text:
Stand your ground
EXCLUSIVE: Charges dropped in 'Stand Your Ground' case, 17 months after shooting
By Lee Williams
Published: Friday, March 25, 2016 at 6:14 p.m.
Last Modified: Friday, March 25, 2016 at 6:14 p.m.
Chris Brooks, his wife and their two daughters spent nearly a year and a half wondering whether he would spend the rest of his life in prison.
Arrested Oct. 25, 2014 at his home in Polk County, he was charged with second-degree attempted murder for shooting his neighbor Curtis Hamrick during a confrontation.
Hamrick's son had molested Brooks' daughter several years before the shooting. Brooks, 39, maintained he shot his neighbor, who survived the wound, in self defense, a "Stand Your Ground" case.
Before his arrest, Brooks supported his family by working several jobs throughout the region as a gunsmith, instructor and range officer, and at a small studio in Sarasota where he customized guns.
But the violent felony charge changed everything.
"I became toxic. No gun shop wants to hire someone who's facing second-degree attempted murder charges," he said. "I couldn't even apply for a job bagging groceries because of the background check."
This week, Polk County prosecutors announced they were dropping all charges against Brooks.
Their decision came in a five-page memo, which his attorney says raises even more questions about the shooting and why Brooks was charged in the first place.
The memo buttresses Brooks' self-defense claim, which Polk County deputies and detectives ultimately ignored.
"They arrested me to teach me a lesson," Brooks said this week. "They arrested me for making trouble for the Polk County Sheriff's Office, by complaining and continually calling them for help. They arrested me for being a pain in their ass."
In response to inquiries from the Herald-Tribune, Polk County Sheriff's spokeswoman Donna Wood said the agency would not comment about the case.
While he's no longer facing life in prison, Brooks said he does not consider the matter resolved.
The shooting
Brooks lived in Mulberry, a small town in rural Polk County, with his then-fiance and her two daughters.
In 2006, his fiance's daughter, who was 4 at the time, was molested by Hamrick's stepson Bryan James Mace, then a 14-year-old who lived across the street.
Mace, now 22, pleaded no-contest to the charges, was adjudicated as a delinquent and was sent to a juvenile detention center.
When Mace was released, Brooks obtained a permanent restraining order barring him from coming within 500 feet of his home. The order effectively prohibited Mace from visiting his parents' house, as it is well within the 500-foot limit.
About a month before the shooting, Mace was arrested for violating this court order, state records show.
"He was walking around the neighborhood and in front of our home very suspiciously," Brooks said at the time. "I called the cops and they took him away."
Mace pleaded no contest to violating the court order, was fined $50 and sentenced to one year of probation.
On Oct. 25, 2014 Brooks called authorities again, telling them Mace was in his driveway yelling obscenities and making threats against his daughter. According to court documents, Brooks told deputies Mace said: "I don't care. (expletive) her. I'll get that bitch."
Mace was arrested, taken to the Polk County Jail and charged with violating the restraining order and violating his probation.
Efforts by the Herald-Tribune to reach him or his family for comment were not successful.
Once Mace was arrested, his family and friends began gathering at his parents' home across the street, Brooks said, hurling insults and screaming threats. Brooks said he and his wife called the Sheriff's Office numerous times for help.
That evening about 7 p.m., Brooks returned home and parked in the driveway.
As he was retrieving something from the back seat of his car two men approached him, Hamrick and a friend. Someone pushed Brooks.
"They said I was trying to ruin their son, and that I was gonna get it, and that I was in for it," Brooks said at the time. "They knocked my glasses off. I couldn't see. We struggled back and forth. That's when I unzipped my bag, pulled my gun and made my shot."
Court documents show that the .45-caliber round that Brooks fired penetrated Hamrick's "upper left abdomen and continued through his upper left arm."
Brooks said that he not only feared for his life, he worried the assailants would "get past me and get into the house and attack the girls."
But Hamrick told deputies another version, saying he believed Brooks had a suspended driver's license — Brooks' license is valid — and that he approached Brooks because "he wanted to capture a picture of him operating a motor vehicle." The prosecutor's memo indicates that Hamrick admitted he took nothing with him to take a photograph.
After the shooting, both sides in the dispute called 911.
Polk County sheriff's Detective William "Michael" Rushing determined it was a "bad shoot" and arrested Brooks for second-degree attempted murder.
Rushing had recently been promoted to detective, making this his first big case.
Click here to read the rest of the story.
EXCLUSIVE: Christian Gunter suing Sheriff's Office for false arrest
Lee's note: This story just went live on the Herald-Tribune site.
Published: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 11:07 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 11:15 a.m.
Christian Gunter will sue the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office for false arrest.
Gunter is the 22-year-old who shot Roger Atlas at a gas station on Oct. 5, after the pair were involved in a road rage incident.
"We believe that sheriff's detectives had enough evidence to not have arrested Christian, based on Stand Your Ground," Gunter's lawyer, Sarasota attorney Jeffrey Young, said Thursday. "My client has been damaged financially. He's out a lot of money for fees, bond and more. Of course, there's emotional damage after spending a couple days in the county jail, and there's damage to his reputation. This made national news."
Young was referring to the Florida law that allows a resident to use deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
Citing department policy, Sarasota County Sheriff's Office administrators declined to comment Thursday on the pending lawsuit.
Surveillance video, obtained exclusively by the Herald-Tribune shortly after the shooting, supported Gunter's claims that he was only acting in self defense when he shot Roger Atlas in the lower abdomen, inflicting a minor wound.
Gunter, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights at the scene, was arrested by Sarasota County sheriff's deputies on a charge of aggravated battery with a firearm, a felony punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison under Florida's 10-20-Life law.
But one month later, the State Attorney's Office dropped all charges against Gunter after Atlas — who a prosecutor said was not truthful with him — appeared to be the initial aggressor.
Assistant State Attorney Earl Varn, the veteran prosecutor in charge of the case, wrote, "the State would not be able to overcome that Christian Gunter acted in necessary self-defense in accordance with Florida's Stand Your Ground Law. For the reasons, the State of Florida declines to proceed further."
Young recently sent an "intent to sue" letter to the Sheriff's Office. Florida law requires anyone suing a government agency to provide written notice of their intent at least six months before they can file the actual complaint.
"Now we've got to wait out the clock and then we can file our suit," Young said. "The video clearly shows that Atlas was the initial aggressor and a liar. That should have been enough evidence to raise Stand Your Ground, which should have raised the issue of not arresting Christian. We believe this was a false arrest."
Click here to read the rest of the story.
Roger Atlas talks pain meds, warning shots and getting shot by Christian Gunter
Roger Atlas wanted to tell his story, but only on his terms.
Atlas, 59, was shot in the abdomen Oct. 5 by Christian Gunter, after the pair were involved in a road rage incident on the Tamiami Trail.
Gunter, 22, was arrested after the shooting and faced aggravated battery with a firearm charges — a felony punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison under Florida's 10-20-Life Law.
But earlier this month, the State Attorneys Office dropped all charges against Gunter, largely due to the fact that Atlas' stories conflicted with two surveillance videos of the shooting — a discrepancy Atlas said was caused because he was "not feeling well."
I had tried to interview Atlas after the shooting — to no avail. He wouldn't talk to me, even though he posted several different versions of the shooting on various social media platforms, including this website.
I interviewed Gunter and his lawyer, Sarasota attorney Jeff Young on Monday. You can watch the interview here.
Feeling like he'd been left out, on Tuesday Atlas made arrangements to be interviewed by a reporter from SNN TV.
