This reminds me of a case they had in Maine a few years ago, a deer hunter, who had been drinking, shot and killed a woman, who was hanging some clothes out to dry on her back porch, mistaking the woman for a white tail deer.
He was charged with murder, and acquitted.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

That's what I do, too. I'd better steer clear of Noble.

there are very strigent "deadly force" rules and the use of such, for the miltary and civil authorities...this imho, does not fall into that category...I cannot even imagine the grief that family must be feelings, to say nothing of the rage....

heres a general sample from Minnesota...-

A. Use of Deadly Force
It is the policy of this agency to accord officers discretion in the use of force to the extent permitted by MN Statutes, Section 609.066, Subd. 2, which authorizes peace officers acting in the line of duty to use deadly force only when necessary to:

1. protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
2. effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
3. effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person’s apprehension is delayed.


statutes change a bit from state to state, but these are the operative tenets of the rule....

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Then you admit that it is a ridiculous assumption?So because he is a "person of authority," he must have thought it was the right thing to do?Then he is a colossal idiot and needs to be prosecuted. He shouldn't get a free pass just because he's a "person of authority" and an idiot.Why does this situation require concluding one way or another about all LEO's? Maybe this guy was an idiot and we don't know about others?So why wasn't he on a mission to exterminate all snakes in the town?You avoid it and use reasonable force when avoidance is unreasonably dangerous. I have wild snakes in my town and I avoid them. I don't regularly see police hunting for them with guns.Not all wild animals are the same, believe it or not. Both size, aggression and lethality vary. While shooting with a rifle at a wolf who is running towards you with intent to attack might seem somewhat reasonable, firing a handgun at at a spider in a tree would not, in many case.And if they are stupid reasons? Is it okay because he had a badge? What if a cop decided to fight a rat infestation in a supermarket by throwing a few pipe bombs into the store while it was full of customers? Do you just say "he must have his reasons?"Then shooting it with a firearm and killing someone would still have not been a good decision. Okay?Wow, that's a lot of assumptions you are making. One would wonder why you would go to such lengths to defend a "person of authority." So what do you imagine they told him on the radio? "Take the dumbest approach you can think of to eliminate the threat, making sure to cause as much unnecessary damage as possible?"And obviously he is not capable of sound reasoning. Do we give people a pass for homicide because they are stupid? How many people does an idiot have to kill before you take action?I once again find myself wondering why you would put forward so many silly scenarios.So he should be kept on the force despite showing how stupid and incompetent he is (at best)? Also, if someone decides to kill a poisonous spider on a building by hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, killing 3000 people in the process, do you also not prosecute him?I think it would benefit the general public if they knew who this retarded cop is in order to keep at least 20 miles away from him at all times, assuming they keep him on the force.So? Does that mean he is any good at it?Obviously this has been proven false by the article.Bad judgment call? You have a talent for understatement.Negligent homicide, if you take the words individually, means the killing of one man by another due to negligence. The latter happened, obviously. And the former is rather likely. Are you saying he wasn't negligent?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Where does this cop's job description require him to remove all threats? Why do you assume that removing the threat in a manner which creates a bigger threat a good decision? And why do you feel that he should have SHOT the snake?Oh, yes. If I decide to kill a fly with a nuclear ICBM, I'd be making a questionable decision.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Shouldn't the cop have arrested the snake? I mean, maybe it was willing to surrender. There's a moral in here somewhere. Oh yeah, don't hiss at cops.