But, going on the understanding that it does depict what is suggested, and sensing the sarcasm in your tone, this was self-defense.
I am all for Human rights, and innocent until proven guilty, but I also expect people to defend themselves against attackers, and to assist in the detention of said attackers.
Note that he wasn't killed.
He was subdued and detained.
If he was one of the attackers, any one of those people could have used his weapons against him. They could have killed him, and under the laws of nature they should have been excused for doing so in an act of self-defense.
Perhaps they chose not to kill him because they had the immediate situation under control and knew that capturing him alive would assist.
When terrorists attack a large group of people, the Human Rights of that individual are null and void. Whether you agree with that legally is neither here nor there. They have acted against the masses in an act of wanton violence, and those masses will respond in kind.
It is Human nature.
Legal or not.


