It is true that the 2 perps seemed not to care that they were breaking the law. But this does not absolve the shooter from obeying the law. For example if he had wanted to rape the girl, clearly a violation of law, their abrogation does not commend his violation of law, it seeems to me. It does seem, purely on a human level, that the shooter did not have to kill to neutralize the threat. Once he is safe, his legal authority to shoot dissipates in that instance. But I am not a lawyer or judge.
Do you honestly think if he shot them and let them live, that these two criminals wouldn’t come back or better yet get their gang of friends to terrorize the old man even worse than before? I’ll go so far and speculate they would have tried to kill the old man after this incident had they lived.
I did not say ...."why should he"
You said that in post #95. So what are you talking about? What is your point.
The point of my post is that in my opinion the conditions simply changed as referable to a life-threatening circumstance. If the shooter did feel his threat had been neutralized, he no longer has a circumstance which require a lethal response. Others see it differently, from what I read on this post.