'defense of others' is 2 limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

Thanks for making your side a bit clearer, Pro.REBUTTAL"jury might be understandable if there's a question of whether he's guilty. if there's no question, why does there need to be a jury?"There always a question about whether or not someone's guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is the philosophy of our country, and I do agree with that. Until a fair trial is held in a court of law, there will always be question as to whether or not someone's guilty. Even if the FBI has fingerprint evidence on him, there's a chance someone cut off his fingers and used them for prints. There will always be that slim chance that the person really is innocent, and it is impossible for people to know otherwise until a trial has been conducted."how is it permissible to just let him get away if that's the probably consequence of not shooting him? "Would you rather have people going around shooting others that may be innocent? How is that permissible? What if the person just happened to resemble Bob? There's too much room for error. "it's okay for more people to be killed so bob can have some probably ill advised trial by jury?"Yes. Just because something is probable does not make it the truth, and we should rely on the criminal justice force to do their job and apprehend Bob to limit the number of further deaths. I argue that Bob should have the same rights as everyone else, as he is human and it is unfair to deny anyone of constitutional rights."based on some man made notion of what 'justiice' should constitute, based on some man made notion of what 'imminent' death should involve?"Yes, the definition of justice that the country has chosen to adopt is more valid than an individual opinion. Again, vigilante justice is catastrophic to society as most people cannot have all the facts and will make mistakes. It is much better for a jury to convict someone than it is for a random person to serve "justice" to someone else. Man-made notions are the best we've got and although the legal system is far from perfect, it's far better than people running around on the streets exacting revenge on one another."if these are man made notions, why not expand 'justice' to include not always trial by jury?"The right to a trial by jury is a right for a reason. In fact, it is to prevent vigilante justice and unfair representation of people. If we take this right away, the police could lock you up for life at any time for any reason. Trials are necessary to determine what crimes were actually committed and what punishments should be justly administered."to not always have to have 'imminent' mean 'about to occur' but rather 'will occur soon enough'?"This rule is also in place for a good reason. Nobody can predict the future. It's possible that tomorrow Bob turns himself in and recounts a horrible story of how he was framed by his twin brother in an elaborate plot. It's possible that Bob will do no more killing and did not deserve death for his crimes. This is why defense of others is limited in its time frame: so as to prevent meaningless loss of life. If I see a man on the street with a bloody knife in his hand running, laughing, and looking over his shoulder, do I have the right to kill him because I think he will eventually kill someone else? No, he could have just been in a friendly bet with his good friend at the butcher's store that the butcher couldn't catch him if he stole his knife. You have the right to protect your life, but only if your own or another person's life is being threatened in that moment. Even then it is still debatable as to whether or not taking another life or even injuring someone is the correct course of action. It's impossible to know all the facts when you're simply on the streets, and nobody can see the future."stealing skittes is in no way comparable or analogous to killing. we don't kill in defesnse of skilltes, we kill in defense of self, or others. the only questions are those of 'justice' and 'imminence', and how those should be viewed."Yes, this is a ridiculous example, but the point is where do you draw the line? Is it purely personal opinion on what crimes (which we don't even know will be committed yet) are worthy of murder? If you're drawing the line at murder, what if the murder was an accident? How could anyone know whether or not it was an accident but the offender if not for a trial by jury? Is taking another's life really the correct action to take for the taking of another? Should we encourage revenge killings?