Jim Yanik wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

SNIP
No,I am NOT joking.
Are you saying it's better to let a serial murderer or rapist escape
than shoot them? How about a terrorist bomber?

I think you'll find that you're legally allowed to defend yourself and
to prevent crimes, but shooting people in the back as they flee is not
generally allowed for either private citizens or police officers.


I think you'd find exceptions made for terrorist bombers or serial
killers/rapists.
SNIP

Jim, the not shooting them in the back is just another way of saying,
not shooting them once they are no longer a threat (as in they are
legging it out of there).

Coming up behind someone committing a violent crime (assault).. you'll
probably be able to use "reasonable force in the defence of another".
(As in the case of the father who whacked the intruder standing in the
dark over his daughter's bed... shooting the intruder in the back might
present some problems, trying to smash his head in with a cricket bat
contains the risks of collateral damage.)