It's also possisble that maybe BOTH sides are right. Maybe GZ unwisely pursued and challenged the kid and the latter, not knowing who this stranger was that was following him and why, felt trapped and decided to defend himself, not realizing the man was armed, so threw a punch--and GZ fired in self-defense. The combinations are endless.

This is a perfect illustration of why this gun law is a particularly dumb one. Knowing when to use or not use a firearm is not a decision that is easily made by someone with no training, and who is disoriented, hesitant or scared to death. And who knows how someone with a gun pointed at him is going to react. He may feel he has no choice but to make a last stand.

I own firearms, I keep then loaded and ready, and I have given this issue a lot of thought. The only guideline I can come up with that I know will serve me well is that I am perfectly justified in shooting to kill at a stranger IN my home. Even if it turns out later he is a ten year old kid pulling a harmless prank. Outside, I am in unknown psychological territory, and I do not know how I will react under stress. I am just as likely to shoot without justification as I am to freeze helplessly when threatened.

Ane in my opinion, anyone who wants to go about armed without a good reason (like taking the day's receipts to the bank)is a thug, just looking for an excuse to shoot someone and get away with it.

I just hope justice is done in this case. And I hope GZ gets a fair trial. Neither may be possible now.