Strangers are bad enough, now it is the cops...

[Dustdevil]

The shooter had been the cranky old man of the neighborhood for years. Pagano had no reason to swing at him. Why would he? He had a yard full of kids and parents behind him.

I think you just answered your own question. He had an audience to perform for. He couldn't back down in front of them without losing face. No man wants his son to think he's a pussy.

He goes to get the ball back, shooter gets in his face, there's some pushing and shoving, and suddenly Pagano's on the ground with a bullet through his aorta.

Again, you validate my point. You go on somebody else's property to assault them and you are asking for the big PCS.

Incidentally, NOT fired from the gun that the shooter had a CC permit for, but one of his other guns. That could prove to be a problem for him.

I don't pretend to know anything about RI laws, but I would bet that -- as is the case in the vast majority of states -- you do not need a permit to have a weapon on your own property.

Little disabled guy getting hit by bigger, younger, physically fit guy = fear of serious bodily injury = justification for deadly force. Case closed.

[cv-eh?]

May the kids rot in Hell for putting their dad in that position.

Content Removed - Admin

[Richard B the EMT]

I don't pretend to know anything about RI laws, but I would bet that -- as is the case in the vast majority of states -- you do not need a permit to have a weapon on your own property.

A word of advice: Don't try using that line in New York City. A friend of mine lost a family heirloom shotgun, registered to her family home in Pennsylvania, but not registered to her apartment here in New York City. When the NYPD entered her apartment during a loud and potentially violent argument with her (now ex) husband, they seized the weapon from it's display on the wall, and when the permit could not be found (I don't know why, she told me that such permit for NYC was in existence), the antique was destroyed with other seized illegal weapons by the NYPD. (Due to the loss of the shotgun, the already shaky marriage fell apart, and they got divorced.)

[CBEMT]

Again, you validate my point. You go on somebody else's property to assault them and you are asking for the big PCS.

You assume both intent and action, neither of which are backed by witnesses at this point.

Little disabled guy getting hit by bigger, younger, physically fit guy = fear of serious bodily injury = justification for deadly force. Case closed.

I'll wait for further medical evidence, but I'm confident he's not nearly as disabled as you make him out to be. He got a golden ticket. And it certainly doesn't sound like this guy feared anybody.

Or the injury was legit, and he's just been pissed off about it since 1991.

Little man syndrome + 17 years of a chip his shoulder + guns =

Last Sunday afternoon, Pagano and his wife, Adriana, hosted a birthday party for their young son. Outside on Daisy Court that tennis ball struck the car of Pagano’s next-door neighbor, Nicholas Gianquitti. Witnesses say Gianquitti began shouting and swearing at the kids playing and Pagano went next door to confront him about his language. Gianquitti often complained about children’s balls going on his property.

The men scuffled at the door where the sound of the first gunshot popped. Then, witnesses say, Gianquitti pursued Pagano onto his front yard, firing at him again as he ran around a bush and then again as he crouched beside a parked car, perhaps already mortally wounded.

Case closed, indeed.

You don't get to chase an unarmed man across HIS front yard, firing at him as he runs, firing at him as he hides behind a car, and then claim self-defense. Not even in Texas.

[Dustdevil]

You assume both intent and action, neither of which are backed by witnesses at this point.

I did not assume that. As stated before, I'm just adding up the facts already presented. However, I admit that the way I stated that, it does come across as if I am assuming intent. I assumed no intent. I should have said, "You go on somebody else's property and assault them...", not "to assault them."

And it certainly doesn't sound like this guy feared anybody.

Because after years of this beef going on with the neighbours, he had never been attacked before. Why would he fear that suddenly, on this occasion, the fireman would blow a gasket?

Or the injury was legit, and he's just been pissed off about it since 1991.

I can relate to that.

Little man syndrome + 17 years of a chip his shoulder + guns =

Doesn't matter why he was pissed off. You go trying to settle your disputes with your knuckles and you deserve what you get. Do you think if Gianquitti had been twice Pagano's size that he would have taken a swing at him? I bet not. He gambled and he lost. And the fear that the little guy might not be as defenceless as he looks, serves to give smarter men reason to think twice before pushing the next guy around.

