When someone commits a heinous crime like a murder or rape,and is injured while being arrested and they get taken to the hospital.

By that logic, you are the single decider of guilty or not guilty- without fair trial, investigation, and proper testimony. And while not always implemented correctly, one of the absolute most vital aspects of the law is innocent until proven guilty. Even in cases where you think it's super clear they are guilty- where is that line drawn? Who gets to draw it? Does that then mean that doctors, who are in the practice to mend and help people, become the forced punishers? Does it mean we make split-moment decisions as to who deserves what is essentially medical torture?

I get what you're saying. But it just doesn't make sense in practice.

I don't like it either but balance and order has to be maintained. There's ethical issues with not treating people who done something bad. It isn't so much that people "care" for bad people nor what happens to them, it's that in order for law to be maintained, we must treat people with dignity and allow due process to take over.

Now there's things that I don't like about our law system, I do believe it's corrupt. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have to be fixed, just that the ideas of treating bad people and representing them in court/jury of peers is necessary. No one cares what happens to bad people but I care about due process and rights. What it may mean when people who done crimes have no rights means that everyone must not have rights means that we wouldn't live in a free society.

They have to do it legally. Plus the defense lawyers can use it to claim the shooter wasn’t properly treated and make prosecuting them harder.

At that stage no evidence has been heard. Still want to deny them pain relief and potentially get the wrong person?

Should just kill them on the spot as you seen it with your own eyes no trial or wasted money or a chance to getfree