Steve, you'e just digging yourself deeper. For example, you wrote...
Right, not only was his conviction overturned by the AZ Court of appeals, it sparked the AZ legislators to pass new legislation.
Legislation that that expands the rights of citizens to use lethal force when attacked and requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal defendant was not acting in self-defense in order to get a conviction.
Case law.
...which clearly shows you don't understand the huge difference between actual black letter law emanating from a state legislature, and case law determined by a court of appeals.
You have said here that the Alvarez case was not a self-defense shooting complicated by an allegation of an improperly modified gun, yet the jury's acquittal shows that the evidence they saw in eight or nine weeks of trial convinced them it was indeed self-defense. Anyone who actually takes the time to read the 102-page excerpt from "Black's Law" in which the great Roy Black, lead defense counsel for Alvarez, discusses the case can see that he combination of the "cocked to hair trigger" element and "lightened trigger return spring element" was a critical part of the state's case against the officer. Bruce M was kind enough to post the link here,
http://www.royblack.com/files/Alvarez.pdf . For those who don't have time to read it, on Page 36 at that link Roy first makes reference to the state's BS allegations in that regard, he goes into more detail on Page 62, and on Page 83 quotes prosecutor Abe Laeser's final argument to the jury where Laeser made reference to the gun being modified "to become the most lethal machine for killing that a police officer is allowed to carry."
And you say it wasn't an issue? Who do you think you're kidding?
In a more recent post in this thread, you claim that since there was testimony that the death weapon was within factory spec, it wasn't an issue. This is "disingenuous at best," and frankly appears to be a deliberate mischaracterization of the testimony, since you fail to mention that the testimony was elicited BY THE DEFENSE: by Roy Black's superb co-counsel Mark Seiden on cross-examination of the state's expert, and by Mark in direct testimony from those of us called to speak on Officer Alvarez' behalf.
The very fact that the cross examination of the state's expert was necessary, as was the testimony of the witnesses the defense had to call, is obvious proof positive that the "hair trigger/modified gun issue" was indeed a cornerstone of the state's case.
Your commentary on the 10mm/hollow point issue in
Arizona v. Fish is laughable. Anyone familiar with my work would know that I've repeatedly invoked this case and told good people how to beat those attacks (too bad Fish's defense lawyer wasn't familiar with that, since he did not effectively refute it, resulting in Fish's conviction, which in my opinion was a wrongful one).
Steve, I'll say it again: you literally don't know what you're talking about. You've compounded it by deliberately giving false impressions to the readers at GT. Whether it's from ignorance, cluelessness, or intent to lie is something only you can answer -- but that fact that you have grossly misinterpreted the reality of these cases is clear to anyone who does their due diligence and researches the documented facts. You know, like Bruce M did -- for which I thank him publicly.