Hand Strike Case Vs. A Deadly Bullet From a Firearm

I might as well try to get this comparison over with before the 'Zayin' series begins.

 Deadly Offense Situation 'ODD' as in Off-Duty Deputy:

An unknown entity (E) is shot and killed while trying to force his way into the dwelling of a trained sheriff's deputy. Any one of the following could have been true:
1. E was being chased or threatened by others more dangerous than he was, knew a trained deputy lived there, and in desperation was trying to seek safety but never got a chance to explain because he was murdered by the deputy.
2. E was quickly trying to force his way into an ODD dwelling and may have had the intent to steal property, and the ODD decided it was better to murder E than to have any of her property stolen, even if what the E would have stolen was nominal value and would not even have gotten him jailed for more than a few days.
3. ODD did not try to disable E with something such as a strike to the knee and then question him regarding his unexpected behavior which was a bit more noisy than coming in through a chimney.
4. ODD did not try to escape her dwelling to seek back-up from other officers who were on duty.
5. It is possible that E could have been an on-duty officer of neighbor who had received false information about the ODD being in some sort of imminent danger and the E was forcing entry in order to try to 'save' the ODD.  E was not given a chance to explain his unusual actions before being killed by an ODD human who was TRAINED  to kill.


Self-Defense Situation B Involving "IPO' as in  Injured Police Officer

A known IPO is jailed and charged with domestic violence for using minimal force on a KT (Known Thief). All of the following are true:
1. KT had previously battered and caused injury to the IPO's son when the tow of them got into a domestic violence battle.  The IPO's son was much stronger than the IPO and could not prevent injury to himself when attacked by KT.
2. KT had previously lied to on-duty deputies when trying to get the IPO off her property BY FORCE.
3.. KT had gained access to the IPO's dwelling by DECEPTION, not by sudden force.
4.. KT indicated in writing and verbally that he hated the IPO and was actively seeking a plan to replace her and divorce her.
5. KT had already stolen over $50,000. in cash from the IPO's business account, but the IPO still restrained her temper and did not kill the TK after he clearly had already entered her dwelling with the intent to commit felony theft and completed the theft.
6. IPO did not have enough strength to force the KT out of her dwelling but had enough strength to use a single palm strike to his nose area so that she could escape the scene of the crimes against her. IPO was jailed for using minimal force to escape from a KT that used deception to gain access to her dwelling, claiming he was  Christian and claiming that he 'loved' the IPO about 12 years prior to the completion of his home invasion with intent to commit felony theft .
7. KT did not want the IPO to lock the bathroom door when the IPO was using interior bathroom facilities and the IPO had already found the evidence that the KT hated her and was seeking another woman to commit adultery with. When IPO did lock the door in a bathroom, just as she would is she were in a gas station or a public rest area, the KT got so angry that he told deputies that the IPO had a gun and was threatening to kill herself in order to get her jailed again. The deputies saw I had no gun, but still decided to arrest the IPO when there was no physical evidence such as a self-inflicted flesh wound  that the IPO had tried to commit suicide and that the only firearm the IPO had access to was in the lower floor business office, not in the upper floor bathroom the IPO was properly using for hygeine purposes.
8. The IPO's decision not to kill the KT was based on her own very SANE desire to prevent being punished for the rest of her life for applying the death penalty to an actual felon who had provided the IPO with enough probable cause for the IPO to suspect the KT was trying to kill or permanently injure the IPO after stealing $50,000.00 from the IPO's business account and then allowing another KT, now his wedded wife, possibly named 'Cheryl Hendrikson' to be part of his extended Home Invasion crimes against the IPO in her Knowlton, Wisconsin dwelling .

If the 'E' deserved death prior to questioning or a trial according to the hasty violent judgment of an off-duty deputy in Wayne County, Michigan; does the ODD believe that the KT deserves death eventually also, since the KT invasion strategy of the IPO's home actually was more wicked, intentional but much quieter and subtle than the strategy of the E that the ODD decided to murder? The IPO believes that the KT deserves the death penalty, but the IPO is only allowed to accuse the KT but is not required by law to defend the flesh ( the life) of the KT who is no longer part of the IPO's household.

Of course, I, still an IPO on a duty-disability pension, do not know the name of the E or the ODD, but I do the name of the KT, and his name is Shane David Hendrikson, DOB January 15, 1969 who completed his home invasion felony thefts in a Marathon County Wisconsin courtroom on April 20, 2012 in the presence of his attorney and his accomplice, Sandra Marcus.