Justified Shootings?

[snorri]

I'm struck by the differences and similarities in the comments posted in two discussions about two different shootings. I'm not saying the situations are identical by any stretch of the imagination. Different cities, different types of shooters, different species of shootees, one died and one didn't, and so on.

However, both incidents involved an armed professional feeling threatened and shooting to stop the threat. Both incidents have spawned polarizing discussions on this forum. I created a poll too see if there's any kind of trend, but I'm more interested in the principles (and assumptions) on which our conclusions are built.

The two discussions are OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it and Armed security guard shoots River Oaks family dog and now I'll let other people have a shot before I say more.

[Jumping Frog]

Corrected links:

The two discussions are OIS today in Austin - bloggers already at it and Armed security guard shoots River Oaks family dog and now I'll let other people have a shot before I say more.

[gthaustex]

The two incidents are indeed pretty far apart, other than both ended in shootings. One involved law enforcement, the other a security guard with minimal training in use of force by comparison. That said, I think the OIS is going to get much more armchair quarterbacking as it involved another human and a LEO who is going to be held to a higher standard because of his training. Also, the LEOs were called to that location and saw a weapon. The security guard stopped of his own volition and knocked on the house door as part of an investigation. Dogs can be dangerous. However, I would argue that a displayed firearm is much more of an immediate threat that a canine.

I think the recent OIS was probably justified, based on what I know. The shooting of the dog by the security guard?? Not so much...

Just my two cents...