Should we ignore the premise?
Let us consider the following, exaggerated, cases:
In the first, a question is posted, reading
If someone's life is in imminent danger due to a threat of a third person, am I justified in using lethal force agains that third person?
and in the second case, the text posted is
Today, I overheard someone saying they wish my friend didn't come back to teach next semester. The person saying this looked as if full of anger. I feel like this person is going to assassinate my colleague any moment, and I think I need to take drastic steps to prevent my colleague from harm.
In a general setting, if someone's life is in imminent danger due to a threat of a third person, am I justified in using lethal force agains that third person?
The first question is already an extremely complicated one, and even though it is commonly discussed in law classes in a general setting, no one answer could provide a complete and unambiguous solution. This is why courts of law are needed.
Now, in the second case, one might argue that the question is exactly the same, since the first paragraph is entirely irrelevant to the question for being introduced with the words "in a general setting". Clearly, though, the person asking the question did not think the story in the first paragraph was irrelevant, even if claimed otherwise, since if it really were, there would have been no point in including the background story. Providing background to complicated problems, especially problems involving people, is a useful thing to do, because it allowes answers that are better suited for the situation which is actually at hand. It also allows people to point out that the question asked may not be "the right one to ask", given the background. The question has not been asked "in a vacuum", but in the context of a real-life situation.
Also, since people are involved, one has to acknowledge that the answers given may have very real consequences to one or more parties. Pretending to not know about the real situation at hand is naive at best, in my view.
So, if you, the reader, are convinced that the background should be ignored, since what is asked for is a general answer, would you think it right to ignore the fact that the situation at hand in no way warrants use of lethal force, and answer in the second case with "Yes, if someone's life is in imminent danger due to a threat of a third person, one is justified in using lethal force"? Provided one knew this was the case in the applicable jurisdiction, of course.
What should we do about that particular question and its answers?
If we ignore for the moment the question whether answering just the generic question is doing the asker any service, one may argue that there is now a disconnect between the edited question and the answers. I would agree, but propose that the solution is not to delete/edit the answers, but rather to roll back the edits to the question. If someone is indeed interested in an answer to the generic question so much, another question can be posted, without destroying the valid answers that have been given so far.
After all, if I edited this meta question to be about the best sushi in town, you wouldn't delete the answers given here and demand discussion of sushi, would you?