the school guards (police?) threaten to shot the teenager for trying to leave the school area.
He wasn't threatening to shoot the teenager for trying to leave the school area. He threatened him when the teenager put the vehicle into gear, turned the vehicle towards the person speaking, and then started to move the vehicle towards that person. IE - basically when the teenager started to threaten the officer by deliberately moving the vehicle towards the officer instead of going around the officer.
Vehicles are just as deadly as guns and kill and injure more people each year than guns. So, not something to be taken lightly.
Either way, it was a case of the teenager posturing violence towards the officer (look, I can run you over if I want) and the officer basically saying, "Don't be stupid, don't do it. If you do anything to threaten my life, I'll do everything I can to protect myself."
As to the other question? That's a harder one. Say it's a convicted murderer. On the one side, it's noble to try to rehabilitate them and make them a productive member of society. On the other side, if you let them go and they kill more innocent people, society is basically saying..."It's OK to kill innocent people, we'll give you additional chances to kill more innocent people even if we catch you."
There's cases in the US where rehabilitated criminals have become good citizens after release. There's also cases where they continue to victimize innocent people after they are released. There is no good answer. In both cases someone is going to get punished and/or killed.
In one case, someone has already done something horrible to one or more presumably innocent people with a chance that they won't do it again. In the other case, you're potentially just letting even more innocent people be victimized on top of the people that person has already victimized.
It's a choice of taking a chance at turning around someone's life at the potential cost that they'll destroy someone who has lead a good life. Or making sure that no more innocent people get destroyed. This of course, is greatly simplified.
What about gang on gang violence where there are no innocents in the original crime. But there "could" be as there is often collateral damage to innocents in gang on gang violence. Not to mention lives ruined through gang members actions (drug peddling, forced prostitution, etc.).
It's not an easy question to answer as I personally know. One of my best friends was someone rehabilitated through the system. OTOH - another friend of mine had their daughter raped and killed by a person that was supposedly rehabilitated through the system.
Which would I choose if I had to make a choice?
- My friend who is great and helps out the community after the terrible things he did when he was younger?
...or...
- To have my friend's daughter back? She was also a great member of the community and volunteered for the women's shelter as well as the homeless kitchen here.
Regards,
SB