Reuters: Man Lives to Tell of Florida 'Shoot First' Horror

[Hissyspit]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82M19V20120324?irpc=932

Man lives to tell of Florida "Shoot First" horror

By Tom Brown
Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:13pm EDT

MIAMI (Reuters) - On June 5, 2006, not long after Florida enacted the first "Stand Your Ground" law in the United States, unarmed Jason Rosenbloom was shot in the stomach and chest by his next-door neighbor after a shouting match over trash.

Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute. Kenneth Allen, a retired police officer, said he shot Rosenbloom because he was trying to storm into his house.

Rosenbloom told Reuters in a telephone interview this week he never tried to enter the house and was in Allen's yard, about 10 feet from his front door, when he was shot moments after he put his hands up.

Now living in Hawaii, Rosenbloom said he had been unaware of the growing outrage over last month's shooting in Sanford, Florida, of an unarmed black teenager by a neighborhood watch captain.

MORE[p]

[Cali_Democrat]

1. You've gotta be kidding me

- Not long after Florida enacted the first "Stand Your Ground" law in the United States, unarmed Jason Rosenbloom was shot in the stomach and chest by his next-door neighbor after a shouting match over trash.

- about 10 feet from his front door, when he was shot moments after he put his hands up.

- Allen was found to have acted in self-defense when he pumped two rounds into Rosenbloom with his 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

- "He meant for me to be dead and he never called 911," said Rosenbloom

- Allen, now 65, bent over him and using an expletive, warned him not to tangle "with an ex-cop" as he lay bleeding on the ground.

- Allen, contacted by phone in rural Georgia, said on Thursday he had "no regrets" about shooting Rosenbloom, describing him as a "little punk" who was "lucky to be alive."

Unreal.

[noiretextatique]

3. aka legalized murder

plain and simple. almost typed palin and simple....same thing. thank goodness this man survived.

[Hugabear]

2. Self defense is in the eyes of the survivor

That is the problem with these laws.

[JDPriestly]

4. Well said, Hugabear.

Although, as I read the law, the person citing the justification defense of self-defense should still have to prove that his belief in a threat was reasonable. I don't see how they avoid a jury if reasonableness is an element in the law.

[caseymoz]

7. There's a hidden part of the law.

You probably haven't seen this part of it because it's actually in a different statute, but one altered by the same SYG bill:

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force... (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

So, what happened? The cop at the scene determined there was no probable cause to make an arrest, that Zimmerman did follow the letter of the law. Now Zimmerman is immune from both arrest and prosecution. Unfortunately, the law gives no provision to reconsidering or reversing this. Without charging Zimmerman first, I don't even know if such a hearing of that type exists in the legal system. Zimmerman can't have a defense attorney there because he will not have been charged. That alone would probably make the attempt improper.

In other words, the cop at the scene has already dismissed any case against Zimmerman. I doubt he will even be arrested at this point. I feel so sorry Martin's parents.

It's a terrible law because a homicide is a big thing, justifiable or not. I could see a law allowing self-defense more leeway in court, but I can't see one excusing them from any inconvenience, which is what this does.

[JDPriestly]

8. Thank you. That was not in the statutes I read.

This law makes no sense at all.

It gives the killer the authority to determine whether his use of force was reasonable. Then it ties the hands of the police.

It deprives a victim's family of any recourse. Horrors!

This makes utterly no sense from a legal point of view in my opinion.

How could any governor sign such a law? A governor who has no respect for the law. A governor who has not studied the law and does not understand how it works.

Jeb Bush is an ignorant fool if he signed such a law.

This law substitutes the opinion of the killer and of the police for the determination of the facts that a jury must make if there is to be justice.

This law institutionalizes lawlessness. It promotes fascism by permitting the legality of the use of force to be determined by the toughest, by whoever survives a fight, by the best armed, by the biggest -- and not by a jury of peers.

