[nagant]

I don’t think anyone is disputing that he shot the dog. I think the question is whether or not he was justified in doing so. I haven’t seen what I consider credible evidence that he was.
~~~~~

That’s NOT how American law (or right vs wrong) works. You can’t charge the delivery man (or anyone else) with a crime without showing that he broke a law. You can’t do that here, and he stands innocent by right of self defense until you can.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can’t charge the delivery man (or anyone else) with a crime without showing that he broke a law.

Is it legal to shoot dogs *FOR NO PROVEN REASON* in North Carolina? I doubt it.

Seems like he needs to *PROVE* why he shot the dog. *HE* needs to prove the dog was attacking him. Not just sitting there, not just laying there, but *ATTACKING* him.

So far I think it's just his word, and so far as i'm concerned, that's not proof.

[Hot Tabasco]

You can’t do that here, and he stands innocent by right of self defense until you can.

He stands guilty by virtue of the fact that company policy prohibits their delivery persons from carrying firearms........

And considering the facts that there were no bite marks nor torn pants, it's strictly his personal testimony that has no evidence of his claim.

Try supporting his claim when hopefully Angie sues the pants off of Instacart..........