Holy crap, CNN, that is some bad writing. Is that one of those robot-written articles?

No, it takes human brains to write that poorly.

So Adkins was swinging a three foot metal pipe or bat that was never found? It was clever of Adkins to conceal it so well before he died; otherwise, people might think the shooter was a hostile, ill-tempered, loose cannon who just couldn't wait to shoot someone.

Wait. The shooter was in an SUV?

So let me get this straight. The shooter nearly runs over a pedestrian in his SUV and HE is the one who feels threatened? So while sitting in a two ton armored shell that can escape any situation at high speeds he goes ahead and shoots an unarmed dog walker? I got that right?

What a nation of fucking pussies the US has become.

I swear. America. You are an embarrassment.

I've nearly had this happen to me. While crossing North Broadway (in a god damn crosswalk) while walking my dogs I was almost hit by a minivan illegally passing on the right. I yelled at him. He slams on his brakes (nearly causing a pile up behind him) and starts to get out. Like he wants to fight me. For speeding, blowing through a crosswalk, while passing on the right and nearly killing me. But he's offended I yelled at him and wants to fight. Jesus. The only thing I was thinking was you BETTER have god damned gun.

@5 "nation of fucking pussies" - yep.

The more I think about it, I can only conclude that the reason why we have these "Stand Your Ground" laws is because we have millions of armed cowards in this country, and the gun lobby wants those people to have legal protections. The "why" of that escapes me, but I have my theories.

So yeah, you could say that the real problem is cowardice and the fact that powerful political lobbies are willing to go to bat for cowards.

Thank God! He knows all murderer no matter what laws man makes,it does not make its justifiable in God eye-sight the killing over a few words.Remember their's a video camera that man does not see.The All Mighty will do a instant replay on his camera when man stand before him, now go here and try to justify that! you can't.Remember the righteousness of man is not the righteousness of God,no matter what laws man makes and passed God knows the heart.

This is total legalized killing. I'm waiting for the day when two parties will stand their ground on some street somewhere, and make each other's day, and they will shoot innocent bystanders.

And isn't Washington a stand-your-ground state?

Are there paragraphs missing from the post, or has CNN really gotten that bad?

The correct interpretation of the vast majority of "Stand your Ground" style laws is that you are allowed to meet equal force with equal force before retreating. Obviously, the unarmed "air swinger(?)" was not applying anywhere near deadly force, so the shooter should be arrested, as he did apply deadly force, seemingly without ever trying to come to any other solution.

I am waiting for the day someone makes the hand gesture of a gun toward someone and that is reasoned as being a deadly threat, which can be legally met with a real gun. Lawd have mercy.

The man who was murdered as Hispanic, the murderer black. Interesting that no one mentions the racial makeup in this case yet every article about the Zimmerman-Treyvon Martin incident mentions the race of the perp and victim. Why?

as=was

@10: Because there's nothing here to suggest that it was a racial issue.

@10
Personally, I don't care if Trayvon was Black, White or Chinese, nor do I care if Zimmerman was Hispanic, Native American or Russian.

Zimmerman wasn't being attacked; he was in pursuit. The 911 operators told him to back off and let the police take care of the situation. He ignored this advice, and he shot Trayvon Martin. He needs to answer for his actions, and that will be best served in a public trial.

Similarly, in this case, an unarmed pedestrian was killed by an armed man in an SUV. This shooter should also be arrested and brought to trial.

@13: You are missing the part between the initial confrontation and the gunshot when Martin gave Zimmerman a bloody nose and two bloody wounds to the back of his head.

Not even taking a guilty/not guilty side here, but you can not cut out parts of reality because they do not fit with your desired worldview. Why does everyone want to ignore this part of the story? It clearly happened, as the police report mentions the wounds, and there is ample photographic evidence.

At least acknowledge that both individuals were responsible for escalating the situation to some degree.

Because there's nothing here to suggest that it was a racial issue.

Sure. Right now. It could be a synthesis of idiotic conceal carry laws enabling a pathologically violent individual. Or it could be a violent criminal illegally carrying a gun shoot s a guy. That's just framing and the lack of present facts. It "could" be racial. I suppose.

But still it is worth noting how often liberal leaning news outlets will consistently avoid mentioning race when the perpetrator is black. And ironically then eventually that lack of detail becomes code for "black perpetrator." So the silly color blindness in reporting then becomes rather self defeating.

