I don’t have a problem with somebody, who is in the commission of a crime dying. If someguy was breaking into your home and you shot him, and he blew apart like they do in the movies, I am unconcerned.
The law simply says you cannot execute somebody, if they are no longer in a position to harm you. That is where the pharmacist went wrong. If the pharmacist had gotten a chair and sat, with the gun pointed at the unconscious perp and waited for the police, he wouldn’t have faced charges.
The pharmacist could have pulled up that chair, pointed the gun, waited. If the perp had tried to get up, the pharmacist could have then shot him dead at that point and he would have been scot-free.
There is no expectation that a civilian who in the course of protecting life, home or workplace should be able to discern the difference between how much force should be used to protect their lives and those around them. Sorry your argument may hold in the case of professional law enforcement but not the same for the average Joe. The robber sealed his own fate when he committed the crime.
I don’t know what the pharmacist did, and I really don’t care what happened to the thugs who broke in and threatened everyone in the drug store.
I just know that if someone breaks into my home and threatens me with death, that person isn’t leaving alive.