I planned to join them, but Atlas said he wouldn't allow me to be part of the interview because I was a "liberal piece of garbage."
Atlas later became so verbally hostile and abusive toward the young SNN reporter that she refused to interview him.
Instead, Atlas was interviewed Wednesday by SNN's news director Craig Burdick.
Burdick spoke with Atlas for nearly a half-hour at a picnic table outside the Herald-Tribune.
Atlas begins the interview by admitting he's taking prescription pain medication for Fibromyalgia and back pain.
He claims he was an NRA-certified firearms instructor in Connecticut years ago — a claim I have not yet verified.
Atlas also said Gunter should have fired a warning shot before using deadly force. Personally, I am not aware of any firearms instructor who has ever advocated the use of warning shots.
The rest of the interview speaks for itself.
After watching all 26 minutes, it's not difficult to understand why prosecutors dropped the charges against Gunter.
Many thanks to my colleagues at SNN for sharing the raw video footage with us.
The Gun Writer TV special edition: An interview with 'Stand Your Ground' shooter Christian Gunter
Looking back, Christian Gunter says it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
Gunter was arrested Oct. 5 after shooting Roger Atlas in the lower abdomen, after the pair were engaged in a road rage incident on the Tamiami Trail.
Gunter, 22, faced aggravated battery with a firearm charges — a felony punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison under Florida's 10-20-Life Law.
But earlier this month, the State Attorneys Office dropped all charges against Gunter, largely due to the fact that Atlas' stories conflicted with two surveillance videos of the shooting — a discrepancy Atlas said was caused because he was "not feeling well."
I interviewed Gunter and his lawyer Sarasota Attorney Jeff Young Monday about the shooting, his brief stint in jail and his bout with the criminal justice system.
What he said should be required reading for everyone who carries a defensive firearm.
"I'm hanging in there, aside from $20,000 debt," Gunter said. "I've gotta make the best of the situation. That's all I can do."
Young is working on getting the arrest — which will show up on Gunter's records — expunged. And he's petitioning the court to return the young man's firearms.
Even though all charges have been dropped, Gunter declined to talk about the shooting, since prosecutors still have the ability — however unlikely — to refile charges. That ability ends after 120 days, Young said.
Gunter invoked his Fifth Amendment rights after the shooting. "The best advice you can get it to contact a lawyer," he said. "Because that day, they were going to arrest me regardless, whether I talked or not."
The surveillance video, which was obtained exclusively by the Herald-Tribune after the shooting, shows that Atlas — not Gunter — was the initial aggressor, so I asked Gunter why he thought he's the one who ended up in handcuffs.
"I think it's mostly politics," Gunter said. "It's like with domestic violence — if the cops show up, somebody's going to jail. Unfortunately, I believe that needs to be changed because you shouldn't be in fear to have to use your concealed carry permit to defend yourself. That's why you have it. It's just a shame. If I would go through it, you would go through it too. The law needs to change."
Looking back, Gunter said there's nothing he would have done differently. And he was effusive in his praise for Manasota Gun Traders — a group of gun owners that raised thousands of dollars for his defense, of which he's a member.
"MGT and even members of other gun groups — they all came together to help me out on this," he said.
— If we don't run into each other at the range, you can reach me at (941) 284-8553, by email at email@example.com or by regular mail, 1741 Main St., Sarasota, FL 34236. You also can follow me on social media at facebook.com/TheGunWriter or Twitter.com/ht_gunwriter or watch us on our new YouTube Channel.
Lee's note: I just wrote this for the paper. We're going to have Christian Gunter and Jeff Young in the studio Monday, and we'll have more stories about this case next week.
The State Attorney's Office has declined to file any criminal charges against Christian Gunter, the 22-year-old motorcyclist who shot a man at a gas station on Oct. 5 after the pair were involved in a road rage incident.
Surveillance video, obtained exclusively by the Herald-Tribune shortly after the shooting, appeared to buttress Gunter's claims that he was only acting in self defense when he shot Roger Atlas in the lower abdomen, inflicting a minor wound.
Gunter, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights at the scene, was arrested by Sarasota County Sheriff's deputies for aggravated battery with a firearm — a felony punishable by a minimum of 25 years in prison under Florida's 10-20-Life Law.
The case was sent to the State Attorney's Office for review.
Assistant State Attorney Earl Varn, a veteran prosecutor in charge of the case, reviewed evidence, watched the video and interviewed witnesses.
Varn also reviewed a letter written by Gunter's attorney, Jeffrey Young, which detailed his client's account of the road rage incident.
"Atlas' aggressive reckless driving included swerving into Gunter's lane of traffic nearly striking him multiple times," Varn wrote in his "decline memo" quoting Young. "Mr. Young maintains that his client was in absolute fear of Atlas."
The Herald-Tribune could not reach Atlas on Friday for comment.
According to Varn's memo, Atlas was not truthful with investigators. He told them he arrived at the Sunoco gas station, 5808 S. Tamiami Trail, before Gunter, even though the video clearly shows Gunter arriving first.
Varn wrote that Atlas was "adamant that he arrived five to ten second before Gunter."
The prosecutor's investigation proved otherwise, and it turned up a second video, which "shows Atlas apparently observing Gunter pull into the gas station first, and then Atlas quickly accelerating his vehicle into the gas station and the gas pumps area stopping immediately adjacent to where Gunter was still sitting on his motorcycle."
"Moreover, in nearly every respect, Atlas' version of who entered the gas station first and who followed who into the gas station is directly contrary to the video evidence," Varn wrote. "When Atlas was shown the video, which refuted his detailed account, he explained that the inconsistency regarding his version was 'because he was not feeling well.'"
At some point, Atlas charged Gunter who, through his attorney, said he was in "absolute fear" and pulled a concealed handgun, for which he has a Florida concealed-carry license.
A struggle ensued over the weapon.
At some point Gunter fired one round.
He backed away when Atlas fell, and did not fire any additional rounds.
Citing a recorded call that Gunter made from the Sarasota County jail, Varn wrote that "Gunter explained that he shot Atlas because he believed that Atlas would take control of the gun and shoot him."
Atlas weighs 180 pounds. Gunter weighs around 125 pounds.
"It is also important to note that Gunter remained at the scene awaiting law enforcement, and in fact asked the gas station clerks to call 911," Varn wrote.
In the memo issued late Friday, Varn wrote, "the State would not be able to overcome that Christian Gunter acted in necessary self-defense in accordance with Florida's Stand Your Ground Law. For the reasons, the State of Florida declines to proceed further."
You can read the rest of the story here.
— If we don't run into each other at the range, you can reach me at (941) 284-8553, by email at email@example.com or by regular mail, 1741 Main St., Sarasota, FL 34236. You also can follow me on social media at facebook.com/TheGunWriter or Twitter.com/ht_gunwriter or watch us on our new YouTube Channel.
EXCLUSIVE: Police ignore 'Stand Your Ground' defense, attorneys say
Lee's note: This story just went live on the Herald-Tribune site. It's a follow-up story to my story on the Christian Gunter shooting.
Published: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:40 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 1:40 p.m.
After a shooting, law enforcement officers are ignoring an important provision in the state's "Stand Your Ground" statute that requires them to determine if self-defense is applicable before they make an arrest, prominent defense attorneys say.
"If there's a confrontation and someone gets shot or hurt, the winner goes to jail. It doesn't matter about provocation. They're going to jail," said Bradenton attorney Charles M. Britt III, who says he has handled 50 "Stand Your Ground" cases. "The statute says that before law enforcement can make an arrest, they have to determine that 'Stand Your Ground' doesn't apply. It's right there in the statute, but I've never once seen them do it. They always arrest first and let the system sort it out. Since 2005 when it was written into the statute, I've never seen them do it, not once."