[caseymoz]

12. Not just JB. What about ALEC, who wrote it?

And the legislators who voted for it. And the NRA who campaigned for it? Prosecutors and police chiefs all over the state told them things like this would happen. They arrogantly ignored them. The governor has now a task force, just to find a way to arrest Zimmerman and put together a case given this law. Mark my word, the task force is actually assigned to look busy and procrastinate until after Election Day, because this legislative malpractice is a major scandal for the GOP and a set back for the gun lobby. The week after the election, we'll hear they have no case.

I agree with you on everything you've said on it.

The better gunrighters, the ones not like Zimmerman are now in denial that the good intentions of the law could have led to something so wrong. This law is an example of ideology undercutting intentions. It's supposed to be a way of fighting crime, not a way of bringing criminals out of the woodwork and giving them a loophole. There's a practical reason to make justifiable homicide the last resort: because if it isn't the last resort, which resort should it be? What type of person wouldn't rather run away from homicide rather than commit one, justifiable or not?

[Baitball Blogger]

22. kick

[JDPriestly]

41. Excellent comment.

[iverglas]

15. I'm going to keep quoting myself

These laws have been talked about in the Guns forum since Florida started the whole thing. I have tried since the beginning to get the fans to acknowledge what they really say. Some of them, I think are truly incapable of grasping it. And it's not actually simple.

Eventually I encountered a publication in a Harvard student law journal that went into it all in great detail. I quoted from it extensively here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237

The "castle doctrine" aspect (and I can barely bring myself to type those words, over and over, because these ugly laws have nothing to do with the real castle doctrine) includes an irrebuttable presumption that a householder who reasonably believes that someone has forcibly or unlawfully entered their home has a reasonable fear of death or injury. The person in question could be a 10-year-old who broke in a basement window, drank the contents of the liquor cabinet and fell asleep. The householder could establish their reasonable belief about the unlawful entry, and then could not be prosecuted for using force against the "intruder", even to the point of causing death.

According to the Senate Committee Report, this presumption is irrebuttable.(20) Therefore, a court will not entertain arguments showing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Rather, a court will direct a jury that if they find the basic fact, that the victim was unlawfully in the actor’s dwelling or vehicle, to be proven, then they must find the presumed fact that the actor had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily injury. This finding in turn justifies the use of deadly force, regardless of the circumstances.

(20) Fla. S. Rep. No. 107-436, 6pt. III, at 6 (2005) (Judiciary Rep.) (“Legal presumptions are typically rebuttable. The presumptions created by the committee substitute, however, appear to be conclusive.”). Accord Fla. H.R. Rep. No. 107-249 (2005) pt. B, at 4 (Judiciary Rep.) (“A person is presumed, rather than having the burden to prove, to have a reasonable fear.”).

The laws are legal garbage, and have been described as such by judges and legal experts, repeatedly.



typo

[X_Digger]

20. Stand Your Ground doesn't include a change in presumption.

I know you have it on copy/paste macro, but since we're not talking about 'a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle'.

[iverglas]

36. I was replying to a post

You might want to read it.

[JDPriestly]

40. Thanks.

[X_Digger]

19. It says the police have to have probable cause that the use of force wasn't reasonable.

Which is standard. Police can't arrest a person just because they feel like it. The new portion is the civil immunity.

[caseymoz]

24. If "standard" why is it repeated here, then?

You're saying everybody knows nothing's different here, but they decided to put mention probable cause anyway? No, if it's a simple reminder of what authorities always do anyway, they don't write it into the law.

What's really different is the word "immunity" coupled with "probable cause." Probable cause usually applies only to arrest and search at the immediate crime scene. But when you add the word "immunity" to it and then spread this over arrest, prosecution and civil action, it becomes absolution determined by the cop in charge of the initial investigation. Then you add to that the old tradition of "presumption of innocence" and there's no way to take this immunity away without charging him, which is now impossible due to the immunity.