You don't get to chase an unarmed man across HIS front yard, firing at him as he runs, firing at him as he hides behind a car, and then claim self-defense. Not even in Texas.

Agreed. I believe the initial response was justified. However this new information does paint a picture of him crossing that line between self-defence and retaliation. Regardless, Gianquitti would still like me to be on his jury.

[CBEMT]

Agreed. I believe the initial response was justified. However this new information does paint a picture of him crossing that line between self-defence and retaliation. Regardless, Gianquitti would still like me to be on his jury.

What both prosecution and defense need is someone with a clear view of what happened in front of Gianquitti's house. The way the news stories have been worded so far, I don't know if that happened. Or information on that phase of the incident has not been released.

Powder burns, or lack of them, will tell the tale. If the entrance wound has a burn, he might get off the murder rap by saying it happened during a struggle, but he'll STILL have to explain the chase back to Pagano's property.

If it turns out the entrance wound is in the back, he's REALLY screwed.

[MedicNorth]

I have a suggestion.

Lets let the world know that democracy, law and order, and civil control are now things of the past. Lets simply toss them out and go for total anarchy - the survival of the fittest, meanest, and best armed.

I mean - if someone comes on to your property and threatens to swing at you, shoot them. If they leer at your daughter, by all means shoot their testicles off. If they cut you off in traffic, they deserve to have their families attending funerals, because they do not deserve to live, having messed with your civil liberty.

This goes way further - imagine all the money we will save in taxes if there is no need for police, because everything we wish do do is justified, simply because it is what we wish do do, and feel it it is ok.

Imagine the joy, the pure revelling in freedom, that we will have if laws and the accompanying enforcement are eliminated! All things that our little hearts desire can become ours, simpy by killing the people in our way. They don't deserve to live beside us, have their own opinions, or have kids who step onto our side of the property line!

Damn - we could make this world a better place!

[Dustdevil]

I have a suggestion.

Lets let the world know that democracy, law and order, and civil control are now things of the past. Lets simply toss them out and go for total anarchy - the survival of the fittest, meanest...

It was exactly that until Mr. Colt equalised us all. Now we don't have to bow down to the biggest and meanest anymore. Take guns out of the equation and we'll be back to thugocracy.

[MedicNorth]

Once in a while I don't mind being misquoted, but it irritates me to be half-quoted. Funny how you left out the "best armed" section of that.

If we give everybody a gun, then things have been equalized as far as the arms are concerned, so once again, the biggest and strongest (and least concerned about humanity) will be able to control things again.

My point is that there are some things worth killling people over, and some things that maybe we need to trust the great democratic institutions to deal with. I really hope that the time never comes when I trespass onto the property of, get into the way of, or otherwise irritate someone who thinks that Colt invented anything that prevents people from being bullied or persecuted. All that happens is that the bully gets a bigger gun (hence the "better armed" section of the quote that was left out)

If you believe that this man was justified in his murderous actions, I will not argue any further. I will simply retain my conviction that he (and you) are wrong, and stay the hell out of your way.

[Dustdevil]

The properly educated amongst us will clearly recognise that the "..." at the end of your quote signifies that I truncated it. And since your actual post is immediately above my quote, I don't think anyone is going to be confused. It was not my intent to confuse anyone or to misrepresent your statement. My intent was to make a point. I am disappointed if you believe otherwise.

But to your last post, your conclusion is a non-sequitor. Equalising everyone does just that. By definition, it is incapable of resulting in the biggest and strongest ruling, because they will never again get within arms reach of an armed opponent. Strength no longer is a factor. Only the element of surprise.

Whether or not this guy was justified is not going to be settled here, and we all know that. We are not privvy to all the facts. However, it was thrown out for speculative discussion, and that's what we're doing. Apparently, you believe that having your face pummeled, by a much larger and fit bully who is trespassing on your property for the purpose of doing so, and who has been harrassing you for years, is something that we should all just roll over and gleefully accept because fighting back somehow offends your sensibilities. I disagree. Violence is violence, and violence begets violence. I don't care if he responds with a baseball bat, a hand cannon, or a thermonuclear device. If you visit violence upon someone, you have zero reason to be surprised when it comes back to you in spades. And fortunately for a civil society, that's a mistake that Pagano won't make again.