I’m not ignoring the rest of your post or cherrypicking, the rest I agree with entirely.
“He acted beyond what the law allows.”
The people he killed were acting beyond what the law allowed. They didn’t care...why should he?
Seems like it comes up even to me.
As an aside, they actually held a vigil for these two morons. Can you imagine a scenario 150 years ago in which citizens are holding a vigil for two thieves caught in the act...no matter how they died?
“Billy was just stealing that man’s horse and he shot him out of the saddle and then hung him! Billy didn’t deserve that!”
Hang ‘em high.
My mind...it boggles.
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.
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.