Many times a jury of your peers is smarter and more just than the law. I think they were more interested in sending a message to D.C. than punishing Dallas even though his punishment was a long stay in prison, and that message was, don't flaunt a mans rights with illegal legislation used to persecute him and drive him to a desperate choice to defend his rights and freedom. You may not like that personally, but there it is.
Wake up, if someone tries to unlawfully arrest you, you have the right to use that force necessary to resist. Didn't you learn anything from Waco and Ruby Ridge? Is it wise or the best course of action, no. But it is within the individuals right.
Citizens of the U.S. have the right to use force to resist arrest? No, they don't. The arrestee doesn't get to decide whether his arrest is lawful or not; the courts do that.
Note, I said U.S. citizens. Dallas was (and is) a U.S. citizen. Had he renounced that citizenship and left the country, we wouldn't be having this discussion (although he'd probably be either dead or in prison in some other country, given his nature).
As for Waco and Ruby Ridge, we all know how well those turned out.
But you didn't address these questions: What did Pogue do to deserve a bullet in the brain? And what did Elms do to deserve a bullet in the brain? The answer in both cases is, nothing. Neither of those men were killers, so to even suggest that Dallas was justified in taking their lives is to forfeit all pretense of living under law. Perhaps you're comfortable with the idea of each person deciding at each moment of the day what law he's going to obey and what law he's not going to obey, but I'm not.