Daniel Adkins case

[Draca]

Daniel Adkins - shot dead at Taco Bell

Arizona's law
MAKE MY DAY
Trigger-happy shooter not arrested yet

The confrontation that would catapult two more families into the middle of the lethal force debate began as the sun dipped below the horizon in Laveen, Arizona, a suburb southwest of Phoenix.

It was April 3 -- 37 days after Martin's death in Florida. Daniel Adkins Jr. walked past Taco Bell's drive-thru just as a 22-year-old man pulled around in his SUV to pick up his order. Sitting in the passenger seat was his pregnant fiancée.

CNN is withholding the shooter's name because he has not been charged with a crime. A police report describes how the deadly confrontation unfolded.

<SNIP>

He said witnesses at the scene told him that Adkins "went beserk" on his son, raising his hands and yelling: "What the hell, you almost hit me" and to "watch where the **** you're going."

As the shooter's father recounted the events of that night, Adkins' family sat together in their living room a few blocks away, searching for answers. They believe their son was the victim of a trigger-happy young man.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/?hpt=hp_c1

Edited by Locknar: 

<SNIP>'ed, breach of rule 4, rule 10.

 

[Tatyana]

Holy crap, that is a steep price to pay for a bit of road rage (if he really had road rage).

That really sucks.

 

[WildCat]

Trigger-happy shooter not arrested

Which doesn't mean he isn't under investigation, and won't be arrested at some future date. In fact, from your article: "Police turned over their findings to the district attorney's office. Prosecutors have sent it back for further investigation."

 

[Draca]

Which doesn't mean he isn't under investigation, and won't be arrested at some future date. In fact, from your article: "Police turned over their findings to the district attorney's office. Prosecutors have sent it back for further investigation."

It's been more than at month without an arrest. I hope that happens soon.

 

[sgtbaker]

I remember reading in one of the original stories that the shooter and his girlfriend mistook the leash for a weapon.

At first, the couple claimed that Adkins had a metal pipe that he swung at them -- but it turns out he was holding a dog leash with his yellow lab on the other end.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/new...-victim-was-holding-leash-not-weapon-4-4-2012

That may cause problems with the case because they could have reasonably been in fear for their safety (they did say they didn't think he was going to kill them). I am just surprised that no one is making speeches on the house floor holding a leash.

 

[Draca]

I remember reading in one of the original stories that the shooter and his girlfriend mistook the leash for a weapon.

That may cause problems with the case because they could have reasonably been in fear for their safety (they did say they didn't think he was going to kill them). I am just surprised that no one is making speeches on the house floor holding a leash.

I have a hard time believing someone could mistake a leash for "a 3-foot metal pipe or bat".

Not looking carefully or lying?

I don't think feeling threatened because 'I didn't look carefully enough' is much of a defense for taking Daniel Adkins life.

If the shooter can't tell the difference between a leash and metal pipe or bat he shouldn't have been carrying a gun.

As a friend of mine recently said "macho ****-heads walking around with guns should be illegal" or something similar to that. :/

 

[lionking]

I remember reading in one of the original stories that the shooter and his girlfriend mistook the leash for a weapon.



That may cause problems with the case because they could have reasonably been in fear for their safety (they did say they didn't think he was going to kill them). I am just surprised that no one is making speeches on the house floor holding a leash.

If this is a defence at all, it shows the Stand your Ground legislation to be ridiculous beyond words. A leash can be mistaken for a weapon? What's next, a newspaper? A handkerchief? Let's hope this idiot is arrested soon.

 

[Beerina]

Does this have anything to do with stand your ground?

 

[Lowpro]

The shooter used deadly force and it wasn't necessary. There should be an arrest.

 

[Draca]

There's a petition going for this case:

Justice For Daniel Adkins
http://www.change.org/petitions/justice-for-daniel-adkins

My cousin Daniel Adkins was shot & killed on April 3,2012 during a heated argument, no physical force was used, my cousin was unarmed! This shooter chose to do so without regard to human life. Only after all options have been exonerated should deadly force be used & definetly not on a unarmed person. Daniel's shooter had choices he chose not to use, we are asking for justice for Daniel Adkins in the apprehension of his shooter, please help us in doing so,,,,the Adkins Family,,,Justice For Daniel!

 

[Lucian]

If this is a defence at all, it shows the Stand your Ground legislation to be ridiculous beyond words. A leash can be mistaken for a weapon? What's next, a newspaper? A handkerchief? Let's hope this idiot is arrested soon.

And it's not as if he didn't see the dog--he said he couldn't get away from Adkins because the dog was in the way. So, you see a guy walking a dog; he has something in his hand. The logical conclusion is...it must be a metal pipe or a bat?

 

[Lowpro]

And it's not as if he didn't see the dog--he said he couldn't get away from Adkins because the dog was in the way. So, you see a guy walking a dog; he has something in his hand. The logical conclusion is...it must be a metal pipe or a bat?

The shooter is probably lying and trying to weasel out of the fact that he shot an unarmed man during a heated argument.

 

[crimresearch]

In most cases like this it would be worthwhile to note the 'reasonableness' factor of a jury determining if a leash is a threat justifying deadly force.

But this is Arizona...

 

[rwguinn]

In most cases like this it would be worthwhile to note the 'reasonableness' factor of a jury determining if a leash is a threat justifying deadly force.

But this is Arizona...

I'm sorry, but an SUV will whip even a 3' metal pipe, let alone a fabric (leather or nylon) leash. Guns are not necessary. If you feel threatened or in danger, PUNCH IT, idiot!

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm sorry, but an SUV will whip even a 3' metal pipe, let alone a fabric (leather or nylon) leash. Guns are not necessary. If you feel threatened or in danger, PUNCH IT, idiot!

"Officer, some guy in an SUV yelled at me! I felt threatened, so I shot him through the forehead. It was self-defense."

 

[sgtbaker]

I have a hard time believing someone could mistake a leash for "a 3-foot metal pipe or bat".

Not looking carefully or lying?

I don't think feeling threatened because 'I didn't look carefully enough' is much of a defense for taking Daniel Adkins life.

If the shooter can't tell the difference between a leash and metal pipe or bat he shouldn't have been carrying a gun.

As a friend of mine recently said "macho ****-heads walking around with guns should be illegal" or something similar to that. :/

It can't be that cut and dry or they would have made an arrest, by now. In the article I linked, the police didn't seem so eager to let it drop.

 

[pipelineaudio]

In most cases like this it would be worthwhile to note the 'reasonableness' factor of a jury determining if a leash is a threat justifying deadly force.

But this is Arizona...

Yeah them evil arizonans, with totally lax gun laws yet have a murder right so low compared to those educated places

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh, poor dog.

 

[crimresearch]

Yeah them evil arizonans, with totally lax gun laws yet have a murder right so low compared to those educated places

So Arizona has a right to murder now? Well, that alone would explain the drop in crime, if no can be arrested for it.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah them evil arizonans, with totally lax gun laws yet have a murder right so low compared to those educated places

Sixth highest murder rate in the country, as of 2010.