Is Mise, you are like a dog with a bone, all chew and nothing much else. The case of your 84 year old shooter. I'll be a little bit serious for a moment.
I cannot give you a definitive answer based on newspaper reports and your own off the planet comments. What I will say is, I would expect a full police investigation into all the circumstances surrounding the incident, and then, and only then, should charges be considered if they are warranted.

p/s The day our legal system starts accepting reports from the likes of Murdoch's 'Daily Telegraph' as evidence then that's the day we should shut up shop.

paul,

All that you need to say is that it might be sometimes justified to use a firearm in self defence rather than the Greens' idiotic supposition that a firearm should never be used for self defence.

The Greens are at odds with the law, which has found that using a firearm for self defence is allowed if justified.
The Greens allow for no justification or else went off half cocked and didn't realize what they were writing.

Sloppy.

is Mise, I don't know if you are purposely or accidentally misinterpreting Greens policy on firearms.
I read it as follows;

In the first instance when one applies for a firearms licence to state that your only reason for requiring that firearm is possible future 'SELF DEFENSE' is UNACCEPTABLE. There are a number of stand alone reasons where a person requires a firearm license. self defense is not a singular legitimate reason. The stand alone self defense reason is accepted in many parts of the US, we don't want it here.

Secondly, if one uses a firearm, which has been obtained for another purpose such as a security guard, as a weapon of self defense then a police investigation must take place to determine if the use of that firearm was appropriate or not. Then it can be determined if charges, including murder, should or should not be laid.

Is Mise, I think (I hope) you are a reasonable person, with intelligence, that's why I enjoy our debates. You are not completely off the planet, just bouncing around in the stratosphere, but still attached to mother earth, that's good. I think you can grasp what I am saying, and could even agree

Paul,

The Greens say:

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or USING [emphasis added] a firearm. "

What don't you understand in that sentence?

Perhaps 'using' is ambiguous, not plain English?

Now as I read it the Greens are against a person ever using a firearm for self defence, be it against animals or humans.

A sick attitude if ever there was one.

Is Mise. what about a comment on what I said. Is that acceptable to you?

Self defense is not a stand alone reason to be granted a firearms licence in the first place.

When a gun is used, a police investigation is always warranted, and if it can be clearly shown that there was no other alternative then self defense is a legitimate reason.

Paul,

"Using" for personal profection has got nothing to do with the granting of a licence'.

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or USING [emphasis added] a firearm. "

The operative word here is "using" and one can only conclude from the Greens N07 above that they are opposed to anyone using a firearm in self defence, which would be an appropriate conclusion for a person versed in the use of English.

Now think carefully, what could possibly be wrong and require recourse to the Courts if a farmer USED his firearm in self defence against wild dogs?

Why would the Greens want to stop such self defence, if they are not bloody minded people who get their kicks out of human suffering?