If you ask me, the whole law looks like an eighteen-hole golf course for defense attorneys and a maze for prosecutors. Even if I'm wrong, there are so many ways here to put successful prosecution in severe doubt. More doubt than prosecutors usually want to handle.

[X_Digger]

28. It's redundant yes.. what, you think prosecution can happen without probable cause!?!

Incident -> Police response -> DA/State's Attorney -> Grand Jury/Indictment -> Trial -> Verdict

At any and every step in that process (save verdict, I suppose), a defendant can either assert or a body can find that there's no probable cause, and action can halt. Whether that's a habeas claim if the defendant is being held, a DA refusing to indict, a grand jury sending a 'no true bill', a motion to dismiss being granted by a trial judge..

That's black letter law, no matter if this statute repeats it. There are other sections of Florida law that mentions probable cause redundantly. Hell, all states' codes have redundant language, which sometimes is a problem when a legislature 'misses' one section when a revision is made.

[caseymoz]

30. Yes, but once probable cause is vacated

. . . . it's impossible to reinstate it, at any stage above arrest. Normally, there is recourse after the initial investigation. The language isn't just redundant in this instance.

Of course, you don't have to believe me. Just watch. Zimmerman will walk. When he does, there will be no doubt SYG will be the reason. The task force the governor has appointed is just to delay the inevitable.

[X_Digger]

33. Depends at what level and if jeopardy is attached.

If a case is dismissed without leave to retry, then yes, double jeopardy means no new trial.

There's nothing stopping the investigation, or an arrest given probable cause.

[div class='excerpt']1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force

They arrest him on murder 2 or manslaughter and say that the use of force does not meet the standards set out in section 776.013.

If the defense does not apply, then there's no immunity or bar to prosecution.

Yeah, it's legalese, but it's not calculus.

[caseymoz]

34. I haven't even gone into the "as permitted in . . ." part.

You might think twice about putting it in bold as though it makes your argument final. It actually hinders the case, or even the investigation of Zimmerman even more. Here's the text:

(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)?The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)?The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)?The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)?A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)?“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)?“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

First, take 2(a). Did this shooting happen on somebody other than Martin's property? Probably it happened on a neighbor's lawn. So, Martin, even having been chased there, is in a place he shouldn't be. Might Zimmerman argue that he thought that Martin was an imminent threat to that neighbor? Did anybody see Zimmerman chase Martin on to private property? But this doesn't matter so much compared to what's below.

2(c) Was Zimmerman engaged in illegal activity simply by chasing Martin, or doing a neighborhood watch? Assuming he didn't commit battery against Martin first, no, he wasn't. So he's still qualified for immunity.

And let's also look at 3: Zimmerman wasn't engaged in illegal activity, or arguably, had no criminal intent, because he called 911, and said the Martin was a threat. So, however badly he judged it, he gave his motive there as being self-defense, or defense of the neighbor. It's apparent he thought the law was on his side and he told the dispatcher he was going to pursue. Do we know he had the intention to shoot Martin then? No we don't. But he said he thought there was a threat.

Zimmerman says Martin attacked him, and a witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman hitting him prior to the shot. This makes me think Zimmerman was either very lucky, or deliberately conformed his actions to the provisions of the SYG law. The latter is a strong possibility. Now a hearing is necessary just to find out if they can revoke immunity. However, there's a presumption of innocence, so now that he's now immune, how do you do this? Does he get a defense when he hasn't even been charged?

He might not be clearly innocent, but there's enough doubt raised by the provisions of SYG that summary dismissal is likely at every stage.

It looks like no prosecutor wants to touch this case. The Seminole County prosecutor took one look at this case and ran for the hills. They finally found one to assign the case to. I guess she drew the short straw. Why did the governor feel the need to appoint a task force? Have you ever heard of this with a homicide that wasn't a grand mystery, like the Kennedy assassination? If it's not because Zimmerman is so well protected by this law, then why?

For defense attorneys, this law is a miniature golf course with twice as many holes. You think that it works against Zimmerman, it doesn't. It will enable Zimmerman to walk.

