Given the circumstances, don't blame lay people for jumping to conclusions, on the surface it can look pretty bad. My impression is that FL "stand your ground" law was written to bend over backwards to protect the self defense shooter. Essentially there is a presumption that the shoot is legal and there has to be evidence to prove otherwise before charges can be filed. Sort of the opposite of many places, where there has to be evidence of self defense to avoid arrest. This case may be "unintended consequences" of their desire to provide maximum protection from overzealous justice system? Not a lawyer, not a cop, so I'm sure I bungled the explanation. 1) Am I in the ballpark? 2) If so, can you explain it better? 3) If not, can you explain it correctly? 4) Or are Sanford cops really are a bunch of crackers? (just kidding, I'm expecting there is a logical explanation). Does jeopardy come into play here? Something like they don't want to risk getting charges thrown out with/without predjudice (forget which one doesn't allow refiling charges later) and letting the guy walk permanently? Have you ever seen a Chief step aside temporarily in a case like this? Seems unheard of to me, maybe just never noticed before... But unless the people being investigated are personally related/friends of the chief... He probably does serve at the pleasure of some public official feeling some serious heat over this, so maybe its a good way to get out of the line of fire... Obviously without access to the facts (which may never be known), figuring out exactly who's really at fault may well be impossible. With no video, only good (surviving) witness to the encounter is the shooter, unless he accidentally says something that hangs him, all you can tell is there was a fight. Not who started it, who escalated it. At least the known facts could support a whole range of theories. I think if he was the aggressor, he might lose the self defense angle, and he did likely start the encounter. If he backed off, teen followed and attacked, I think it could be credible self-defense. If he was the instigator, but the teen got the better of him and he shot at that point, probably can't claim self defense. Even assuming I'm right, proving which scenario occurred will be difficult. Thanks... People calling for his head are probably the common case of judging with hindsight, the kid was unarmed. Not judging based on what was known at the time, the actual legal issues. Randy Wanna kill these ads? We can help!