Speculation on a persons future behavior is immoral in this context. Said person could also cease being a threat. It is far more likely the person is not "deranged", and the person who provoked such behavior will end it by removing themselves.
Speculation on a person’s future behavior in many contexts is indeed immoral but the the judgement as to the imminent behavior of a person threatening deadly force to oneself or others can have just a short window of opportunity to prevent. As I said, if a person were brave or foolish enough and had the means to use deadly force to prevent it being used against one’s self or others successfully, the porson will still be subject to the scrutiny of the law.
You can’t go shoot somebody say yelling at their dog but what about if you have just witnessed somebody dropping random bodies at a mall?
The correct action would be to call emergency services and perhaps try to warn people to avoid the area.
That would be fine if you were neither brave or foolish enough and or lacked the means to respond. But if you indeed had the ability and means to respond and did not, you would have to live with your conscience.
And remember that when you call the police you are calling for someone who is officially sanctioned and empowered to ido the killing for you based on their own judgment.
No. It would be best if no one was killed and said person was reformed to function in society.
Certainly so, however, by acting out against innocent people with an imminent intention to kill them, one forfeits that consideration in my opinion.
A disturbing practice where the US frequently executes innocent people.
We do not disagree, but it is what passes as qualified judgment as to how to reduce crime.
3rd party intervention was always decided the same as first.
Did the third party instigate the incident? Did they attempt to de-escalate/retreat? Were they capable of doing so? Were they capable of presenting a threat to the person doing the murdering? -> Can the person using violence claim self defense themselves?
Violence is rarely a one sided thing.
Again I do not disagree. There are many questions one can ask. Why did someone concealed carrying hide behind a table in the cafeteria while thirty people were executed when the shooter was 10 feet away?
I think most are committed by people who just become to angry to care what happens after.
Yes, and as I said when that anger turns into imminent deadly threat where someone else is brave or foolish enough and has a means to end it, it is morally justified to do so all the way up to taking a life if that is the only way.
It is really very simple. If one is threatening to kill another and the evidence of that is clear and it can only be prevented by you killing one or the other of them, which will it be. Nobody can make moral judgments of people’s future actions, but I hope that were I ever faced with such a situation I would be brave or foolish enough to act. I would not want to live with the knowledge that an innocent person died because I did nothing and could have acted.