The right to bear arms
I have a HUGE problem with this. We can defend ourselves, protect our property and loved ones, but we cannot use deadly force when anything other than a human life is being threatened? So does this mean that if someone breaks into my house, but isn't armed, I can't fire off a shot at the asswipe? (haha... remember folks, I've only fired a gun once in my life, do not own one, and do not know how to properly handle any sort of weapon, so the chances of ME actually doing this is pretty much zero)
What sort of precedence will this case set? I am NOT comfortable with this- even though I have no idea how Hall could have gotten to a loaded gun quickly enough to fire off a round or two into his car. Gun ownership comes with great responsibility (kinda like Spiderman, eh?)... but does it, or does it not, mean that you can use the weapon to defend human life AND your property... or just human life alone?