Assuming that one should act on the principle that one would want to become a universal norm, it is therefore, ethically justified to place a smaller risk on the perpetrator of that risk, than placing a larger risk on the innocent people or society at large. Stated differently, the interest of the public being put at risk should prevail over individual interests of the perpetrator of that risk.
===========
Police are already authorized to use deadly force so any discussion of empowering them to via shoot-to-kill methods against dangerous criminals is odd and redundant.
Also...
Again, you ignore the implications and manage to issue an insult to a shapeless foe ("bleeding-heart populists") for obscure reasons. The problem is often straightforward: not all bullets hit their intended target as the fact of bystander victims of 'drive by shootings' shows.
Police use restraint in these situations -- when they do, which isn't always -- to avoid making a bad problem (for example, a perp fleeing in a car at high speed through busy streets) much worse by throwing ammo around that might miss the mark and hit someone minding their own business.
These are the sorts of tactical considerations sensible people take into account when pondering how violence should be employed.
Ironically, it's the use of restraint that actually protects the most people (which you declare to be the highest goal) and not what you appear to be advocating: the 'by any means necessary' approach to policing.
Following your logic, it would have been quite alright for that SWAT team to unload without hesitation on the armed kid who used my walled garden as a temporary refuge a few years back.
They hesitated because they understood that some of that Teflon coated ammo they deploy might miss and kill someone else.
How deliciously curious that a heavily armed policier would get what an academic on a leftward discussion list misses entirely.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends"...Momus