It appears that if the alleged crime is sufficiently serious then a preemptive execution is seen as justified.
It's curious that some people see the only way to respond to conflict is to meet it with force.
He was a "bad guy", and we know from the movies that justifies instant death by the good guys.
I would argue the expensive tool might be more appropriate in cases, if it means it will be used more judiciously.
If you trust the police to mostly do the right thing, be responsible, and accountable if they sometimes make mistakes, then it would be a good thing that they can get their job done cheaper, and save some tax money. This would be for the benefit of all of society. In my country in Northern Europe this would be the case.
But maybe there is a real danger that when busting and blowing up places becomes N times cheaper, the police will get trigger-happy and bust and blow up stuff N times more often, irresponsibly, with lots of false positives, and with no accountability. Then the net effect of making attacks cheaper and safer to execute might be a net negative for the society.
> irresponsibly, with lots of false positives, and with no accountability
sounds spot-on to me.
They don't shoot until there is an imminent threat +. A trapped animal in a hole is not a threat so long as it stays in the hole. Blowing him up as an expedient is unprecedented in the civilian realm.
+ Unless you've been trained on the shoot-first-cleanup-the-mess-later tactics that many of our newly minted veterans turned police seem to cling to.
Yesterday, regarding the Falcon Heights MN shooting, there were commenters in Reddit who said that that they were Iraq veterans and that they had tighter rules and discipline about shooting people who are not shooting at them, than the US police has. And that these careless shootings are done by inexperienced policemen who are too scared of the situation to be able to think clearly.