Britt said he is not sure whether the issue stems from apathy or a lack of training.
"It's become a scary situation. People have concealed carry permits to defend themselves," he said. "But what police are saying is that if you defend yourself and win the confrontation, you're still going to jail, you're still going to spend thousands of dollars on bond and attorneys and, since you're charged with a felony, your gun and concealed carry permit will be seized, and you have no recourse against the police."
Britt's comments came two days after 22-year-old Christian James Gunter was arrested on charges of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon for allegedly shooting Roger Atlas, 59, at the Sunoco gas station, 5808 S. Tamiami Trail. If convicted, Gunter could face a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison under Florida's 10-20-Life Law.
You can read the rest of the story here.
EXCLUSIVE: Video raises questions in arrest of 'road rage' shooter
Lee's note: This story went live on the Herald-Tribune site yesterday.
Published: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 4:14 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 4:35 p.m.
Surveillance video obtained exclusively by the Herald-Tribune appears to buttress claims by the attorney for a 22-year-old Sarasota man involved in a "road rage" shooting on Monday who says his client was only acting in self defense.
Christian James Gunter, a maintenance worker at a Sarasota County club, faces charges of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon for allegedly shooting Roger Atlas, 59, at the Sunoco gas station, 5808 S. Tamiami Trail. If convicted, Gunter could face a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison under Florida's 10-20-Life Law.
But Gunter's defense attorney, Jeffrey Young, says the shooting is a classic example of a "Stand Your Ground" defense.
"If you look at the video, it clearly shows the alleged victim was the aggressor, and that my client was defending himself, in a public place where he had a right to be, with no duty to retreat, and that he was attacked unprovoked," Young said. "This is a 'Stand Your Ground' case and we look forward to proving it in court."
The surveillance video appears to support the attorney's claims, while raising questions about the official version of events.
According to Sheriff's Office reports, Atlas told a detective he was driving south on Tamiami Trail at about 6:12 p.m. Monday when his Ford Taurus began jerking because of overheating. Atlas said he stopped at a red light at Ivanhoe Street, near Walt's Fish Market. Gunter, Atlas said, pulled up to his driver side window on a motorcycle and began arguing with him about his driving. He said he told Gunter he was having vehicle issues and that it was none of his business.
Atlas drove on when the light turned green and told detectives that Gunter continued to follow him, the report states.
Read the rest of the story here.
The Gun Writer TV episode 5: A seasoned prosecutor on deadly force and other CCW issues
Here's something pretty special, folks. For our fifth episode, Mike Young and I were joined by Craig Schaeffer, the Chief Assistant State Attorney for Florida's 12th Judicial Circuit.
Craig's a career prosecutor who agreed to do what most attorneys refuse to do: answer "what if" questions about guns and deadly force.
We hit him with a slew of your questions, which you all were kind enough submit, everything from how Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law works, to post-shooting reviews for police and armed citizens, to what happens of you ignore that stupid "No Guns" sign on the door of the local theater.
He never no-commented us, not once.
One thing was obvious to me and Mike, Craig will definitely be back. If you don't hear your question asked, it's because we ran out of time. We'll ask them during his next appearance.
If you own a gun, carry a gun or are considering carrying a concealed firearm, this is must see TV.
Thanks to Craig and his boss State Attorney Ed Brodsky for making this happen, and to Alan Shaw for his production work.
Mike and Lee
Three 'duty to retreat' convictions overturned by 'stand your ground' law
Lee's note: This just in from the News Service of Florida.
In cases from Duval and Santa Rosa counties, an appeals court Tuesday overturned convictions of three men because of conflicting jury instructions about a duty to retreat during violent altercations.
At least two of the men argued that they acted in self-defense under the state's controversial "stand your ground" law, though all three cases involved similar issues about jury instructions, according to the rulings by the 1st District Court of Appeal.
Lee's note: Some of you will recognize Chris Brooks. He's a gunsmith and armorer who I've featured here once before.
Sarasota businessman in 'stand your ground' shooting case
Published: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 1:34 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 1:51 p.m.
POLK COUNTY – A Sarasota businessman is involved in a "Stand Your Ground" case that, not unlike the George Zimmerman shooting, raises questions about a person's right to defend themselves and their family in Florida.
Christopher A. Brooks, 38, lives in Mulberry, a small town in rural Polk County, along with his fiance and her young children.
In 2006, his fiance's daughter — who was 4 at the time — was molested by Bryan James Mace, then a 14-year-old who lived across the street.
Mace, now 21, pleaded no contest to the charges, was adjudicated as a delinquent and was sent to a juvenile detention center.
When Mace was released, Brooks obtained a permanent restraining order barring the man from coming within 500 feet of his home. The order effectively prohibits Mace from visiting his parent's house, as it is well within the 500-foot limit.
On Sept. 25, Mace was arrested for violating the court order, state records show.
"He was walking around the neighborhood and in front of our home very suspiciously," Brooks said. "I called the cops and they took him away."
According to data supplied by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Mace pleaded no contest to violating the court order, and was fined $50 and sentenced to one year of probation.
On Oct. 23 at about 3:30 p.m., Brooks called police again, telling them Mace was in his driveway yelling obscenities and making threats against his daughter.
According to court documents, Brooks told deputies Mace said: "I don't care. (expletive) her. I'll get that bitch."
Mace was arrested, taken to the Polk County jail and charged with violating the restraining order and violating his probation.
He remains in custody, held without bail. Efforts by the Herald-Tribune to reach him for comment were not successful.
A confrontation
Once Mace was arrested, his family and friends began gathering at his parents' home across the street, Brooks said.
"They started hurling insults and screaming, 'You messed with the wrong people. You're gonna pay for this. You don't know what you've gotten into,' " Brooks said. "I was scared for me and my family. My main concern was that the kids were home. Our daughter was hearing all of this."
That evening about 7 p.m., Brooks returned home and parked in the driveway.
As he was retrieving something from the back seat of his car, he says someone pushed him forward.
There were two men, according to police records, including Mace's stepfather, Curtis Hamrick Jr. The other man was not identified in the report.
"They said I was trying to ruin their son, and that I was gonna get it, and that I was in for it," Brooks said. "They knocked my glasses off. I couldn't see. We struggled back and forth. That's when I unzipped my bag, pulled my gun and made my shot."
Court documents show that the . 45 caliber round that Brooks fired penetrated Hamrick's "upper left abdomen and continued through his upper left arm."
"I was scared and in fear for my life," Brooks said, adding in an interview with the Herald-Tribune that he worried the men aimed to "get past me and get into the house and attack the girls," Brooks said. "I don't know what they would have done. . . . They've always maintained that it was our daughter's fault their son was arrested."
But Hamrick told deputies another version of events, saying he believed Brooks had a suspended driver's license — Brooks' license is valid — and that he approached Brooks because "he wanted to capture a picture of him operating a motor vehicle."
According to police report, when Hamrick and his associate saw that Brooks was out of his vehicle, they turned to walk home.
At this point, Hamrick told investigators, Brooks "suddenly appeared from the dark holding a black bag. (Hamrick) verbally confronted (Brooks) regarding his son's arrest in a non-violent manner."
Hamrick said he felt a sudden burning sensation and numbness in his left arm. He thought he had been Tasered. He did not know he had been shot until he returned home and saw he was bleeding.
Conflicting accounts
After the shooting, both sides of the dispute called 911.