[X_Digger]

35. (1) and (2) don't apply- those are castle doctrine -- we're not talking about..

"a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle"


(3) is correctly your focus.

Just because Zimmerman articulates why he thinks he wasn't breaking the law (he called 911) doesn't mean that he actually wasn't. I don't know enough about FL stalking / harrassment statutes and whether or not his repeated instances of following people would qualify.

I think it highly unlikely that Marin would initiate the physical confrontation. From everything we've heard on Zimmerman's own 911 tape, to the statement from Martin's girlfriend- there is no reason to believe that Martin *started* a physical confrontation.

The police can arrest him if they can go before a judge and say, "Your honor, we believe G.Zimmerman, of such and such address maliciously attacked and shot T.Martin of such and such address on or about the night of blah blah. Our probable cause to believe that G.Zimmerman does not meet the criteria set out in Florida section 776.013(3) is that we have evidence that G.Zimmerman was the aggressor, and by Florida section 776.041, cannot avail himself of the immunity set forth in Florida section 776.012. Evidence follows.."

Simple as that.

As to all the wrangling, special prosecutors, etc? Hand waving to try to calm emotions. Political theater. The governor wants to keep his job, be seen 'doing something', and here, have a button for my re-election campaign.

Never be surprised when a politician sees which way the wind is blowing and gets behind it pretending to push.

[caseymoz]

37. We'll see.

I've still never heard of a task force over a simple criminal case in an election year, nor have I ever heard of a governor talking about getting a special prosecutor for a case outside the government. I've also never heard of a prosecutor just looking at a case and refusing it, mumbling something vague about his "conflict of interest." Usually he'll tell you the specific reason and at least reporters won't be mystified. And what ever happened to that Grand Jury investigation they were talking about? Seems to have died. What do they say about prosecutors and ham sandwiches?

If they thought they could take the probable cause to the court to gain an arrest, they would have done so long before this. You think the court is going to procrastinate having that hearing given this shitstorm?

Forget a task force to gain votes for the governor. There's only one thing in an election year that would please the electorate: an arrest. A prosecution. They wouldn't have to calm any emotions with bullshit if they could do that. If the governor has to look like he's doing something, it's likely because there's nothing anybody in the executive branch, in the whole government, can really do about this.

You have an answer for everything. I think it's just you've got too much rose tint in your glasses, but maybe you'll end up being right despite what I see in the text, despite the total inaction and dodginess among officials, and despite the fact that prosecutors and police chiefs, warned the legislature that things like this would happen if SYG became law.

I'm already disappointed, but there's a remote chance that I'll pleased by justice being done. You, on the other hand have a long way to fall. You'll obviously avoid it anyway by coming up with any explanation but SYG. No way could something with such great intentions, and a good pro-gun ideology, have such a terrible real world outcome. And to think liberals used to be considered the naive, idealistic ones. Maybe it was an altogether different quality: denial.

We'll see.

[X_Digger]

38. I'm optomistic, yes.

I have faith that even with a (ostensibly) corrupt PD department with a history of racism, justice can be served.

I would prefer a delayed but strong case, rather than a quick case that doesn't get him convicted, and then double jeopardy means we *never* get justice.

[JDPriestly]

44. You have a problem here.

Did this shooting happen on somebody other than Martin's property? Probably it happened on a neighbor's lawn. So, Martin, even having been chased there, is in a place he shouldn't be.

Trayvon was a guest at the housing development. In Zimmerman's call to 911, Zimmerman describes Trayvon as looking around at the houses. Sounds to me like Trayvon was trying to find the house to which he was legally on his way. Zimmerman states that he is near the clubhouse at the beginning of the call. He describes Trayvon as coming toward him and then running toward the back entrance of the development. By Zimmerman's own admission, Trayvon was running away from Zimmerman. And if you look at a map of the locations, you will see that Trayvon was half-way between the clubhouse which Zimmerman identified as near his location at the beginning of his 911 call and the house to which Trayvon was headed.

