re: #218 Daniel Ballard

I’ll get all the relevant stuff to him, re: #182 Obdicut

One case at a time please.
The first question is do I have a fair read or not on the meaning or limits of “stand your ground”. You say I do not. One attorney says I do. Then we can go from there. I understand you detest this law, and I agree it needs narrowing, perhaps to include demonstrable threat rather than perceived threat.

I meet with him on this tomorrow night, and we’ll have another expert in the meet. Luckily we were getting together at the range anyway. So far we are 3 for 3. Zimmerman took himself beyond the protection of that law, based on two persons reading it. The other expert has agreed Zimmerman is a killer and yet is of the opinion that stand your ground is a necessary law.

That expert is also a self defense trainer for gun owners and police. 3 for 3, Zimmerman should be prosecuted based on media reports etc. I have to wonder now what it is about Florida that tends to interpret the law way too broadly. Maybe when we get to the other cases we can infer that as well.

Is the attorney on the Florida bar? That will matter as this is a law peculiar to that state.