Polk County Sheriff's Detective William "Michael" Rushing, who had been promoted to detective last year, was sent to the scene.
In his report, Rushing wrote that Brooks "felt like he was going to be killed, and so he believed he needed to retrieve his Glock model 30 . 45 caliber handgun and fire a shot at the men."
Brooks told the detective that during the melee he had been pushed back into the driver's side mirror of his car.
Rushing concluded otherwise: "There was no damage, movement or scuffs to this side mirror that would suggest (Brooks) had been pushed against it, as his story described," Rushing wrote.
The detective noted that he had found the spent shell casing in Brooks' yard, near the roadway, a site he determined that was not consistent with Brooks' account of firing near his vehicle.
He did not report anything about Brooks' glasses.
Brooks said they were stomped and damaged during the melee and recovered as evidence.
Rushing's report makes no mention of the threats that Brooks says were hurled all day, or the fear he felt for the safety of his family. Rushing also noted that Brooks' statement conflicted with Hamrick's version as well as that of a witness: Charlotte Mace, Hamrick's wife.
Neither Hamrick nor his wife returned calls from the Herald-Tribune seeking comment.
Rushing, who four months ago was investigating shoplifting complaints and vehicle burglaries, determined the incident was a bad shoot and arrested Brooks for attempted second-degree murder.
"I did not find evidence that there is reason to believe the suspect had a well-founded fear of serious injury or death, which would justify the use of deadly force against the victim," Rushing wrote.
Polk County Sheriff's Capt. Mike Wiggins told the Herald-Tribune he is satisfied that his deputies handled the investigation correctly.
"Based upon the info I have — and I've talked to the detective and the supervisor — the evidence and the witnesses that were interviewed provided a different story, and based upon that, I think probable cause exists for the charge," Wiggins said.
The sheriff's captain said he believes the shooting occurred on the road between the two homes, not in Brooks' driveway.
Brooks' fiance, Wiggins said, told investigators the shooting occurred in the street, though Brooks challenges that notion: "She was inside the whole time," he said.
Rushing declined to comment for this story, citing department policy.
According to documents obtained by the Herald-Tribune through a public records request, Rushing received a "Letter of Retraining" in 2010 for poor crime scene processing.
FDLE records show that Rushing has received no specialized detective or crime-scene training beyond the academy.
He was hired by the Polk County Sheriff's Office in 2005, but resigned in 2007. He then worked for Haines City Police Department for two months, and then for the Bartow Police Department for four months. In 2009, he was rehired by the Polk County Sheriff's Office.
Jail, then bail
Brooks spent two nights in the Polk County jail until he was taken before a judge Saturday morning.
His bail was set at $25,000, though prosecutors wanted substantially more.
"The judge didn't buy it," said Brooks, who was freed from jail after paying $2,500 to a bondsman.
Brooks, who works part-time for a firearms training company in Sarasota County, is trying to start his own custom firearms business and also works part-time for an indoor range and gun store. He has attended numerous firearms training courses.
He does not have a Florida concealed carry license.
"I've never felt I'd need one," he said.
UPDATED: League of Women Voters conduct compliance checks at Florida gun shops
The League of Women Voters of Florida has conducted more than 30 compliance checks at gun shops across the state.
Deirdre Macnab, Florida League's current president, said her members are checking to see whether the shops have a sign displayed, which tells patrons it's illegal to allow an unattended firearm to fall into the hands of someone under 16.
"Gun safety is an issue we've paid attention to and studied," Macnab said Tuesday. "Florida continues to be center-stage in issues related to gun safety. Stand-your-ground has put us in the national spotlight. We're exploring how we can make a positive contribution to insuring children are safe, and that there is responsible gun ownership."
Macnab believes Florida has irresponsible gun owners.
"Whenever you have accidents, the short answer is yes we do," she said.
The idea to conduct the checks, she said, came from Patti Brigham, who chairs the Florida League's Gun Safety Committee.
Macnab referred all other questions to Brigham.
"She will have statistics. I don't want to speak willy-nilly," Macnab said. "Certainly we have incidents of children getting their hands on guns. I would think that anybody would term that as irresponsible gun ownership. Our interest is in promoting responsible gun ownership."
Besides gun shops, Macnab said her members also visit prisons and public schools.
"We're not gun shop police," she said. "One thing we do as a volunteer organization – we monitor things. We felt it was very important to do the survey that covered the state."
Marion Hammer, former NRA president and executive director of the Unified
Sportsmen of Florida, said it was "not only ludicrous, it is comical for anyone to claim the League of Women Voters is not anti-gun."
"Show me one time, just one time that they have ever done anything to support protection of Second Amendment rights, self-defense rights of the rights of law abiding gun owners," Hammer said Wednesday. "Show me one time that the Florida League of Women Voters has ever spent any of their money on programs to protect children from gun accidents. On the other hand, NRA has spent tens of millions of dollars on gun safety for children. NRA's Eddie Eagle program, that I personally helped create in 1988, has been taught gun safety over 27 million children."
Patti Brigham, who chairs the Gun Safety Committee of the League of Women Voters of Florida, has lobbied against "assault weapons" and against allowing hunters to use suppressors.
According to her Twitter account, Brigham has told her followers: "Say NO to allowing hunters to use silencers on their firearms in Florida," and "Imagine hunters using silencers on their guns. Scary. Write FL Fish & Wildlife Comm. and tell them you are NOT in favor of proposal!"
She also tweeted "Get rid of assault weapons," and included a link to a CNN story.
Brigham said less than half of the gun shops had the warning signs, which she said are required by state law.
She was not aware of any other League in any other state conducting compliance checks in gun shops.
"I know the League is studying the issue," she said. "We don't look at this as a partisan issue. Our focus is on gun safety, not gun control."
When I asked her if she was anti-gun, she dodged the question.
"I can only tell you that the League is not anti-gun. We're not anti-Second Amendment," she said. "We are for responsible gun ownership."
Better ideas
In my opinion, the League needs to understand that 99.9 percent of gun owners know that allowing an unattended firearm to fall into the hands of a child is a bad thing, but hey, thanks for checking on the signs.
If the League is serious about keeping unattended firearms out of the hands of kids, they should send a check to NRA's Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program, or the National Shooting Sports Foundation's Project ChildSafe.
Both of these programs have done far more to shield kids from the dangers posed by unattended firearms than any gun shop placard or compliance check.
Along those same lines, perhaps the League should change the focus of its "Guns Safety Committee" to a "Child Safety Committee."
That way they could lobby and work toward preventing all of the causes of childhood injury and death, such as: abuse, neglect, drowning, vehicle accidents, poisoning, fires and accidents.
Please check back throughout the day as this story is updated.
Scott's, Crist's Second Amendment credentials examined
Lee's note: Here's a great history of the Second Amendment credentials of Gov. Rick Scott and former Gov. Charlie Crist by the News Service of Florida.
By JIM TURNER
THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, July 9, 2014……Gov. Rick Scott appears nearly bulletproof right now in the eyes of the National Rifle Association.
That assessment of Scott comes as the NRA notes that more pro-gun bills have been signed into law in the past four years than during any other recent single gubernatorial term. The organization sent a message to members applauding Scott for setting the record.
Since taking office in 2011, Scott has signed into law 12 gun-related measures backed by the NRA. That total is nine more than former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist approved while enjoying an equally Republican-dominated Legislature between 2007 and 2010. Crist is now running for the Democratic nomination to face Scott in the November elections.
