Shooting after the threat has ended: a scenario with moral rather than legal questions.

The Active Self Protection YouTube channel had a video today that illustrates a situation I find troubling. The Video is of a carjacking where the victim shoots the carjacker at a point that is arguably after the imminent threat had passed. I understand that in most places the law does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property, or once the deadly threat has ended. I'm just going to flat out say I find it difficult to understand how letting a person who just threatened your life with a gun drive off with your car just because he is no longer pointing the gun directly at you. Can someone explain why it is the right thing to do in terms of some reason other than "it is the law, you will be arrested and sued?" I view a criminal with a gun in the act of committing a felony as an ongoing and unpredictable threat and that people who conduct these acts as an ongoing menace to other innocent people. How is it that letting this person drive off is the morally correct decision? via /r/CCW http://ift.tt/2s9Q8dS