Ex-Marine Gets Probation for Killing Man Over Peeing Pooch

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Obligation to protect all life? Well, he felt his life was in danger and he was protecting the most important life of all. Especially if the guy stepped up onto his lawn, he had every 'right' to shoot the punk.

A guy is dead because he decided to be a jack ####### to the wrong guy. Plain and simple.

I like it when you talk tough.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Watching the VJ gun nut crowd ####### over this old man's stupidity is pretty sad.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Actually, I have asked the same question, such as when the police shoot someone who is a moderate threat, such as a man with a knife who won't drop it and he starts to walk toward police... that type of thing.

But Police training I think, prohibits the use of deadly force (firing a weapon) except to cause deadly force.

That actually depends upon your level of training. There are a variety of options available to law enforcement, but not without the proper training. If the suspect clearly has no weapon, and makes no move that could be construed as a move for a concealed weapon, then law enforcement should not draw a gun, plain and simple. Firing a gun at a suspect is considered the option of last resort and that is why police are given so much training and resources to try to avoid it. Non-lethal shots are generally not considered a good idea because ultimately, you are firing a bullet at someone and even if your intent is not to kill, there are so many uncontrollable variables that end up killing. Bean bag rounds, rock salt rounds, rubber bullets, and even tasers can be lethal if used improperly or outside the parameters of use. With many situations, the scenario is unclear and the officer must make quick decisions as to who is a threat to who, and to what degree. Weapons shorten the time you can make those decisions. You would be surprised at how little time you have to react when someone charges you with a knife.

[Fandango 1,439]

Well, either way...this guy died 'down the block' from this azzhole murderer's house. Doesn't sound like he was charging at anyone.

[^_^ 5,021]

Is there no middle ground?

No, there isn't. Welcome to the dark side, I mean the Left. Don't forget to take your goodie bag full of granola and a Margaret Cho CD on your way out.

[james&olya 1,121]

It sounds disgusting, is what it sounds like.

And I'm going to go off on a mini-tangent here cos I'm really pissed off at the reactions here. Yes, I'm pro-guns. Yes, I own one myself. And yes, if someone broke into my home and was threatening the life of me, my husband, or our child, I would shoot to kill. There is a reasonable expectation of what may ensue if an armed person breaks into your home.

But just because I am pro gun does NOT mean that I applaud all those who kill when it's a 'grey area'. There's NO NEED to have a dancing smiley over some young 23 year old man losing his life over a fight about a lawn. Some might say I've grown soft since having a child, but I don't see it that way at all, as I think that even though you may believe in your rights to use deadly force, can envision scenarios where it seems justifiable to protect yourself with deadly force...it doesn't mean anyone should be so cold hearted as to not see this whole thing as a senseless tragedy, and that introducing a gun in this situation seems totally over the top. It's like killing a mosquito with a 44.

Old crazy man yells at people over his lawn, then finds himself in a situation where he thought it was acceptable to kill his neighbor. No one should be posting dancing smileys, or assuming the real victim in this case 'had it coming'. Not in the slightest.

Is there no middle ground? You either have to be a 'pansy-azz tree hugger' who doesn't believe in hurting anyone - even if it means dying, or some gun-toting believer of the 2nd amendment who rejoices in the death of people?

There is a middle ground. And I've said it many times here....if you have the right to shoot and kill someone, it doesn't mean you should always exercise it.

I have to agree with you Lisa, and I am coming at this from the left. I think this demonstrates perfectly why many on the left are not so happy about the number of guns out there. It takes a lot of training before police officers are ready to carry their weapons. I agree that the majority of gun-owners are probably very decent and responsible with their weapons. But the problem is that current law allows gun ownership by everyone who has not yet been proven a nut-case, psycho, demented, whatever. And it also allows ownership by the criminally inclined as long as they have avoided conviction to that point. But I also see where with the current reality of the proliferation of guns that many may feel they need to be able to carry in order to defend themselves. I think that the admonition holds that you ought never point a gun unless you are ready to kill. Just pointing the gun escalates the confrontation. If you point a gun at me and I am afraid for my life, regardless of who is at fault for the argument, I may feel it necessary to respond myself with pre-emptive deadly force. Too many tragedies, not very many good answers.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Well, either way...this guy died 'down the block' from this azzhole murderer's house. Doesn't sound like he was charging at anyone.

agreed. it was not in the guy's yard, there was apparently some time after the confrontation took place before the shooting occurred, and he pursued the individual after he'd left - which knocks the feared for his life defense out the window.