The total number of Scott's signings remains two fewer than those inked by former Gov. Jeb Bush, who also affixed his name to a one-year record six pro-gun and pro-hunting bills in 2006. A year earlier, Bush had signed the "stand your ground" law. However, Bush's overall total of 14 new pro-guns laws came during eight years as the occupant of the Governor's Mansion.
"Governor Scott supports the Second Amendment, and works every day to ensure Florida families are kept safe," spokesman John Tupps said in an email. "Florida is at a 43-year crime low, and Governor Scott will review any legislation that the Legislature passes and sends to his desk."
The bills signed by Scott have ranged from the highly contentious, such as the "docs vs. glocks" law in 2011 that has been on hold since being thrown out by a federal judge in 2012, to less controversial laws that reduced the fees for a new concealed carry weapon and allowed tax collectors' offices handle concealed-weapon license applications.
"The bills that Gov. Scott has signed will make and have made an enormous difference," said Marion Hammer, the powerful lobbyist for the NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida. "These laws will have major impact on law abiding gun owners."
She wasn't as praiseworthy of the more politically flexible Crist, who left office with an "A" rating by the NRA and campaigned in 2010 for the U.S. Senate claiming to have "never wavered in his support for the Second Amendment."
Crist earned the "profound appreciation" of the NRA in May 2009 for vetoing the Legislature's plan to sweep $6 million from the Concealed Weapons and Firearms Licensing Trust Fund to patch a hole in the state budget. Crist also won praise when signing legislation to allow concealed weapons permit-holders to keep their guns in their vehicles while at work, and by appointing NRA-supported judges Charles Canady and Ricky Polston to the state Supreme Court.
But Hammer alluded to Crist being less than supportive as "critically important bills" were discussed outside of committee meetings while he was still governor.
"When you're trying to pass legislation, sometimes legislators will ask (the governor) what they'll do, and if they're non-committal, that's always like a negative," Hammer said when asked about Crist.
A spokesman for Crist said Wednesday that the former governor maintains his belief in the Second Amendment, but favors "sensible gun safety steps" to keep communities and children safe.
"For example, he believes we should get military-style assault weapons and high-capacity clips off the streets and institute tougher background checks to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands," Kevin Cate, a spokesman for Crist, responded in an email.
The increase in gun-friendly bills becoming law comes as more Floridians are registered gun owners.
As of May 31, there were 1.27 million concealed-weapon or firearm licenses issued in Florida, according to the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The state went over the 1 million mark in Dec. 2012, becoming the first state in the nation to surpass that figure.
And the Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted 869,457 background checks on firearm purchases in 2013. The annual number of checks grew from 406,370 in 2007, when Crist took office, to 606,655 in 2011, Scott's first year in office. Each check includes an examination of an applicant's criminal history and mental-health database reviews.
Coconut Creek Democrat Rep. Jim Waldman, a gun owner who has not received glowing scores from the NRA, said the proliferation of pro-gun bills is more about catering to the Republican Party's "ultra-right" base than sound policy.
"The only way a lot of Republicans get elected is, they need to beef up their bona fides, and one way to do that is to support gun legislation," Waldman said.
Scott signed five gun-rights bills into law this year, after signing three each in 2011 and 2012. He signed one in 2013.
This year's offerings would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing rates based on customers owning guns or ammunition. Also, they would allow people to threaten to use force, including showing guns, in self defense. Another new law would prevent schoolchildren from being disciplined for simulating guns while playing or for wearing clothes that depict firearms.
"There were not a lot of contentious bills, they were not all that controversial, there were just some contentious people," Hammer said.
Besides the opposition to "docs and glocks," most of the gun related controversy in recent sessions has been through failed efforts by advocates seeking to repeal the 2005 "stand your ground" law, which says people can use deadly force and do not have a duty to retreat if they think it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm
The so-called "warning shot" law approved this year modified "stand your ground" by extending immunity to those who threaten to use force in self-defense.
In addition to "docs vs. glocks," a law that restricts how doctors can talk to patients about guns, the 2011 laws signed by Scott included another one that continues to be challenged by cities and counties. That bill established $5,000 fines for county and city officials who enforce local firearms restrictions and empowered the governor to remove local officials from office if they continued to defy the state law.
In June, a judge sided with Palm Beach County against the provision that the governor could remove a county official from office for trying to enforce local gun control rules.
Not all of the gun laws have received universal praise from gun-rights advocates.
An NRA-backed measure Scott signed in 2013, crafted in the wake of 20 children and six adults being gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., was narrowly-focused on making it harder for the mentally ill to buy guns.
However, the issue put Scott in the crosshairs of two out-of-state groups.
The Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights and the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America argued that the law — which blocks firearms purchases by some people who voluntarily admit themselves for mental-health treatment — would discourage people with mental illnesses from seeking treatment.
In a letter accompanying the bill signing, Scott noted that the measure was the product of mental-health and gun-rights advocates; he also highlighted his history of support for gun rights.
"During the 2012 GOP Convention, I was asked to issue a temporary executive order to override laws that allow people to carry concealed weapons, which I denied because it was unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the damages and threats posed by those who would flout the law," Scott wrote. "Additionally, I've signed legislation protecting the privacy of firearm owners and stopping local governments from overreaching in the regulation of firearms."
Involved, invested, or interested in Florida politics? Buy your copy of the Political Almanac of Florida 2014 by Dave Royse today!
Independent and Indispensable
Published: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 1:28 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 1:28 p.m.
One of the five new gun bills that Gov. Rick Scott signed into law last month
already has been used by an armed citizen who is being hailed as a hero for stopping a violent stabbing.
The gun owner, Edwin Sullivan, fired a warning shot causing the attacker to freeze, which deputies said saved the victim's life.
The "Threatened Use of Force" bill, which was also known somewhat incorrectly as the "Warning Shot Bill," was one of five gun bills pushed by the pro-gun activists during the last legislative session.
It allows an armed citizen to display, or point, their defensive firearm at an assailant without criminal charges, assuming the threatened use of force is justifiable.
Although "warning shots" are not specifically mentioned, they're also covered by the new law.
You can read the rest of the column here.
Lee's note: It is becoming difficult to track all of the gun bills as they move through committees.
Here's the latest from NRA/USF. Pay particular attention to SB 130, as it has become the subject of much disinformation.
REPORT on Legislative Committee Action Mon. 3/17/14 — Thurs. 3/20/14
DATE: March 21, 2014
TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President
The third week of Legislative Session was exceptionally productive.
However, there are Internet bloggers and groups — with patriotic sounding names — who are disseminating false information about legislative bills. Please take the time to read the bills before you believe this nonsense.
The blue underlined bill numbers are most current versions of the bills. You can simply click on those links to read the bills. A new version is prepared every time a bill is amended (changed) in committee. If there is no blue link, that means the newest amended version is not yet available.
On Monday, March 17, 2014
SB-130 PASSED by a Vote of 7-0 in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.
SB-130 Use of Deadly Force by Sen. David Simmons & Sen. Chris Smith is a bill about which much false information is being disseminated. Regardless of what is being said, SB-130 as amended does not materially change or diminish the Stand Your Ground law. It does clarify some provisions but doesn't change them.
This is what the bill actually does:
The bill establishes guidelines and regulations for Neighborhood Watch programs.
The bill makes it clear that if you injure or kill an attacker, you cannot be sued by the attacker, or his family or personal representative.
The bill makes it clear that a person who has used self-defense cannot be arrested and taken into custody prior to an investigation and makes it clear that law enforcement has the authority and duty to fully investigate the use of force.
The bill corrects an abuse of the defendant's rights created by judges and prosecutors — without any legislative authority.
