Lest you forget, it is in fact legal to own a gun and to fire it on your own property, (providing it does not harm nor intend to harm anyone- as in this case up to the point of his murder- and excepting potential differences in local law), and especially in self-defense such as when agents of "law-enforcement" are illegally firing projectiles through your walls and windows into your house.

This of course isn't the point. The point is that Jamie wasn't a threat and that only by blatantly unnecessary, unlawful, and, frankly, murderous confrontation did he become one. Your argument is akin to, "well, I was worried he might push somebody so I stomped on his face for a few minutes, and low and behold, that aggressor pushed back". Talk about entrapment. I am loathe to point out the obvious, because it is embarrassingly and tediously obvious, and because pointing it out confirms how clueless we are as a society, but only through consultation with the property owners, i.e. his family, should the police have done anything else but left a man to his lawful behavior.

Lest it be anything less than crystal clear. Only through consultation and consent of the property owners, i.e. his family, should the police have done anything but leave a citizen whom it is their charge to protect and serve to his lawful behavior.

Very perceptive of you to pick up on the fact that police officers shoot people who point guns at them, or at their armored fighting vehicles for that matter (I don't know many shotguns that double as anti-tank weapons but you can never be too sure). I'm not sure where it occurred to you that this was relevant, but bravo all the same. I think the point more was, this situation ended tragically and who's fault was that. You appear to be pointing your finger here there everywhere up in the air, etc., which you seem convinced is a very level-headed look at the situation unlike all us radicals at Salon. Only problem is it doesn't pass the, "have I actually thought about this intelligently?" test. Come to think of it, the position doesn't even pass the, "have I opened my mind with a crowbar and fired off a few synapses?" test. But at least your views won't get you ostracized in your social circle.

Let me see if I can't lay out some of the facts of this case and see if that has anymore chance of sinking in than water does as poured over a goretex jacket:

The police responded to a call regarding a potential suicide. They found that the individual, while breaking no laws whatsoever and not remotely threatening to, was not inclined to speak with them or meet with them in his depressed state. They responded to that lawful decision logically- by ignoring the pleas of the family to go and speak with him, surrounding the house of the highly unstable, distraught and drunk individual and bombarding it with a hundred cans of teargas. When the individual finally emerged, they had to kill him because the suicidal man under siege by a few battalions of heavily armed policemen was, oddly enough, not acting rationally.

Indeed, really hard to blame the cops on this one.

Watching Jeremy Paxman give an interview as an American is like watching Jessica Garner stroll by in a two-piece after your wife's put on fifty pounds. Lets you know just what you are missing in a way not possible to communicate by other means.

The beauty of Paxman is that he can be tough without raising his voice or losing his cool, and he is both intelligent and witty, meaning the politicians haven't got a chance, (with the possible exception of Jerry Adams and Martin McGuinness- for the quintessential dear in the headlights, see William Hague). Unfortunately, we don't make these types anymore. There are no more Edward Murrows- there aren't even any more Dan Rathers. Yipe.

As one of those Americans who praised the interview, or at least Paxman, I would like to thank you for stepping into the breach here and filling out the picture of Britishness. It would've been a shame to have been left green with over its comparative advantage in news media without also having been reminded of the country's penchant for churning out ignorami who garnish their pedantic tedium with an extra helping of superiority complex.

Just a tip: a social critique tends to be more valid as informed with some knowledge about the society in question. Here I'm thinking visiting a place, interacting with some of it's people, etc. Reading the Guardian, not so much.