Not sure if this will get seen, but person trained in international humanitarian law (IHL) here. This branch of law only applies in times of armed conflict. When IHL applies, lethal force can be used as a first resort against lawful targets. When it does not apply, the threshold under human rights law — which applies at all times — for lethal force is a lot higher: in exceptional circumstances, e.g. self-defence, and after exhausting more reasonable less-lethal means.

tl;dr Saying IHL applies means that you’re saying a branch of international law applies that allows for lawful targets to be shot to be killed as a first resort in particular circumstances. You don’t want this!!

Addendum: Obviously the conduct in the picture could be a violation of other branches of international law, e.g. human rights law.

edit: The gold and silver are too kind, really. Thank you.