@KNOWITALL I’m sure that many people believe that, and I agree that they are mistaken. That doesn’t make the quoted sentence fallacious, though. Fallacies require arguments, and the given statement is not itself an argument.
Now, we could probably guess what sort of argument the speaker might give if asked to defend the statement, and that argument would probably involve the claim “people who commit crimes are asking to be shot and/or killed.” But even if we think that claim is false—and I certainly agree with you that it is—that still doesn’t make the argument fallacious.
Here’s a bad argument:
1. All dogs are bananas.
2. All bananas are purple.
3. Therefore, all dogs are purple.
As bad as this argument is, however, it commits no logical fallacies. The pattern of reasoning it uses (“all A’s are B’s, and all B’s are C’s, so all A’s are C’s”) is completely valid. What makes it a bad argument, then, is that its premises are false. So just because an argument is bad doesn’t mean it must contain a fallacy.
Here’s another bad argument:
1. Juan is an alien.
2. Aliens come from outer space.
3. Therefore, Juan comes from outer space.
This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation (which is when a word is used in two different senses to bridge the premises; in this case, the argument is equivocating on the word “alien”). Thus the argument is bad even if the premises are both true (i.e., if Juan is an alien in the sense of being from a foreign country, and if all aliens—in the sense of extraterrestrials—come from outer space). Just because an argument has true premises doesn’t mean it is not fallacious.
@whitenoise That would apply to the implicit argument presented at the press conference, but not the statement found in the OP (which is not an argument).