Re: "pussies". As a woman who's been brave enough to live 41 years without a gun, I'd appreciate if you called them cowards. Or fuckwads.

I've asked before and will ask again - why am I not scared when I'm half their size? The cowardice of men who think they need to carry a gun to survive in the wilds of suburbia never ceases to amaze me. I've been mugged, harrassed, menaced but none of it's worth getting a firearm.

@14
Whether there was a bloody nose or wounds to the back of the head is in dispute, but I still hold to my position that if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operators and left the matter to the police, there would not have been a confrontation of any description.

And I also hold that the best way to get at the whole truth is to have a public trial.

@17: No, Zimmerman's wounds are NOT in dispute. That is why they are in the police report and there are several still images and videos proving their existence. Your denial is massive.

And of course if Zimmerman had not been a dumbass and actually listened to the 911 operator, this would not have a happened, but disregarding a 911 operator is not a crime.

Obviously the best way to get at truth is a trial. and I am glad they thought they had enough to prosecute, but just taking pieces of the puzzle and saying they are "disputed" or nonexistent does not do any good. Well, except for protecting frail and unrealistic views I guess.

@18,

Would those be reports written by the same cops who tried to get witnesses to change their statements to exonerate Zimmerman?

I'll wait for the trial, thanks.

Make no mistake, the shooter in this article will go to prison. No weapon? One cannot, under any law in any State in this Country, deem it reasonable to shoot or kill someone that is neither armed, nor near the person, and being inside the car, meant that he wasn't near the person: He will go to prison and no law will change that.

As far as not having to retreat, well, personally, I don't retreat from danger, as a full retreat would require me to turn my back on an attacker, which I would never do. I completely agree with self-defense laws that clarify that you do not need to retreat in the face of danger. It makes perfect sense. Retreating is not always cowardly, and sometimes, it is truly brave, however, to be scared of laws that eliminate a need to retreat in the face of immenent danger, well, that in and of itself, is very cowardly. Nobody should have to retreat from an attack. Anyone willing to meet force with force, provided that they didn't provocate the situation, should not have to retreat in cowardly fashion. A person should be able to use deadly force to save their own, or another person life. If I wake up and someone is burglarizing my house, I would have little choice but to shoot them, as I assume their intent is to kill me or anyone residing in my home. Giving a robber your wallet, or telling a burglar the combo to your safe does not mean that they will not rape and kill you and your loved ones.

Anyone using violence or threats of violence that would kill or cause significant bodily harm to any individual, needs to be stopped, and sometimes shooting someone is the only way to stop them, and sometimes when you shoot someone they die. A person that kills another person that was likely to kill or maim them should not face any criminal charges. Of course, there should be a thorough investigation to determine the facts of the case.

Guns really are not that scary. It's people that are scary, and guns or no guns, people kill, rape, torture and mutilate, and they do not need guns to do so, and people were commiting such heinous acts long before guns were ever invented. Gun control would do nothing to change this.

The United States has continually enjoyed lower and lower murder rates year after year for 3 decades. While Chicago & DC (where they had gun bans) experienced an uptick in murder and other violent crime immediately following the gun bans. The statistics prove that gun bans not only do not work, but in fact, track with an increase in violence.

@20: In such a situation, you are unable to retreat. The point is, most laws currently obligate someone acting in self-defense to at least attempt to defuse the situation without violence, and Stand Your Ground laws remove that obligation.

@19: Everything that contradicts your chosen worldview must be faked, right?

If you have any actual evidence for that claim, feel free to say so, but all you have is hearsay, spoken by uncredited and unnamed individuals.

Why are you even waiting for the trial then if you have already decided the entire system is corrupt and the police are always lying anyway? If the police have already fabricated and suppressed all the evidence (since they would all want to risk their entire careers to protect some random idiot) then why do you have any faith in the trial?

@16 Nah. I'm gonna stick with pussies. It's a word that seems to piss off the pussies more.

1) the Perp was in an SUV
2) the pregnant fiance was with him
3) they were at Taco Bell
4) the Perp habitually carried a .40-calibre gun
What I conclude from this is that the Perp is an utter asshole with no self-restraint, no taste, entitlement issues and a persecution complex.

In the words of the estimable Country Dick Montana, "a pussy is a good thing."