Posted on 04/29/2012 8:12:19 AM PDT by loucon
Laveen, Arizona (CNN) -- Daniel Adkins knew his son would never leave Lady. So when animal control officers showed up at the door with Daniel Jr.'s yellow lab in tow, "I felt like he was calling out to me for help."
Something was definitely wrong.
Adkins and his wife, Antonia, had searched the neighborhood just hours earlier, tracing their missing son's footsteps down two miles of dusty road to a cluster of strip malls. But they didn't make it as far as the Taco Bell. If they had, they would have come across the flashing police lights and the body of Daniel Jr., lying on the asphalt by the drive-thru window, with Lady by his side.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I wonder if there was any video seized from Taco Bell to support the shooter’s assertions that the decedant had a pipe or bat that made him feel that his life was in danger?
If anything comes of this, watch the shooter change his story to that of the dog growled at him menacingly.
No weapon was found. Shot because he screamed at someone and air punched.
Sounds a little iffy.
No weapon was found. Shot because he screamed at someone and air punched.
Sounds a little iffy.
I think this article gives us a lot to think about. I hope none of us is ever in a situation where we have to make a life or death decision...but we never know what lies ahead.........
“And that’s really the key issue raised by this sweeping change in the nation’s gun laws: Where should the line be drawn?”
I don’t see this as a change in the nation’s gun laws. You can stand your ground unarmed if indicated.
When liberals don’t like a truth that might ‘sneak out’ they work to ‘complicate’ an issue. It’s another way to lie.
where’s the bat or pipe
the shooter is a liar
Notice that the shooter will not be identified but they had no problem giving Zimerman's name when they thought he was white.
The mixture of self defense, castle doctrine, and stand your ground cases is designed to sabotage a necessary law.
No law is a perfect fit for all cases, likely very few textbook cases actually occur. The law is designed to fit in principle and requires judgment to administer.
Overall, stats show that cops are six times more likely to kill an innocent person than civilians using firearms for self defense, and that crime is highest and most seriously violent in states and cities that have strict gun control, while lowest in states with mandatory "shall issue" CCW gun permits.
Civilization was built on the control and elimination of the criminal and maniac, and it will be destroyed by the protection, coddling and growth of the same.
I think we’re in a transition period and these types of things will be happening for a while. We currently have a society that believes they can do anything they want with no consequences. They have no respect for other peoples’ property. You can tell by the rudeness of people (especially in internet comments) that they have few social skills and are unable to resolve confrontations peacefully.
As time goes on and more people get shot or killed being where they’re not supposed to be or acting in a way they shouldn’t be acting, it will have a tendency to change society’s behavior. The axiom “An armed society is a polite society” will start to sink in.
The story is getting a lot of attention at CNN judging by the 360+ comments.
It was a bit of a jumble. 2 of the cases happened INSIDE people’s homes, so that’s different. No, it is not OK for “kids” to break into a person’s home to steal snacks. I think the guy at the drive through seems to have over reacted. He wasn’t willing to risk running over the dog, but he shot the guy dead? How about backing up?
You know, life stinks and sometimes bad things happen and mistakes are made.
Only crazy liberals think that the law, or the gov’t, or their own “pure” motives can change that.
An absolute truism, and I believe, one of the reasons for the right to a jury of our peers, not a enlightened, elite, judge or progressive, egalitarian prosecutor.
This part about juries indicated peer wisdom to me:
A jury deliberated three hours before acquitting Gonzales. He spoke in Spanish to reporters after the trial, saying that at the end of the day it was his life or the boy's.
The verdict shocked Druker. He needed to know why the jury agreed to acquit. He spoke to the jurors officially, and then again afterward when he saw them around town. He said he always heard the same answer: They feared losing the right to protect their own homes.
"They said, at the end of the day we can't let these kids think they can come into our house and do that," he recalled. "It was sending out a statement."
As time goes on and more people get shot or killed being where theyre not supposed to be or acting in a way they shouldnt be acting, it will have a tendency to change societys behavior.
Yep, and the leftists will always use "feelings" to attack these policy laws, they would sacrifice civilization for one sympathetic perp, every time.
The 2nd Amendment is absolute, but people have an obligation to use that right responsibly. If people use it recklessly, we could lose it.
Not very absolute then, unless the definition of absolute has been changed.
Actually, there is no THICKER line between the two.
This cr@p makes me sick. Idiots.
If people assert their 2nd. Amendment rights in a reckless way, they discredit that right by undermining the public’s support for it. The Constitution stands to the degree that it still does because the public believes in it.
One of the things I liked about the Perry Mason novels was that Perry Mason often had clients who lied to him.
This story tends to assume what the family of the ‘victim’ says is true.
I’m waiving the BS flag. For example, in the Arizona case, CNN says:
“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.”
Arizona law says:
“A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. 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.”
You cannot legally use deadly force in Arizona unless you believe the other person may be about to use deadly force.
Since the guy hasn’t been charged, either the DA believes he was in significant danger, or there is simply no evidence to use against him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.