So, Trayvon was in a place in which he had a legal right to be. Trayvon was, according to Zimmerman' statement in his call to the police -- which is an admisstion -- running away from Zimmerman shortly before Zimmerman shot him.

Anything Zimmerman said to the police after call is self-serving and suspect. That is true of all suspects, all defendants. What Zimmerman said in the 911 call is what can be trusted.

Your initial assumption is wrong and therefore your argument is utterly flawed and wrong.

[caseymoz]

50. Maybe that point isn't demonstrated.

And I did say probably.

You still have #3, the fact that there's a struggle, and the fact that Zimmerman's call demonstrates an absence of criminal intent, if a huge share of horrific bad judgment (somebody sold this guy a gun?)

Once in the struggle, did he think Martin was a criminal? Did he feel he was in a fight for his life? Then there's the mystery of the police report. What do the police say that they found, what do witnesses say?

I can't see, in the end, that a Florida jury is going to vote for conviction. There's going to be at least two who are confused enough about the provisions of the law that they'll hang it. It gums up the prosecution of the case just enough.

[JDPriestly]

51. A jury could find intent in some of this statements during the call.

Like "They always get away."

Why is someone on Neighborhood Watch carrying a gun anyway? It is asking for trouble. And why is he doing Neighborhood Watch duty all alone? Much would depend on the testimony of the eye witnesses.

Even if there is no conviction, there should have been a thorough investigation with forensic tests on Zimmerman as well as on Trayvon. The area should have been thoroughly searched. Many have noted that the hands of the victim and the killer should have been examined. Zimmerman's alleged injuries also should have been examined right then and there, photographed, etc.

It may be that the police are just not talking about their investigation, but the stand and defend law -- or whatever it is called -- is completely incompatible with the rest of our law. For example, first year law students learn the test for reasonableness inside and out. This law assumes that instead of applying a legal test to determine the reasonableness of a murder, the murderer is permitted to just declare himself innocent and shoot.

Horrors.

Sets centuries of progress in our law back.

[JDPriestly]

42. The problem is that people who think like animals and want to kill

understand the law as a license to kill anyone who steps on their toes or happens to get in their way and object. This law is a disaster waiting to happen -- and the disaster has happened.

[X_Digger]

45. As I said in another reply, people who think like animals and want to kill..

.. won't let a law stop them.

They'll simply change their defense.

[JDPriestly]

47. But they will have to go to court and face a jury which Zimmerman needs to do.

[X_Digger]

49. There's nothing in the law stopping them from arresting him right now.

The cops *always* *always* *always* *always* *always* have to have probable cause to make an arrest..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Before 'Stand your Ground', cops *still* had to have probable cause before arresting someone.

eta:

Sorry if I'm being snarky, but I'm frustrated with people who don't seem to understand how our legal system works.

Yes, there's a grand jury scheduled for April 10. That'll be the next step, assuming some new evidence doesn't come to light that tends to implicate Zimmerman even further.

[JDPriestly]

52. Yes. I agree, but apparently there have been few convictions

and many decisions to forgo even a trial since this law was passed.

[JDPriestly]

39. But as in this situation, this law makes people like Zimmerman feel empowered

to take the law in their own hands. Zimmerman was not attacked while walking down the street minding his own business. Zimmerman had a gun and was looking for an excuse to kill someone. Or at least that is one assumption that can be made based on the facts we know.

During the call to 911, the police told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon. But if you look at the map of the location of the clubhouse where Zimmerman said he was when he called and the location of the murder, you will see that Zimmerman went looking for trouble.

[X_Digger]

43. People inclined to go looking for trouble aren't going to let a law get in their way.

Zimmerman would have simply told a different story, absent SYG.

If Zimmerman had a duty to retreat (pre-SYG), we would have heard, "I tried to get away, but I couldn't safely do so."

That sound familiar? It's basically the story that Zimmerman is *already* telling.

