That is right, also for you, there is not fault is simply eating. There is no unwholsesome deed with eating meet. It would be of course unwholesome to kill, or to tell someone to kill or being happy or approve the killing.
As for a monk, he would not be allowed to eat certain kind of meat, so for example snakes. A Bhikkhu would also not allowed to accept raw meet. So in relation of those questions, you would need to ask him further. Maybe they found corpse and used them for their nourishment.
Once more, for a Bhikkhu, if seen, heard or assumed, that a living being was killed for his nourishment, he is not allowed to eat it.
As for killing (by body, speech or though - in being happy about it), all of them are unwholseome deeds, what ever reason and for whom ever. As for breaking the precepts formal, only bodily actions or verbal actions who cause end effect the death of a living being, are a fault at least.
As for the frog story (just saw Upasaka Chris added the article). Its very usual under framers in SOAsia to eat frogs. They are prepared in various ways. Having lived in a small remote forests village in northern Cambodia as an Anagarika for a while, it happened often that villager came and gave frogs as a alms donation. Honestly Atma was not able to eat them having be boiled, although he has rarely a problem with any kind of food. They are like balloons (if you know the Shrek cartoon). How ever, with time, when people find out that you are not seeking pleasure in this or that kind of food they will naturally avoid to give such, not to speak of even kill that they are able to give. Alms are shares of what one has. Its seldom really Dana if it is taken for the purpose to give.