To simplify, if someone shoots at the police first, and police shoots back, and kills him.... what's the point of the whole trial, if the suspect is already dead? Should they be on trial for the thing they were suspected to be doing? Or for the shooting at the police? Both? If you're a store owner that called the police on the suspect, because the suspect robbed your store, what good would it be, if you had to go to court and testify for a full robbery case (apart from the shooting case, where you're just a possible witness), if either way, the suspect is already dead?
Edit: to clarify, i'm talking about the suspected "original" crime, eg. a robbery, and not the shooting part. The shooting should of course be investigated, but i see no point in holding a full trial for the robbery part, if the suspect is already dead, and if there is no actual benefit for anyone.
Edit: to clarify, i'm talking about the suspected "original" crime, eg. a robbery, and not the shooting part. The shooting should of course be investigated, but i see no point in holding a full trial for the robbery part, if the suspect is already dead, and if there is no actual benefit for anyone.