[JDPriestly]

46. No matter what he said after the shooting, he admitted in his call to 911

that Trayvon was running away from him. When we look at the map, we see that Trayvon was running toward the house in which he was a guest.

The 911 call is strong evidence that Zimmerman was following Trayvon and that Trayvon was legally within the housing project.

[X_Digger]

48. I agree.

I don't think even Zimmerman disputes that at this point.

It's the part that's not on any 911 tapes that'll be the crux.

What happened after Zimmerman hung up, and after Zimmerman approached Martin, demanding something like "What are you doing here?" (as relayed by Martin's girlfriend.)

Martin's call to her ended at that point- why we don't know. One thread here points to an article that Martin may have called 911 (which would have gone to a different 911 center because cell phones don't reach out to the nearest 911.)

If evidence shows that Zimmerman grabbed, detained, tackled, or attacked Martin, he'll be going away for a long time.

[JDPriestly]

53. Agreed.

[liberalhistorian]

10. No CIVIL recourse either?

Are you fucking kidding me? So the family of a dead victim has NO recourse whatso-freaking-ever? And a surviving victim has no recourse for compensation for medical costs and lost wages? And the way I read it, anyone can shoot anyone else and claim it was "self-defense" no matter what the true circumstances, and they'll be just fine and dandy? Holy shit, even for this country, I just can't wrap my head around that horseshit. Goddamn gun nuts are gonna kill us all.

[caseymoz]

11. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my reading of it.

The main part of the statute does give a lot of stipulations on what constitutes self-defense, here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=448082

However, it looks to me like Zimmerman is either extremely lucky or knew exactly what he had to do to follow the letter of the law, and he executed well enough to gum up any prosecution. I mean, he called 911 and expressed the fact that he felt threatened. You can't prove that Zimmerman was involved in any illegal activity when this started. If he struggled with Martin on a neighbor's property, Martin was in a place he shouldn't have been. (Then again, neither should Zimmerman, but he's alive to tell his side of the story while Martin isn't). Instead of, say, shooting Martin in the back, he grappled with him first, and probably let him "win" (Martin was only half his weight and 3/4 of his size) so he could then say he feared for his life when he shot the kid.

I don't know if it went like that, but I presume Zimmerman, who was apparently obsessed with guns and policing, knew about this law, and might have thought through exactly what he would do in a situation like this.

If I'm wrong, why the hell haven't they arrested the guy yet, and why are they having such trouble with it? I mean look at what's happened so far:

Remember a week ago when the Sanford Police Chief resigned temporarily, coupled with that story was a detail that the Seminole County State Attorney Norman Wolfinger had withdrawn from the case. Here is the reason he gave:

“In the interest of the public safety of the citizens of Seminole County and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, I would respectfully request the executive assignment of another state attorney for the investigation and any prosecution arising from the circumstances surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin. This request is being made in light of the public good with the intent of toning down the rhetoric and preserving the integrity of this investigation.”

Usually when an attorney withdraws from the case, you get a more specific explanation. If I were suspicious, I'd say he took one look at this case and shrank away in terror, not wanting to have his name and reputation near it.

They then for a few days talked about bringing it to a Grand Jury, but nothing came of that. Then governor Rick Scott talked about getting a special prosecutor. Now, have you ever heard of a criminal case outside of government that required a special prosecutor? I've never heard of it being proposed on a homicide case.

Now Scott's appointed a task force led by the Lt. Governor. When was the last major homicide that required a task force to look into it? They didn't do this with OJ. Why would you appoint, of anyone, the Lt. Governor to be in charge of it? No part of this seems to resemble a routine criminal matter.

Here's what I think is going to happen: the task force is going to waste time and look busy until after the election, which is when they'll announce that they can't bring the case. They have no way of getting around this law. For the Repubs and the Gun-Righters, this is a major scandal, and they were warned by Prosecutors and Police Chiefs that things like this would happen if they passed SYG.

