This is a death penalty debate in all but name.
The problem with the death penalty, as I'm sure you all know, is that occasionally and inevitably someone will be tried and convicted of a crime punishable by death for which they are entirely innocent.
On that basis, I couldn't ever (if I got the chance) vote for the death penalty. To me, just one innocent person being killed for something they had no hand in is one person too many.
However, this situation, like the very recent murderous rampage by Derrick Bird, is a very different kettle of fish. Raoul Moat's guilt is unequivocal. Of that there is absolutely no question. In a situation like this I would suggest that the police shoot the guy on sight and if he survives, ask questions later. If he doesn't survive... so what?
It's obvious that Moat wants to be killed by the police. The dilemma is – should the police give him what he wants or deny him the 'easy option'?