Projo 7 to 7 News Blog

Manslaughter only-the man was threatened in his own house-I would have done the same thing.

GOOD!

Frankie, do you always end neighborhood disputes by killing your neighbor? 2nd degree seems warranted here, he shot him outside the house too..

You can't shoot anyone in the back....period.
Maybe an unfortunate accident, but still murder.

Thank God one Providence jury finally showed the brains that God gave an ant ......

You NEVER answer a punch with a bullet ....

NEVER.

A man can TRESSPASS on MY PROPERTY into my house commit AGGRAVATED ASSAULT on me,
and continue to CHARGE after me.
I shoot in self defense, aiming low to the torso, not the head. Unfortunately, it was a fatal shot. Maybe PAGANO should NOT HAVE ENTERED THE HOUSE AND COMMITTED ASSAULT?

This is considered MURDER?

What if PAGANO was not a UNION FIREMAN?

What if a man would like no one on his property,
but it is continuously violated?

What if PAGANO was also at fault, BOTH MEN are professionals who deal with the public and should know when there is a long-standing neighbor vs neighbor DISPUTE that had NO ATTEMPT at being MITIGATED?

I am at a loss of the breakdown of justice here.

Shooting a man in the back is NOT self-defence. This was clearly second degree murder. Wearing a loaded handgun in your home shows that this man was prone to violence and the multiple arguments over the kids playing ball should have been a warning. RI streets are a little safer today.

I don't understand this - it's pretty hard to reconcile with yesterday's verdict. Doesn't seem right.

The guy should have been convicted of 1st degree murder, you can't shoot someone in the back running down the driveway. The punk should have fought the guy not shot him.

This is so wrong. I guess children don't have to learn respect of other people or thier property! if the Pagano children were in thier own yard destroying thier parents property instead of being allowed to run the streets and wreak havoc on the neighbors property this would have been avoided. If Mr. Pagano was a reasonable man and stood up to his children instead of encouraging them to taunt his neighbor he would still be here to teach them other life lessons. maybe thats the silver lining the children will grow up knowing you can't say and do what ever you want with out consequences. I don't agree with this verdict. The Pagono's should be charged with harrassment and Gianquitti should appeal and use undue mental stress as a defense instead of self defense.

This could have been handled completely different. Yes.. He threatened him by entering his home. yes he assaulted him. hmm.. I don't wear a gun around my home while doing housework, and I'm not sure I know of anyone else who does. This was an "accident" waiting to happen. It is sad for both families. He was shot in the back, which to means defines that Pagano was leaving when he was shot. Both families are now without their dads.

i have to agree that at most this was an involuntary manslaughter charge. It does seem incongruent with yesterday's puzzling aquittal. You cannot enter another person's home . strike them in the face and expect nothing to happen. Quarrel , yes, assualt with a closed fist no. I would have found for involuntary manslaughter if given that choice. tragic for all parties, i doubt that Gianquitti woke that morning with the intent to shoot his neighbor.

rhode island, you have become the laughing stock of the nation... you are the worst in economics due to your socialist/corrupt/legistative incompetency and now you perhaps maybe the only state to convict a man who was "IN" his own home to be convicted of murdering "HIS" attacker in "HIS" own home... perhaps you should really drop the providence plantations and replace it with "FRANCE"...

I can shed some light here for those inclined to believe a story unheard and unspoken by Nick during the bail hearing last summer. Ask yourself...would you spend that much time in prison if you had this story from the get go? He and his family concocted a story that by all other accounts, including a child not involved with the incident, confirmed the Pagano's version of events.

Now, let's get serious. Jim was a 5'9" 230 lb. father who was never prone to violence and I knew him all his life. The neighbor had verbal scrapes with me and others. He is the sort of guy that makes you wonder what happened to him to make him that disgruntled. He is miserable. Jim was not! As for Frankie, give us a break with the bravado BS.

Lastly, Jim's family deserves some closure and rest.....please lay off both families for awhile and let them try to recover....these are humans we are talking about and everyone lost in this tragedy.

Jlane, wearing a loaded handgun in your home if you have a permit is not a crime, nor an indicator of being prone to violence. Do you think that criminals who break into your house during a breaking and entering, or a home invasion, will give you the opportunity to call 911,(if they show up), or get your locked up, unloaded gun? Think again. When Pagnano entered the house with the intent to assault Gianquitti, Gianquitti was within his right to defend himself, whether it was with a spoon or a gun. Gianquitti commited second degree murder when he decided to shoot Pagnano AFTER the altercation. If anybody tries to forcibly enter my house, where my wife and daughter live, you better believe that a 12 ga. slug will be the least of their worries. I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by six.

How terribly sad for both families involved.Both women lost thier husbands and all the children lost thier fathers.Senseless violence,where will it end.The trauma those children faced that day will stay with them forever.Hopefully they all learned how NOT to deal with an already stressful situation.Keep your distance and deal with it when you've calmed down.
I am glad the jury saw thru the self defense shield because I have never met anyone that cleaned thier floors wearing a gun of any kind!This was a man waiting, however patient he had to be for his turn at violence.He knew from the past events that Pagano would be over to confront him..he just waited.I feel he got what he deserved.

If the first shot fired was the one that killed him, it was self defense, if it were the second shot fired that killed him, it was murder. Given that the shot that killed him was in the back, one could reasonably assume that the second shot fired was the one that killed him as his back was to the defendant as he fled the house. I was once told by ar RI police officer (in jest), that if I was ever to shoot someone on my property, I had better drag the body into the house.

The truth of the matter is that this whole situation could have been avoided by the defendant, simply don't open the door, call the police. A truly sad situation for everyone involved.

To NotRIght - One man shot another man over a wayward tennis ball. The conviction had nothing to do with either man’s job or union affiliation, and everything to do with the fact that the victim was shot in the back!

To JTee:
Well, you would be judged by 12. Deadly force can only be used when there is a "significant" threat of serious injury or death. And if you do some looking on the net you will find that over the last 25 years or so, the public is taking a harder look at self defence claims. Contrary to popular belief, you cannot shot someone because they are in your house.

To James: You should have paid closer attention. The victim was only shot once. In the back. The second shot was fire outside.

To JTee,

I never said he was shot twice, I said two shots were fired. It has never been proven WHICH shot that was fired actually struck the victim, the one fired outside or the one fired in the house.

It has been implied that the first shot fired was the one that struck the victim, that has never been proven (at least by the evidence published in the press).

That the victim was shot in the back implies the second shot fired was the one that did the dammage as the victim was fleeing the house. If you believe that the first shot fired struck the victim, then I believe it was self defense, if you believe it was the second shot fired that struck the victim, then it was murder.