Thread: not again

Originally Posted by Tahr

What I understand is that the response must be justified and proportional to the severity of the breach. Legally and I think morally. It may not have happened if there had not been the breach, but the ends was a sickening over-reach perpetrated by a gun owner.

Speculating a lot there, until the details come out we just don't know. There sounds to have been a history of intimidation and threatening/violence towards the landowner, which changes the dynamic on safety and expectation. Still not justified if there was intent, but we don't know if the landowner stumbled over the two there without permission while carrying a firearm for other purposes and the situation developed or some other set of circumstances. I do agree it does not look good in general terms from what the media reported, but I'm not sure that the description there is at this point justified with how little has been reported so far.