doglover: Are these so called experts at any way involved in the trial? Has the prosecution tapped them to testify? No?

It's unclear.

But, tell me: you seemed awfully confident Zimmerman was the one screaming on the 911 tapes. How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?

doglover: So when they have to let someone with a smoking gun who admits he shot a teenager walk, I'm inclined to believe they have some information I do not.

And, when the special prosecutor charges the killer with second-degree murder, maybe you should be inclined to believe that she has some information that you do not. But, then you might be kicked out of the Zimmerman fan club...so, I sort of understand your hesitation to abide by your own reasoning.

doglover: And I'm gullible?

I didn't claim you were gullible. I asked if you were always so deferential to the claims made by killers...or -- and, I'm asking again, here -- do you reserve this sort of credulousness for the killers of unarmed black teenagers?

SkinnyHead: Abzzstain: Or he could have just driven around him. Or waited until the guy stopped dangerously waving his arms and moved out of the way. Instead of, you know, killing him.

This happened in a Taco Bell drive through. The driver said he couldn't drive away. He and his girlfriend told police that the assailant had a bat or similar type weapon. The issue is not stand your ground. The issue is whether a reasonable person in that situation would believe that deadly physical force was immediately necessary to protect himself or his passenger against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

There was no bat. Either the shooter is lying or he's intoxicated.

Dimensio: How, exactly, would a shooter who honestly failed to observe an extant "route of escape" prove that failure to a prosecutor who accuses the shooter of being aware of the "route of escape" but using deadly force regardless?

The totality of the circumstances of the shooting would lead the prosecutor to either believe or disbelieve the shooter's account. There's no set formula.

Salt Lick Steady: Lenny_da_Hog: BTW, what problem was solved with these silly laws?

Shouldn't we have heard about the hundreds of people nationwide who are in prison for rightfully defending themselves? Or about the stories of people with guns who could have defended themselves, but were afraid to because of the law?

And why is ALEC so hot on pushing them? What's in it for them, other than redneck loyalty to the GOP.... oh, wait.

Uh, you probably know well enough what I think about ALEC. But as a legal matter, it was quite difficult to prove self defense prior to some of these laws, because you were often given the burden of proving that there was no reasonable way to retreat. What the laws do is shift the burden of proof.

The effect is plain. What's bugging me is why they have lobbied so hard for these laws. I don't see what the Corporate Monster gets out of it.

Dimensio: You are correct. A majority of "interpersonal confrontations" would have been averted had a criminal attacker refrained from attempting to commit an act of violent crime. However, how that relates to the victim of a violent crime -- who is less likely to have been in a position to reasonably anticipate and thus avoid the confrontation -- is not evident.

You may be the dumbest troll on the planet. It's idiots like you who carry guns and blame the criminals for causing all the crime and pass Stand Your Ground laws when YOU have at least some of the responsibility for your own behavior. So, it's not YOUR fault if you were to go to an ATM late at night, take out your cash, and stand there counting it and get mugged? You couldn't have avoided that little confrontation with a little reasonable anticipation?

If you go to a bar and get a little drunk and respond to another guy who's a little drunk, and then he mouths off to you, and you just have to get the last word...that's not something you could have reasonably anticipated? You couldn't have thought of a way to possibly avoided that?

You get home late at night, and find your front door ajar, and you're pretty sure you locked it when you left that morning. If you go inside and get shot by the burglar still inside, you're suggesting you're in no way responsible for not having foreseen a potential violent encounter which could easily have been avoided if you'd only exercised a little reasonable common sense?

So give me an example of where a violent encounter just dropped from the sky with zero prior warning to the victim. I really can't imagine any.

Chimperror2: Lenny_da_Hog: BTW, what problem was solved with these silly laws?

Violent crime, Way down since enacted.

Violent crime is also WAY down in New York City.

How did they do it without CCW and SYG?

Dimensio: Are you able to describe a general method by which, in an average situation

There is neither a general method nor an average situation. Every situation is unique and must be judged by the prosecutor.

Talondel: "While the shooter said he did not believe Adkins would have killed him and his fiancée had he not fired, he also said he feared Adkins was trying to hurt him."

Well then he's not entitled to use lethal force to defend himself under Arizona law, and he should be charged.

§ 13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another . . . When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

Emphasis added.

If he didn't feel he was in immediate danger or deadly force, he wasn't entitled to use deadly force. Stand you ground laws here are irrelevant. Even under the old law you only had a duty to retreat in public if it was reasonably to do so. Here, the defendant indicates that he didn't feel he was able to retreat, so even under the old law that part of the test for self defense would likely be satisfied. However, the defendant admits he wasn't in immediate danger of deadly force, and therefore can't use deadly force in response.

Artillero: From a literal reading of these laws I don't really see how they condone all of these shootings. The law says that they can use deadly force to protect their lives, if it is obvious that they were not in danger, like in this case. Then the shooter should be charged. I think the bigger problem is corrupt courts and police, not these laws.

Or for a well stated, non legalese, plain english explaination. This.

Smackledorfer: Its much better to shift the point of impact straight up when firing center mass than to miss off to the side.

This is one thing that gets me about people who hold their weapon sideways. That has got to be one of the best ways to miss your target.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Myth busted by Adam and Jamie themselves. Surprisingly, one-arming the pistol upright was actually effective.

I'm saying that holding a weapon sideways increases your chances of missing your target.

Did Adam and Jamie really say that the gansta hold has no impact on accuracy? I'd love a link, if you have it.

eraser8: But, tell me: you seemed awfully confident Zimmerman was the one screaming on the 911 tapes. How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?

He's claiming it and I've seen no reliable evidence to the contrary. I have however seen unreliable evidence to the contrary in the form of so-called experts.

Plus don't forget Zimmerman was charged with Murder 2. The special prosecutor has all the evidence out there. Maybe there's something that voids his claim of self defense they ain't released yet. But the Zimmerman case upsets me because it's a clear example of irony. He was acting all Wyatt Earp (literally, as Earp was wanted for vigilante murders) and that got people up in arms and wanting to lynch him vigilante style. How can you side with mob justice, especially when your perp is cooperating with police at every single turn?

doglover: He's claiming it and I've seen no reliable evidence to the contrary. I have however seen unreliable evidence to the contrary in the form of so-called experts.

It's interesting. You dismiss the experts because they might have an agenda...but, it doesn't occur to you that the killer has a much bigger agenda -- which is keeping himself out of jail.

doglover: How can you side with mob justice, especially when your perp is cooperating with police at every single turn?

When the hell did I side with mob justice? You just pulled that one straight out of your ass.

Keep in mind that while I've been very critical of both Zimmerman and his fan club, I have never called Zimmerman a murderer (although I've called him a killer) nor have I said that he should go to prison. So, if you're going to argue my positions, at least be accurate.

rosebud_the_sled: This is one thing that gets me about people who hold their weapon sideways. That has got to be one of the best ways to miss your target.

That's so they can spin around after the shot and catch the brass behind their back so the last words their victim hears is "Tah dah!"

No one can prove that I laughed heartily at that mental image.