I don’t even necessarily disagree, but how do you say the exact name of the fallacy you are invoking without seeing the problem in what you’re saying?

There can be clear start and stop points. Why would this ever lead to regional managers as you describe? Why would it ever lead to people you simply disagree with? To argue in good faith, you need to take the point as it stands, clearly stopping at a level of someone who is “responsible for far more death.” That is the argument that the above commenter posted, and there’s not a good reason to extend that any further.

They got to do what they do using our system of law- so we will need to use that system of law to stop them.

Now, I’m going to step away from the context of homicide, but this is at a base an incredibly gullible point. Virtually every civil rights movement has been accomplished through breaking laws, called civil disobedience.

“an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.” - MLK