I understand concerns about how this could be used for unethical purposes, but the Dallas mass shooter case doesn't seem morally ambiguous at all. Lethal force

I understand concerns about how this could be used for unethical purposes, but the Dallas mass shooter case doesn't seem morally ambiguous at all. Lethal force seemed completely appropriate considering the shooter was deliberately targeting officers and was ex-military. By all appearances, this tactic saved lives, and I wouldn't choose this as my example of "concerning misuse". More generally, I don't understand the desire to litigate the rights of an unambiguous, active mass murderer. Dealing with active mass murderers is messy business, and I don't think it's realistic to capture everyone alive--or rather, the costs of doing so are typically innocent human lives, and that's not a cost I'm willing to pay. If a mass murderer is killed and innocent lives are saved, that seems like an unmitigated victory--I don't reserve any tears for unambiguous (racist) terrorists. I'll take Dallas over Uvalde every single time.