Philosophy

This is not about the law.

This is about a philosophical position.

There's one school of thought, embodied in the laws, that feels that all human life is precious and that everything be done to avoid taking said lives.

That's where we get the idea that you only shoot as long as it takes to stop the attack and to never SAY that you were shooting to kill the criminal in the process of saving your own life.

AND that saving a life is the only justification for killing that criminal.

There's a different philosophical position.

It was once common in Western Civilization.

The idea of outlawed.

Once someone has crossed the rubicon, they cannot come back.

If they do something that allows you to kill them, it's on forever.

Their realizing that they've bit off more than they can chew and stopping too late doesn't change the philosophical and moral position at all.

An outlaw's life is forfeit.

In the latter point of view, shooting a robber until they stop robbing, then placing an anchor shot in the back of their skull is perfectly fine.  Shooting a robber after they've robbed, but have stopped pointing their gun at you?  A-OK.

Shooting a thief in the back when they're running away with your wallet?  Fine.

Killing someone for stealing your dog?  Good shoot.

The former philosophy where the victims are forbidden to act until it's almost too late, are punished for acting and the police do nothing to criminals for any but the most obvious and serious crimes will lead to the latter philosophy returning to dominance.

As with all the paths that lead to this destination, it didn't (doesn't?) need to be this way.

It'd be relatively simple to correct the trajectory even now.

Someone appears to be vested in things coming wildly apart.