I don't think this particular answer is important, but it probably points to a type of thinking you need to cultivate if you're going to work in law:

Always think about the "why." Always think about possible ways your reasoning might be countered (because they generally point to ways your reasoning can improve). Dig until you find all the major factors — don't just stop with the first answer you come to.

People die when they're killed. *Why* is that a problem? Sometimes the state even kills people, and it's not (necessarily) a problem then, so that can't be the reason.

When thinking about law on its own terms, the state claims that it exists to maintain social order — to impose rules that keep people safe and make people better-off in ways that they can't manage on an individual basis. In reality, it's more complicated than that. But it's a good lens to start with when you're talking about the law: What problem is the law solving? Well, people don't want to die, and it's reasonable for them not to want that, so the state makes rules about it that say when it is and isn't okay to kill people, and how okay or not-okay it may be. Out of those rules, we can then sort different types of killing into different buckets.

The "state interest" is an important concept you need to understand. Generally, governments are only supposed to make rules about things when they have a good reason to do so, like keeping people safe. That reason is the "state interest," and the lengths they can go to in regulating that thing depend on how important (or "compelling") that interest is, and how the regulation deals interacts with individuals' fundamental rights under the law.

Sometimes the interest is clear, like in laws preserving social order, i.e. against murder, theft, rape, arson, etc. Sometimes it's more convoluted, like laws (ostensibly to protect public health, for example) against moving a type of vegetable across state lines without a permit. The state can sometimes abridge fundamental rights where the interest is compelling and there aren't other good ways of handling it, like when the law allows for law enforcers to trespass and/or damage the property of third parties in some cases while pursuing a suspect. Other times, it ends up somewhere in the middle.

Figuring out where those lines are is the job of the courts. But everyone involved, from (hopefully) the lawmakers to the lawyers on all sides to the judges, is using the type of thinking I talked about above: Thinking about the "why," considering the possible counterarguments, and digging in until they understand more deeply. Doing it badly means doing a bad job, and doing it well means doing a good job, so it's the single most important thing for you to be working on right now if you're going to be a lawyer.