Is that better?
Or morally. But yeah.
I agree that you cannot legally shoot someone after they surrender and I do not support vigilante justice.
I will also point out that terrorists and crooks do not obey laws or any "rules" of combat.
Knowing that your opponent will not honor the rules may get you killed. You don't have to step over a line, but don't give him too much room to complete his deadly task.
A for-instance could be the underpants bomber. He'd already made a decision to kill everyone onboard that plane. He'd already set the wheels in motion.
He'd receive a few good punches to the side of the head, be stripped completely naked, and bound to his seat, before I'd believe he has "surrendered".
Fought too many fights on playgrounds against bullies who "gave up" only to throw another sucker punch and to get some buddies to join in.
"him and me". When someone has already launched a deadly attack, the fair response is death. You make a mistake in this matter and it could be to your peril and that of everyone around you.
Breaking and entering a home is not like some bar fight where two parties can agree to disagree and go their separate ways. The home owner is clearly a wronged party. There is no excuse for the intruder. The intruder can't say "well, let me go over the fence and we'll just forget this ever happened..."
I wouldn't defend this man shooting to kill someone who has dropped over a fence. I'd have to know more details before I could convict him for shooting a man in the ankle. What are the sizes of the two persons? What was their proximity? Can we accept that both men reportedly honestly what happened in their police reports?