They became text book cases of stupidity. I hope they have thier badges yanked.

"...I still hear about LEOs dropping items near corpses..."

Yeah, Hollywood is big on that, but it ain't the real world...

"...then Ali tried to kill him..."

Thinking that I was missing something, I reread the article about this silly incident, and no I was not missing a thing. The article clearly states "...Ali grabbed the airgun and fired twice at Mr Goldie..." The caption under the photo further states "Ali said he fired the air rifle to scare off Mr Goldie"

I doubt very seriously that Ali thought that he could kill anyone with an airgun, be it a BB, .177, or the deadly .22 caliber pellet. Put an eye out, sure. Hit a temple from the side, maybe, but in the chest, I don't think so...

There is more than one article. You may have overlooked my reference to the Evening Times, or else not realised that the original link was to the BBC. Here's a link to the Evening Times. It's best to read as many diverse accounts as you can for events like this.

This article states, "Ali then shot at Goldie to chase him off but the convicted housebreaker then punched the step-father. Goldie then dropped a metal cosh and at this the accused fired a second pellet, hitting his target on the chest, the court was told."

It sounds like the first shot was to chase him off, and missed, and for the second shot he changed his aim and hit. It sounds like an escalation. It's easy to believe he was trying to do as much damage as he could. He may or may not have been aware that the gun wouldn't kill; at any rate, he's not pleaded guilty to murder, but it sounds like a serious assault on an unarmed man.

In this incident it's possible that Goldie never entered onto the property at all. In the UK many houses have front doors which open directly onto the street, with no front yards or gardens. This incident may have been entirely in the street.

Here's one extreme interpretation of events. Drunk man is looking for his friend's house but gets the wrong place. He knocks on the door, loudly because he is drunk. Stepfather comes out and remonstrates with him. Voices are raised and eventually the drunk tosses a bottle. Step-father gets angry and attacks the drunk. Drunk fights back. Son comes out and fires a warning shot. Drunk drops what he has in his hands and surrenders. Son shoots him in the chest.

Police arrive and try to figure it out. The Evening Times says they "eventually" arrested Ali, which suggests it took them some time. Ali admits he was wrong and over-reacted. End of story.

I think that the air rifle used in this incident was luckily below the 12ft/lbs legal limit (UK Law) for the accused. Much more serious firearms charges may have been brought about if this legal limit had been exceeded. Possible attempted murder charges even. Some air rifles can easily be re-tuned/modified to energies above 30 ft/lbs (FAC). I wouldn't like to take my chances of surviving an accurately aimed chest/heart shot at this energy of 30 ft/lbs. Even at 12 ft/lbs a shot to the groin, neck, leg can cause major arteries to be severed resulting in death through loss of blood pressure. This also has not been unknown. As for BB guns, I think there may be some confusion here as most BB guns do not really go above 1 to 2 ft/lbs.

Well, the flavor of the confrontation in question now is changing from the original take. If such be the case, and the lad was really shooting at the belligerant drunkard off premises, and after the drunkard had given up, then that seems to be a bit over-zealous to me as well.

As for the cops in the movies, well let's say there are times when art still imitates life, and we can leave it at that I suppose.

Makes me glad I do not live in the UK...

Not quite. The BBC calls Goldie a "burgler". and the Evening Tmes calls him a "housebreaker". He was clearly attempting an armed B&E on an innocent family. He is the instigator of this whole incident, yet he is charged with nothing? While you can argue whether or not the second shot was necessary, it may well be that Ali was in the act of firing while Goldie was dropping the club. These things tend to happen pretty fast. And as far as I can tell, Ali didn't use the knife at all. Why then is he charged with possessing a fishing knife? Obviously because, in the paradise that has become Scotland, any attempt at self-defense using a weapon, no matter how reasonable, is illegal and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But armed home invasions are winked at.

Ali did well. He defended his home and family. After all, he may have saved them all from being tied up and bashed to death so in that respect he came out ahead. It's just too bad that he was forced to confess or face an even stiffer penalty.

Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.

C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.

D. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

And if the event had occurred outside one's home HB2615 would be applicable.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

F. A person who uses force as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.