If someone who has not done violence to another person's body nor threatened to do so but is suspected of having committed a "non-violent" crime is "getting away" is it appropriate to use a deadly weapon to stop that person from getting away?
Police have been known to shoot an unarmed person simply because they would not halt but were seeking to run away. Is that right?
In Georgia, a man was apparently shot (not by the police) because he was running. No one was apparently pursuing him when he first started running. There are many reasons why a person decides to run and we will never know why he was running because he was killed before he could tell his side of the story.
But now, there is a similar thing going on but metaphorically. Two men are already judged and found guilty by a large number of people. Although it is hard for me to imagine a scenario in which the judicial system would not eventually find them guilty, I believe that it is just as wrong for us to prejudge them as it was for them if they prejudged the man who died.
Both approaches to "law enforcement" (if it can even be called that) are lynch mob approaches to "justice."
"He that gives answer before he hears, It is folly and shame unto him."
"He that pleads his cause … just; But his neighbor comes and searches him out." Meaning: The first one to present a case sounds as if he is right until his neighbor comes and cross examines him.