“Yes, I understand that and that is why I did not include the guy who filled toe pothole on the road that the woman drove to in order to get the the pharmacy.”
The problem with your example is you stated in each that all three conspired to murder a child...that is a crime.
Now, let’s talk about justification. I am thinking that you are not looking for a definitive answer that is generically sound. You want to know my personal belief on what would be justified or not. But, let me ask you...was Roeder justified (doesn’t mean innocent by our nations laws) in stopping a mass killer of babies? If not, what moral basis would you provide for saving lives?
I think that in the case of Roeder killing an abortionist who performed tens of thousands of abortions, there is justification. I do not think that means all who are involved one way or another should be killed. In your question regarding judges, no I do not think one would be justified in killing one because they upheld the nations law, that is what they are supposed to do. They are at arms length from the actual act of killing babies. But, I do believe that a judge would be morally correct in not accepting a case which would involve upholding the killing of babies.
Hope that clarifies for you...now, if you wish to continue answer my question above...
No. If not, what moral basis would you provide for saving lives? At the very least, the murder has to be imminent, with a specific victim or victims in mind.
So, Roeder would have been justified in shooting that guy at Ft. Hood just as he was opening fire up his victims. However, Tiller may have had a change of heart on that Sunday or on the way to work on Monday morning.
They are at arms length from the actual act of killing babies.
Adolph Hitler was always at arm's length of the Nazi Concentration Camp Killing Machine. With that being the case, do you also believe that there would have been no justification in killing Adolph Hitler in 1942?