So you condemn a man who shot a dog in reported self-defense, but you'd likely go ahead and shoot a man who posed no threat to YOU?
Hypocrisy abounds.
If shooting a dog is to be condemned, as you are, and shooting a person is your option, you have some real issues to deal with.
It's a DOG, not a person.
If he's standing there with a pistol in his hand like a crazy man after just having shot my dog for no discernible good reason, then yes, I would likely consider him dangerous and use the exact same thing he claimed when he shot my dog.
"I thought he was going to attack me! He already shot my dog you know."
So would you use a different standard on the man from what he used on the dog? I see a man standing there with a gun as a far greater threat to me then I would that mid sized dog. That man can easily kill me.
If shooting a dog is to be condemned, as you are, and shooting a person is your option, you have some real issues to deal with.
It's a DOG, not a person.
It's the same d@mn argument *YOU* think justifies shooting the dog. If the claim "it might attack me" is good enough to kill, I fail to see why it doesn't work the same regardless of the nature of the threat.
The dog can only bite. The man can kill me.
I do since there is no evidence substantiating his claim that it was in self defense. Such evidence would be bite marks or at least torn pants. Neither of which happened.
As for shooting the delivery driver, I'm sure the poster was merely exhibiting his frustration at the stupidity surrounding the support of the delivery driver.
Especially considering that the driver was in violation of company policy against carrying firearms......
That in itself will warrant a legitimate lawsuit against Instacart.....