Your ideas involve letting him flee and trying to stop him, which is how they got to this point in the first place. What happens when they cut him off and he just speeds off again, or dives onto a sidewalk to make his escape?
> You see a justified shooting likely (definitely?) preventing other deaths.
Justified because it stopped the risk.
> that don't result in an immediate loss of life.
The criminal who risked other people's life lost his, not an innocent person. Those are not equal outcomes.
> The law-abiding people of France ca. late 1700s obeyed the orders of their King. Until a revolution swept that entire pattern away.
The law abiding people decided they didn't want a king and they made it happen. The power of the masses.
> Recoursing to "The law-abiding people's" behavior as inherently correct, just, or righteous fundamentally misunderstands the nature of why riots happen or what effect they intend to have.
You keep shouting out to the revolution kind of like you'd enjoy watching another, but the point is that "the people" aren't upset about this situation. This is their police functioning as intended.
Pretty much everyone is France is sick of the riots and the rioters.