the defendant to the principal must be given after the principal completes the crime.
The basic elements the government must demonstrate to prove that a defendant was an accessory after-the-fact are: (1) the commission of an underlying crime against the United States; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that offense; and (3) assistance by the defendant in order to prevent the apprehension, trial, or punishment of the offender. See: U.S. v. White, 135 S. Ct. 1573, 191 L. Ed. 2d 656 (2015); Ellis v. U.S., 806 F. Supp. 2d 538 (E.D. N.Y. 2011).
Then you must be in quite a conundrum with who was killed here; if you want justice for the CEO by finding the killer of the CEO, you're supporting a murderer; if you support the killer of the CEO, you're supporting a killer.
It takes a lot of people to make a missile, yet it only takes one to declare war. Who's more at fault? If I steal a thousand elderly people's retirement savings, and someone else steals my car, are we equally thieves? What if the son of a person who I stole from took it, does that change anything?
No, that would be bad. But if that retirement stealer continues to steal, and the law doesn't do anything, and the whole system is made so he will never get any consequences, there could be a moment when shooting him in the back is the only moral decision