Nothing in the Stand Your Ground (SYG) law provides for a "SYG hearing" where the person who acted in self-defense is presumed guilty until he/she proves to a judge that it was self-defense. Yet that is what some judges and prosecutors have done.
The bill REVERSES that. Under this language the defendant is entitled to a Pretrial hearing if he/she chooses, but the burden of proof is ON THE PROSECUTOR to prove it was not lawful self-defense.
The bill clarifies that the person who is the initial aggressor [attacker] is not entitled to the law's protections.
The bill contains language that makes it clear that it is not the Legislature's intent that the law be used for unlawful purposes.
On Tuesday, March 18, 2014
SB-424 PASSED THE FLORIDA SENATE by a Vote of 36-3
SB-424 Discrimination by Insurance Companies by Sen. Tom Lee (R-Brandon) is a bill to stop insurance companies from discriminating against policy holders who own firearms and ammunition.
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014
HB-89 Threat of Force by Rep. Neil Combee & Rep. Katie Edwards & others was on Special Order on the House Floor for 2nd reading and Q & A .
HB-7029 Zero Tolerance/Pop Tart Bill by Rep. Dennis Baxley was on Special Order on the House Floor for 2nd reading and Q & A.
On Thursday, March 20, 2014
HB-523 PASSED by a Vote of 17-0 in the Regulatory Affairs Committee.
HB-523 CW License Applications by Rep. Jamie Grant is a bill to allow the Division of Licensing to designate qualified Tax Collectors to conduct the "Fast-Track" concealed weapons licensing application process in their respective counties.
HB-525 PASSED by a Vote of 16-1 in the Regulatory Affairs Committee.
HB-525 CW Public Records by Rep. Jamie Grant Prohibits Tax Collectors & their employees from disclosing identifying information of applicants and license holders.
HB-89 Threat of Force PASSED THE FLORIDA HOUSE by a Vote of 93-24
HB-89 Threat of Force by Rep. Neil Combee & Rep. Katie Edwards & others is a bill to stop abusive prosecutors from using 10-20-Life to prosecute people who exercise their constitutional right of self-defense.
HB-7029 Zero Tolerance/Pop Tart Bill PASSED THE FLORIDA HOUSE by a Vote of 98-17
HB-7029 Zero Tolerance/Pop Tart Bill by Education K-12 Committee & Rep. Dennis Baxley is a bill to stop some of the unbelievable actions by school administrators against children who behave like children and point fingers at each other pretending to shoot guns etc.
Stay Informed — See your Legislature in action on The Florida Channel
REMEMBER, you can watch committee hearings on The Florida Channel live on TV or on your computer. By going to The FLorida Channel on your computer, you can find the TV channel in your local area.
To find the TV Channel in your area, just click on the Orange Tab in the upper right corner that says "Where To Watch."
To watch on your computer, go to "Today's Schedule" on the right hand side of the screen and click on "Live Streams" then scroll down until you find the Committee Meeting you wish to watch.
If you miss a Committee meeting, you can go to "Video Library" in the Blue Menu Bar near the top of the screen then scroll down until you find the committee meeting you wish to watch.
To go to The Florida Channel now, Click Here
The 2014 Legislative Session began last Tuesday, March 4, 2014 and runs for 60 consecutive days ending on May 2, 2014 — if the Legislature completes it work. If the Legislature fails to complete its work in 60 days, they may extend the session or adjourn and be called back into Special Session.
'Threatened use of force' bill under fire from national websites
Senator Greg Evers' bill to stop abusive prosecutors from using 10-20-LIFE to charge people who, in self-defense, threaten to use deadly force against an attacker is under fire from two national websites.
Rather than having an honest debate about the merits of SB 448, the "Threatened use of force" bill, the websites have misconstrued the facts, saying it's a "widening of the state's Stand your ground law," that it "legalizes warning shots," and that it was written by NRA.
Okay, one at a time.
I asked Marion Hammer, executive director of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and past president of NRA, why we need this legislation.
"This bill is necessary to keep people who display a firearm to to warn off an attacker or even unwisely fire a warning shot from being wrongly prosecuted under 10-20-Life by abusive prosecutors," she said. "10-20-Life is about prosecuting criminals who guns to commit crimes. Self-defense is not a crime, it is a right and some prosecutors are violating those rights."
The bill would never be needed, she said, but for the actions of a few prosecutors.
"In a perfect world we wouldn't need this bill, but when prosecutors treat law-abiding people
like criminals," she said. "It has to stop."
While she testified on behalf of SB 448, NRA did not draft the bill.
"The bill is from Families Against Mandatory Minimums," Hammer said. "Greg Newburn is their Project Director in Florida."
"If you actually shoot the attacker – the law protects you. But if you merely threaten to shoot an attacker, some prosecutors will try to put you in prison for 10 or 20 years," Hammer said. "That is the cold hard reality of how some prosecutors are treating law-abiding people who never would have been in the system if they had not been attacked and in fear for their own safety."
The bill was prompted by the plight of Marissa Alexander, who was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a warning shot at her husband in 2010. An appellate court recently ordered that Alexander should receive a new trial, because her Duval County jury received improper instructions. She has since been released from prison.
Ask Ms. Alexander, who was serving a 20 year sentence for trying to defend herself, what she thinks of the legislation.
She is not the only victim.
Later this week, you'll be reading about the plight of another woman who was trying to defend herself in her home and ended up a convicted felon because of an overzealous prosecutor.
She too supports the legislation, even though it comes too late.
Other groups are weighing in.
The bill has garnered strong support from the Florida Public Defenders Association, which is not exactly the most pro-gun group in the state.
Given the thrashing SB 488 has received in the national online media, one has to ask why.
I think, at the risk of paraphrasing a former president, they simply hate us for our freedoms – especially those that allow us to defend ourselves.
In Florida – at least for now – we don't have to become victims.
Just days after Sarasota city commissioners voiced their support to repeal the state's "Stand Your Ground" statute, the Sarasota GOP created an online petition to support the controversial statute.
Gaye Ellis, chair of Okaloosa County Republican Party – the Florida Panhandle Patriots – said the Okaloosa group launched a petition to support the statute in advance of Rep. Matt Gaetz's hearing about the statute.
Gaetz, chair of the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, is expected to hold the hearings late this month or in early October, Ellis said.
A story published last week revealed that when formulating their legislative priorities for next year, the Sarasota City Commission decided to support the repeal of the controversial statute.
Vice Mayor Willie Shaw introduced the motion.
Mayor Shannon Snyder, a retired deputy sheriff known for his support of the Second Amendment, was the only member who voiced opposition to the decision.
The commission's brief one paragraph goal was included under "major priorities" in a document titled Revised Final 2014 Legislative Priorities.
Sarasota City Commissioner Paul Caragiulo made it clear Saturday that he is not siding with those commissioners who support repealing the state's 'Stand Your Ground' statute.
A story published earlier this week revealed that when formulating their legislative priorities for next year, the Sarasota City Commission decided to support the repeal of the
controversial statute.
Vice Mayor Willie Shaw introduced the motion.
Mayor Shannon Snyder, a retired deputy sheriff known for his support of the Second Amendment, was the only member who voiced opposition to the decision.
The commission's brief one paragraph goal was included under "major priorities" in a document titled Revised Final 2014 Legislative Priorities.
Just days after the commissioners announced their decision, the Sarasota Republican Party started a campaign to answer, a story which was reported by my colleague Jeremy Wallace.
In a statement sent Saturday, Commissioner Caragiulo said, "When the request to oppose 'Stand Your Ground' was brought up at the City Commission at the September 3rd meeting, not being familiar with any specific reasons for repeal I was not comfortable having a substantive discussion regarding it."
