Let me see if I have this correct. Some of you say if Ersland had killed the criminal with the first shot it would have been OK. But, it's not OK for Ersland to have killed the criminal with more than one shot. I'm afraid that is not logical.
It's purely logical when you consider that Ersland's justification to kill the criminal is only valid when the criminal poses a threat. When the threat is no longer there, you remove the justification to kill.
Why specifically is it not logical in your opinion?
Are you aware of the facts of this case? It's not simply how many shots he fired and not being allowed to shoot more than once.