"When You Have to Shoot First" Response

Having to kill another individual that intends to perpetrate a violent act may be a difficult and terrible thing to do; however, I do feel that it is the right thing to do. I agree that shooting down a suicide bomber, even under severe suspicion, is worth saving the lives of innocent people. It is not worth it to risk it and let the suicide bomber continue on his way, if there is potential that the innocent people will be harmed by his or her horrid and deadly actions. Considering that the United States is a democracy and the job of law enforcement, judges, and executives is to protect the individual from the power of the state, I feel even more strongly about this issue. When it comes to warfare and implementing force for the sake of the people of our nation, then any necessary violent action much be taken to ensure protection. I completely agree with the statement, “We do terrible things only when it is necessary to prevent something even worse from happening.” This really sums up my position on this issue of whether or not suicide bombers should be initially shot. It is much more beneficial to shoot a suspicious suicide bomber then to take the chance that it was a mistake. Now granted, precautionary actions should be taken and there should be clear cut signs and orders to open fire on the dangerous individual. Overall, I feel that being the one to shoot first is a very difficult thing to decide; however, it is worth it to take action in order to prevent a more horrible situation from developing.