"Over the next two days to gain a better understanding I spoke to the State Attorney, the Public Defender, several Law Enforcement officers, and defense attorneys," Caragiulo said in the statement. "Subsequently, at the September 5th meeting I informed the commission that I will express to the Delegation that not all agenda items have unanimous support."
He will present the city's legislative priorities to the Sarasota County legislative delegation Sept. 18.
"As required by my appointment as the City liaison to the Legislative Delegation, I will present the priorities as adopted by the Commission but will also express the Mayor's and my opinion against repeal of 'Stand Your Ground," Caragiulo wrote.
UPDATED The Sarasota GOP is fighting with the city over it's 'Stand' stand.
My colleague Jeremy Wallace has an update to this story on his site.
EARLIER: When formulating their legislative priorities for next year, the Sarasota City Commission voted to support the repeal of the state's "Stand your ground" statute.
The commission's brief one paragraph goal was included under "major priorities" in a document titled Revised Final 2014 Legislative Priorities.
"The City Commission requests that the State Legislature repeal the Stand Your Ground statute and establish a more civil approach to governance than afforded under the current statute," the document states.
Vice Mayor Willie Shaw introduced the "Stand" priority.
Mayor Shannon Snyder, a retired deputy sheriff known for his support of the Second Amendment, was the only member opposed to it.
"I spoke against it," Snyder said in a message. "I was the only one."
Other "major" legislative goals included public pension reform and more funding for homelessness programs.
The city's legislative priorities will be presented to the Sarasota County legislative delegation Sept. 18.
Lee's note: This is the latest contribution from Michael Sheesley – a true expert – a practicing lawyer, FFL holder, firearms trainer and lethal force expert living on St. Thomas, USVI.
by Michael Sheesley, Esq.
The purpose of this article is not to throw gasoline on the burning flames of the debate over the Zimmerman verdict and the accompanying jockeying by seemingly every social, political and special interest group. Instead I want to talk about the moral and ethical use of lethal force whenever the legal justification is present.
As a disclaimer, I do not practice law in the State of Florida, I am not admitted to practice law in the State of Florida and I do not instruct any firearms classes in the state of Florida. Since this matter is current in the news I am using Florida's law as an example to play out some
hypothetical situations.
As a general rule it is widely accepted, and I teach, that in order to use lethal force there must be an immediate, unavoidable, threat of death or great bodily harm to an innocent party.
The widely misquoted, mischaracterized and misinterpreted "stand your ground" law in the State of Florida states:
"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." Title XLVI Florida Statues s.776.013(3)
What this portion of the Justifiable Use of Force statute does is remove the requirement to retreat from an attack if the individual is lawfully in a place in the State of Florida. All the other elements must be present in order to use lethal force. My belief in why this was not "used as a defense" in the Zimmerman trial is that there was no evidence presented by the prosecution that Mr. Zimmerman had the opportunity to retreat once the altercation ensued.
Examples of the law in the State of Florida and how it modifies the above generally accepted principle can be explained in two scenarios:
First, the "stand your ground" scenario. You are walking in a public park. A man approaches you holding a baseball bat and begins to threaten you saying he is going to "Beat you to a bloody pulp." You are under no duty to attempt to run away or avoid the situation. Should the man raise the bat you can meet force with force. In this scenario you would be justified in using lethal force.
A variation on this scenario is that you are walking in a public park and you notice a man holding a woman on the ground, ripping her clothes off and screaming that he is going to rape her. You are legally justified in using force, including deadly force to stop the woman from getting raped.
Let's examine the legal justifications in these two situations where the "stand your ground" portion of the Justifiable Use of Force is applicable. In both situations there is clearly an immediate, threat of death or great bodily harm to an innocent party. In both situations you are under no legal duty to retreat from the situation. What about morally and ethically?
Morals and ethics are extremely personal, what works for me may not work for you. Circumstances and situations dictate actions and responses.
In the first instance if I had the chance to escape the situation I would likely do so given the right circumstances. If the park were generally empty and I did not have a reasonable fear that the crazed person with the bat would channel his aggression towards someone else I would just leave. Morally and ethically I would be comfortable that there was a high likelihood no one else would get hurt and my actions prevented me from using lethal force. I would call the proper law enforcement authorities and allow them to handle the situation. If however the park was crowded and I felt that there was a likelihood that the aggressor's behavior would be directed to another innocent person without the ability to defend themselves I would likely exercise my legal right to use force, up to and including deadly force.
Now the second instance of the woman facing an imminent and forcible felony, namely rape. I would be legally justified in using deadly force to stop the commission of the rape. Am I under a moral or ethical obligation to stop the rape? This is a personal question. I would undoubtedly step in and exercise my legal right to defend another as long as doing so would not put me in greater danger of my own life. As a layperson I don't believe (remember the disclaimer) that I have any legal duty to intervene in the State of Florida. I legally could just stand there and watch.
In many jurisdictions if I exercise my legal right to use lethal force in either of the above situations I potentially can face civil liability. The general rule is that if you interject yourself into a situation you can be civilly liable for harm that results from your actions if they are negligent. What if I fire a shot at the guy with the baseball bat and kill a 10 year old child? I will be willing to bet that I will be facing a wrongful death suit from the parents of that child. What if I attempt to stop the rapist and end up injuring the woman that was being attacked? I would wager that a personal injury lawyer could be found very quickly that would sue me for everything that I own. Knowing this may affect the standards of behavior concerning your individual actions.
A person in the State of Florida additionally has no duty to retreat from their dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle. In fact if a person is in their dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle and another is unlawfully and forcefully entering any of those places, and the person knows that the other is unlawfully entering those places, the 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. Title XLVI Florida Statues s.776.013(1).
Given this portion of the statute consider you are home in the evening watching television. You hear a loud noise, the front door flies open and a two young men burst through the door. Under Florida law you are under no duty to retreat from your home. Under Florida law you are also presumed to hold a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to yourself. Legally you are justified to respond to the intruders using deadly force.
Using the above facts imagine I reside alone in a planned development where all the houses look substantially similar and it is the day before Thanksgiving. Where I am from the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is a time where many young men and women return home from their various colleges or residences in other cities and meet their old high school friends out for a night at the local bars.
Given this factual situation morally and ethically I would choose to identify who the individuals were and to the extent possible what their intentions were. As it turns out these were two intoxicated brothers who mistook my house for their own after a night of drinking with friends. It would be tough for me to live with using lethal force against individuals who made a mistake and meant me no harm. However I would have been well within my legal right to do so.
Next imagine that I reside with my family in a lone house set squarely in the middle of a half acre lot enclosed by a chain link fence. There has been a rash of burglaries and home invasions in the area. 2:00 A.M. a loud crash downstairs and as I descend the stairs with a flashlight and my weapon I see a man rapidly ascending the stairs towards me. I illuminate the intruder and command him to stop. The intruder advances.
In this factual situation I would be comfortable in using lethal force with no further questions asked. Legally I would be within my rights.
The point is that it is not only important to know what the laws are within the particular state or jurisdiction where you are present but also to think through various situations given your personal morals and ethics.
Michael Sheesley is a practicing attorney, a firearms instructor and a partner in Virgin Arms, a FFL holder serving the law enforcement and civilian community in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Mr. Sheesley regularly deals with criminal matters involving the use of lethal force and is a consultant to expert witnesses. Mr. Sheesley is a member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors and the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. He can be contacted at: email@example.com
The scenario: You're out with your spouse in a dimly-lit restaurant parking lot, walking toward your car after dinner. Suddenly, a man jumps out from between two parked cars, brandishing a weapon, which he's raising to use. What do you do?
