The second case where the one guy shot the other guy in the back of the head while climbing back out the water should have been murder in my opinion.

The others, probably not.

"Stand Your Ground" is interesting because it covers situations away from your home. I tend to think that could cause a lot of problems. The article poses the question if the whole courtroom process should be skipped under this law, and I think the answer is no because there could be a lot of grey areas, and each case is unique.

We have the "Castle Doctrine" here in PA now the governor recently signed it into law, and I support that.

Bubba you are correct in saying you can't make a decision because you weren't there and neither can I. Most of the time it took weeks of investigation to determine what happened and who was at fault and alot of time it wasn't who I thought it was at first. I too prayed that during my career I didn't have to take anyones' life, even though I trained endlessly to do just that. As I have said before the reason for training for CC permit holders is not how to shoot but when to shoot. This is the biggest decision that a person will ever have to make in their life and even if they are right it will change their life forever.

I see no problem with the law per se. Sure some individuals will push the envelope and try to use the law to get away with murder. If one reads the three scenarios above one can read between the lines.
Judy Mohlman admitted her so "wasn't perfect" which to me translates into him having a prior record of crimes or possibly the guy was a dirtbag.
The "he tried to drown me case" should have gone to court. The decedent was shot in the back of the head which means he was moving away from the victim. In my state one is permitted to use force up to and including deadly force if a person has a "reasonable" belief that their life/property may be in danger. Only sufficient force to break off the attack however is justified. If the assailant breaks off the attack and flees, one cannot chase him/her down and kill them. It becomes the responsibility of law enforcement to apprehend the suspect.
This law is based on many other "reasonable belief" laws already on the books in many states.
These laws are the reason that if one robs a bank with a water pistol that "looks" like a real pistol, then one is still charged with armed robbery and use of a firearm because the bank teller "reasonably" believed it was a real gun. Central to these laws are the theme that the suspect is charged based upon the perception of the victim. If you put your finger in your coat pocket and accost a person, you will be charged with kidnapping and gunpoint because your victim believed your finger in your pocket was a real gun.
In a perfect world, a good judge and a reasonably intelligent jury should be able to sort through the facts of such a case and render a fair verdict.
Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world therefore we err on the side of self defense. Sooner or later the word will get out among the criminal element that you could be killed trying to pull off some illegal activity and hopefully the crime rate will decrease.

I was mugged several years ago by a doped-up-nut. You can't tell what they might do. I wish we could pack here in IL.
The bottom line is I don't to become a statistic.

Well I think you should have a complete visual of your TARGET OR ITS NOT WORTH SHOOTING AT. i HEARD A STORY of a guy who was hunting and got shot from a guy who thought he was a deer. Be careful out there because there are some people who ar not.