That he attacked someone previously is not relevant to the decision at hand, itās past. The decision at hand is whether he can only be stopped from harming someone by use of lethal force in that instant. So yes, the previous act is irrelevant. Running away? How is that a factor in favour of killing him? So yeah, both are irrelevant. Rethink your list, itās stupid.
But you have no suggestions as to how they could have controlled it better other than
Shoot him in the leg - nonsense
Use tranquilizers - nonsensical fantasy
Taze him - you ignore they did and it didnāt work
Pepper spray - generally useless
So every suggestion you made is wrong, but you still think they should have ādone betterā thats straight from the gubmint r doin nuhin mindset Iām afraid
You love defending the dregs of society you absolutely adore it. I hope if ever your house in broken into with your family inside by armed scum you keep those same principles.
Letās say youāre on a night out and you spot a lad who decks a mate of yours and kicks 7 shades of shit out of him.
10 seconds later heās making a run at you. Given the fact heās kicked your mate half to death and thatās in the past, do you just assume heās running up to you to offer to buy you a drink or give you a hug? Or do you prepare to defend yourself and to get into a fight? And do you completely ignore what youāve just seen earlier from your decision making process?
Oh, and before he gets to you, do you do a quick check to make sure he doesnāt have mental health issues?
Presumably they injured him with the first shots, then walked over and saw he was still alive, so finished him with one to the head to start the cover up