The "canine backup" was a Jack Russel Terrier...being at a party, unwelcomed, may deserve an azz kicking....but not a march of death down a public street. To shoot the unarmed man while off the premises is a major problem. Another thing to consider is that it is unlikely that the deceased just showed up for the heck of it, got ran off, and then decided it was so much fun he wanted to come back. I would bet there is more to the story. The shooter and the other party goers were admittedly intoxicated so a number of things could have spurred the argument/confrontation. Regardless of all the minor details...an unarmed man, alone, was shot by the homeowner while the remaining party guests looked on. I feel confident that a better resolution could have been found. The bottom line is that the homeowner went inside, obtained his weapon, and went back out to the unwanted guest unnecessarily. He, at that point, became the aggressor. We can't allow that to happen. Having a license to carry a weapon does not give someone a license to take a life at will.
Again, my .02...or .04 now...
bdickens wrote:What is with the insane need to keep referring to the criminal perpetrators of incidents as "victims?"
Alinsky could tell you. So could Goebbels.
I think it's obvious that a ne'er–do–well who crashes a party in a private home, gets kicked out, and returns with canine backup is the aggressor, not the victim.