When there is a threat to the security of the chain (zero day exploit, etc), witnesses are expected to quickly put security precautions in place to mitigate the threat without public discussion to ensure the exploit is patched before it is taken advantage of. There were enough people (and importantly, token holders supporting witnesses) who believed this to be an existential threat that immediate action was asked for.
If the token holders disagree, the temporary code change can easily be removed. I also disagree with the private conversations and in the future I would probably take a different approach where everything is public. The argument made against that approach in this case was that Tron would just power down, transfer tokens, and vote out witnesses before we could even have a discussion about the will of the 80% of the tokens not owned by Tron.
Now we can at least have that discussion and figure out what it is they want to do with that stake and what they are willing to codify on chain to support those intentions.
Whys and hows are always important. To disregard nuance is to have unsophisticated conversations or fall into dogma.