This though. Dude comes at you with 2 machetes saying hes gonna kill you, if you spare him your a puss and he's gonna come back for you, you decide to blast him because well... He's legitimately hunting a young girl to enslave her and destroy her mentally through various means of unpleasant experiences. You have more than enough ammunition at that point that its a morally correct choice and I would bet my life majority of people, even internet-shut in's wouldnt bat an eye at that kind of decision nor would even feel conflicted over it lol.
There's a difference between killing someone thats coming towards you that you tell to stop 30 times and they just keep coming to you, which results in shooting them. Thats a morally heavy decision. You dont know their intent, they could have been confused, distant, harmless, etc.
Versus something like a man-hunter, or a bandit in an apocalypse that isn't just looking to steal material possessions from you but instead wants to torture, rape, murder, other people that they come across. That's a morally light decision. You might have a small conscious issue over it just because it was the first time you killed someone but at the end of the day you would easily talk yourself out of it because your living in an apocalyptic world where everything is already so bad, and theres already tons of death and destruction via the infected.
They basically lose all forms of humanity when they decide to go down that path. I dont think it should weigh at all in the morality scale for that interaction. From the start of the interaction there was no negotiations with that crowd, it was either run and knock out a dude or potentially purge 2 bigger monsters than the infected.
