Would you be violent, and possibly kill, a gang that was gang raping a woman if you had access to a gun. Or would you be mindful and remain in equanimity and let it continue to its conclusion?
Certainly equanimity is not best in every circumstance. Maybe the best course there is something like fire a couple shots to scare them off.
That from an early Buddhist perspective equanimity is not considered as invariably superior to the other divine abodes can be seen in a passage in the A#guttara-nikāya. This passage reports that Sāriputta was publicly contradicted several times
by another monk. The Buddha finally intervened and upbraided the other monks for not intervening earlier (AN III 194). Why, he asked, did they not have compassion when a
senior monk was being vexed in public, and instead continued to look on with equanimity? This passage shows that in early Buddhism equanimity was not considered as the appropriate response to every situation. Instead, at times an active intervention is required and should be undertaken, out of compassion. (Analayo, fromcraving p 115)
Interestingly I can't seem to define Buddhas ethics, be it deontological, consequentialist, natural ethics, sceptical or subjective etc.
To be the seem to be consequentialist, since they aim at the outcome of letting to. However I'm still not so sure.
I suppose its because he did not try to compose some unifying ethical theory.
There is a section in Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhist ethics p49 on Comparisons with Western ethical systems.
Overall, the rich field of Buddhist ethics would be narrowed by
wholly collapsing it into any single one of the Kantian, Aristotelian or
Utilitarian models, though Buddhism agrees with each in respectively
acknowledging the importance of (1) a good motivating will, (2) cultivation of character, and (3) the reduction of suffering in others and
oneself. (Harvey, p.51)