OK, I know I was generally oversimplifying the whole issue - and that was my intention really - but I do belive there are two different acts that tend to be mixed together. One thing is "neutralizing" a general threat when it has become aparent that it is impossible to act in a different way, sort of like exploding an asteroid before it colides with Earth (yes I know exploding would only make it worse, it was an example), or when you have someone in a car chase and you have to colide or shoot the tires or anything violent related.

This gets complicated because it's hard to define a line between senseless violence and neutralizing a threat. Someone with a gun on the street, a sniper shooting the person would be considering an OK shooting, a neutralizing action, or a stupid violent act, depending on the background of the situation. If he has a hostage, it's one thing, if he points the gun to himself, you wouldnt shoot him, you would talk to the person (in both cases he is threatening other's life). Take the brazillian shot by the english cops as an example, as several witness and news medias claimed, he was not running, did not jump over the gate, was not wearing a heavy coat, and the cops didn't properly identified themselves before stoping him and shooting him several times. To me, that is idiotic, dumb, senseless violence, as was the bloody sunday, as is the bombing of civillians, as was hiroshima and nagasaki (even though there is blood in both american and japanese sides).

*sigh* I feel like I've written two full paragraphs but only made the issue worse, I feel like it won't make my point of view clear at all....