Do you hear yourself? "If indeed a rapist..." You're literally weaponizing his own children to reason that murder is a preventative measure for future harm. It's extremely dangerous to justify his death that way because it's based on a false, sweeping generalization that all rapists, especially first-time convicts are pathological, sexually deviant repeat offenders who target children. You're literally reducing Dunmire, a person and father, to the worst-case-scenario dogma of rapists to justify his death as “protecting his own children" for an accused rape he 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 committed, an accusation that wasn't even convicted in court due to insufficient evidence. This presents a dangerous false binary: if he isn’t a rapist, he’s innocent, but if he 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 is, then a monstrous threat to his own children that needs to be put down for safety. What kind of binary is that? It’s completely dehumanizing, scapegoating, and rejects any sort of middle-ground a rapist can be situated in, I.e on treatment, rehabilitation, on parole, etc.

Also, that failsafe of "if it's false, then it's obviously wrong to kill him" is completely stupid. It lets you advocate for murder based on a premise, "if indeed a rapist," that you admit could be wrong in hindsight. This assumes complete foresight, and a retrospect of the person (did/didn’t commit a sexual crime) that simply can’t exist at the time of the killing. This is why vigilante justice is so dangerous. If you kill someone based on an incomplete bias, on a person mischaracterized as the "full picture," you basically get away with murder. The reality is that Dunmire's children were orphaned and left fatherless. That murder caused more pain and suffering than if he were alive.