WARNING DERAILMENT AHEAD!
Ok, let's try a different point of view (and I understand if you just want to read, I'll ramble)
Disclaimer, the following is not specifically my own personal view point. A LOT of ifs are here that I don't want to go into right now. Also, this has a dangerous chance of bleeding over into something I do care passionately about so I will try to keep it reigned in.
The question is raised, when draw the line of using deadly force? I'll ask instead why limit it?
Once a person reaches the age when society accepts them as a full member (so excluding children), why is society so concerned with preserving their life? It's not like we live where every abled bodied person must contribute to the success or failure of the society as a whole.
Why work so hard to preserve a life that the one living it is so determined to be rid of? To keep this in the spirit of this thread, if someone chooses to run from the law they are only thinking of themselves. If the person who ran had a spouse or children to support, then they should have thought of that before throwing their own safety away. They choose to endanger themselves, let them suffer the consequences.
Is stopping someone speeding or attempting to flee worth the lives of the drivers and pedestrians up ahead?
Is stopping a shoplifter worth the life of the clerk?
Domestic fights? I am ALL for this one. Fights escalate easily and the victim doesn't always get a second chance.
Noise complaints? See below..
Tax evasion? Same...
Littering? Is stopping someone tossing a cigarette out that caused the wildfire which destroyed half a town and cost many lives worth it?
The noise complaint and the tax evasion are difficult as I don't see those crimes endangering the lives of anyone else. I would offer that deadly force can be justified if by its application further lives are saved.
OKAY, BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED THREAD!