My conclusion: Martin's family has no legal recourse on this-- at all. They are screwed. Race doesn't have much to do with this, either. It's the stupid SYG law. It doesn't matter if we get millions of signatures, if we march, protest, flood the governors office with calls, or even riot. They cannot convict Zimmerman, the most likely can't try him, and there's a good chance they can't even arrest for anything other than a minor felony.

My sympathies to Trayvon Martin's mother.

[Major Nikon]

14. The only hope is with a federal civil rights case

Even that is going to be a hard case to make unless there's a lot more information about Zimmerman that we don't yet know.

[Major Nikon]

13. That's exactly what it means and it's even worse than that

This effectively gives dipshit cop wannabes like Zimmerman more power than cops themselves, because they have almost no accountability for their use of deadly force, unlike a cop who has to justify that the use of deadly force was their last option.

This is what happens when you let fringe nuts like LaPierre write your gun laws.

[caseymoz]

26. Actually, ALEC wrote the law.

LaPierre, or whoever, actually just introduced it. That's according to Paul Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html?_r=1

That explains why this very law has been introduced in other states, unchanged, and passed in a handful of them. It's corporate processed, manufactured law, or McLegislation.

[Major Nikon]

29. Same nut, different tree

[magical thyme]

23. sadly, they have one quasi-legal recourse allowed to them

If Zimmerman is not charged and walks, yet chooses to stay in Florida, they apparently can hunt him down, start a fight, shoot and kill him, and call it "self-defense." And Zimmerman's family will equally have no recourse against them.

Swell. Just swell. Lovely place, Florida. Remind me *never* to visit there again!

[caseymoz]

31. Except other states have adopted photocopies of law.

They thought it was such a great idea.

[X_Digger]

17. No, the police may not arrest *anyone* without probable cause

That's not new.

That section is redundant, except for the civil immunity.

[daleanime]

5. The "Gunshine State"....

sweet!

[csziggy]

6. And his brother was shot by police because he was threatening to commit suicide?

How insane is that? You don't KILL a person to stop them from committing suicide!

Damn, I'm ashamed of my state.

[sabrina 1]

9. How do people in other civilized countries manage to survive without reaching for weapons

every time they feel a little scared?

This country gets worse by the day. This is what happens when Democrats compromise and compromise to appease the right instead of standing THEIR ground and telling the world how insane they are and doing what is right.

[William Seger]

16. What I can't understand is, why does any state feel the NEED for this kind of law?

The right to self-defense is already a well established and widely recognized principle in all states, but so is the principle that your rights end where mine begin. Furthermore, I have to believe that any rational person who is armed and genuinely believes that his life is threatened will certainly use that weapon to defend himself and deal with the consequences later, whether or not that belief is justified. Are there really any cases where armed people allowed themselves to be killed because they feared the legal consequences of self-defense?

So, who NEEDS this kind of law? When I try to figure out where this stuff is coming from, my thoughts tend more toward sociopathy than justice. I have to think that people who think it's a good idea are gun owners who frequently fantasize about shooting other people but fear being held responsible for bad decisions.

[magical thyme]

25. no, but when I lived in Massachusetts they enacted a law

that essentially banned the use of any force greater than that used against you. So basically if you accidentally killed somebody who was beating the crap out of you, then you used "excessive force" and could be charged with manslaughter.

I don't know the exact law; I only know that my karate teacher, who had multiple black belts in half a dozen disciplines, was very concerned about it. In defending yourself, your adrenaline is fully charged and you may end up killing somebody.

[mainer]

18. Arguments used to end with fistfights. Now they end with dead bodies.

All a gun does is escalate common human conflicts, with deadly results.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. This is the world that Republicans have created for us.

[goclark]

27. To think this is 2012 and we are going backwards

We are now in the Wild, Wild West America.

The Rethugs are the ring leaders. : (

[Baitball Blogger]

32. Your last sentence says it all.

This is the only way they can stay in control. In a true democracy, they would lose.