Before the state's poorly-nicknamed "Stand Your Ground" law was enacted, you had a duty to retreat before using deadly force.
Run away!
To put that into perspective, that means you would have to turn away from the threat, look for a safe escape route, and then usher your spouse toward the avenue of retreat and follow after her. Hopefully, your retreat won't be accompanied by a hail of gunfire from the bad guy.
After you've retreated, or at least tried to retreat, then you can think about meeting force with force.
Nowadays, with the Stand law enacted, you can respond appropriately, without having to engage in a ludicrous and tactically-unsound retreat.
Critics have called this shoot first legislation. In the scenario I have described above, I certainly hope that would be the case.
There's no legal requirement that I'm aware of anywhere that requires an armed robbery victim to allow his assailant to get a round off before responding in kind.
Let's add a dose of reality to the Stand debate – real world applications of the controversial law – from a story I wrote last year:
Bradenton attorney Charlie Britt and Eric Reisinger of Sarasota have successfully defended clients using the "Stand Your Ground" defense.
In 2010, Britt had second-degree murder charges against his client, Edwin Vargas-Lopez, dropped after filing a "Stand Your Ground" immunity motion — the first use of the 2005 statute in Manatee County.
Vargas-Lopez had been drinking and dancing at a club on Cortez Road. After he danced with a waitress, someone became jealous and struck him in the head. Vargas-Lopez struggled to his truck and shut the door, but several people punched him and tried to pull him out of the window, including 32-year-old Fernando Castulo Morales.
Vargas-Lopez grabbed a knife and swung with the weapon, striking Morales in the chest and killing him.
Britt argued his client was in fear for his life, and that he had a right to protect himself; the judge agreed. "It worked out well for Edwin," Britt said.
Florida law allows a person who is "not engaged in any unlawful activity" to "meet force with force," including the use of deadly force. It does not require a person to retreat if they are in a public place, a requirement of previous state laws, and therefore allows them to "stand their ground."
"It's a good law, and it should be the law," said Britt, a former law enforcement officer. "If you're in a life-and-death situation, sometimes you have the opportunity to retreat, sometimes you don't. The law shouldn't require you to run if it would compromise your life."
Britt has another case pending in which his client may claim a defense under stand your ground. The man fired several shots into the air to stop a crowd of people that was advancing on him, including some whom he believed were armed. No one was injured, but Britt's client was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm. These charges too will likely be dismissed, Britt said.
"I believe that in a public place, you should be able to use deadly force," Britt said. "The cops can use it. Why can't I?"
In 2010, Sarasota's Reisinger had second-degree murder charges against his client, Alphonse Gallo, dropped due to stand your ground, the first time the law was used in Sarasota County.
In May 2010, Gallo was confronted by three people he thought were going to rob him outside a Newtown bar, including Patrick Barbour, whom Gallo had fought with earlier that evening. Gallo testified later that Barbour pulled out a firearm.
Gallo, who had a concealed weapon permit, produced his pistol and a firefight ensued. More than two dozen rounds were exchanged between Gallo, Barbour and Barbour's friends.
When it was over, Barbour had been hit three times and later died. Reisinger filed a "Stand Your Ground" immunity motion.
"The victim threatened to shoot my client. My client defended himself. The judge granted the motion for immunity," Reisinger said. "For law-abiding citizens who aren't causing trouble, it's a good law. People have a right to defend themselves."
My colleague Tom Lyons has written a column today about the Stand law. Tom's "irritated" that Attorney General Eric Holder is connecting the law to the Trayvon Martin shooting.
For once I am in complete agreement with Tom, which itself is somewhat newsworthy.
There are no surprises in the report from the Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection, which was released late last week.
The stand-your-ground law stands, as is.
The task force was formed in the wake of the controversial Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford – a case that has yet to be adjudicated.
Its mission was to review Chapter 776, Florida Statutes – the deadly force laws – and conduct a listening campaign around the state, hearing from Floridians who support or oppose the "stand" law.
Once done traveling, the group was told to make a report to the governor and the legislature, to ensure the rights of all Floridians and visitors were protected," including the right to feel safe and secure in our state."
The 19-member group, which was co-chaired by Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll and Reverend R.B. Holmes, Jr., held public hearing in seven cities: Tallahassee, Longwood, Arcadia, West Palm Beach, Cutler Bay, Jacksonville, and Pensacola.
I attended a task force meeting in Arcadia. Many individuals came to ask for help with a host of personal issues, but there were basically two types of people at the hearing: those who believed Trayvon Martin was murdered, who worried that a similar killing could befall their community, and gun-rights groups. The former believed the law goes too far in allowing self-defense claims to free those who kill when violence could be avoided.
The task force was very good about giving both sides their say.
According to their report, the task force received "16,603 pieces of correspondence, 711 phone calls, 64 comment cards, 160 public comments."
The group's first "core recommendation" says all you need to know:
- The Task Force concurs with the core belief that all persons, regardless of citizenship status, have a right to feel safe and secure in our state. To that end, all persons who are conducting themselves in a lawful manner have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be.
There are seldom clear answers when deadly force is used. Everything is grey.
Even though the law remains unchanged, an armed citizen who uses deadly force should be prepared for up-close and personal contact with law enforcement, and the strong possibility of a civil suit, regardless of the immunity clause embedded into the statute.
Here are the task force's recommendations:
Core Recommendations
After holding seven public meetings across the state, hearing from a broad array of relevant subject matter experts, and considering 16,603 pieces of correspondence, 711 phone calls, 64 comment cards, 160 public comments at Task Force meetings, and over 30 documents, the Task Force recommends the following:
1. The Task Force concurs with the core belief that all persons, regardless of citizenship status, have a right to feel safe and secure in our state. To that end, all persons who are conducting themselves in a lawful manner have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be.
2. The Task Force recommends the Legislature examine the term "unlawful activity" as used in Chapter 776, Florida Statutes and provide a statutory definition to provide clarity to all persons, regardless of citizenship status, and to law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the judiciary.*
*Discussed definition of "unlawful activity" to give guiding language to the courts to ensure uniform application of the law with the intent to protect the innocent person.
a) Task Force member State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle proposed the definition of "unlawful activity" should exclude noncriminal violations as defined in Section 775.08(3), Florida Statutes.
b) Task Force member Judge Krista Marx proposed that the definition should include temporal proximity of the unlawful activity to the use of force.
c) Task Force member Public Defender Stacy Scott proposed that the definition of "unlawful activity" should exclude some county and municipal ordinance violations.
d) Task Force member Edna Canino proposed that the definition exclude citizenship status.
The Task Force heard a number of examples related to the definition of "unlawful activity" used in Chapter 776, Florida Statutes. Questions were raised including whether the term applied to all unlawful activity including misdemeanors, ordinances, and minor traffic violations. Without a clear definition of the term "unlawful activity" the potential for inconsistent application of the law across the state may occur.
3. The Task Force recommends associations, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the judiciary increase training and education regarding self defense laws to ensure uniform and fair application of Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, and other related criminal statutes.
The Task Force heard testimony from citizens, law enforcement, prosecutors, and public defenders that Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, although well intended, may not always be fairly and equitably applied across the state.
The Task Force heard examples of specific self defense cases where individuals felt the law was
not fairly applied. Although the Task Force's mission was not to retry individual cases, there was enough evidence presented to suggest that education among the parties including law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, the judiciary, and the citizens of the State of Florida could contribute to a more uniform, just, and fair application of the law.
4. The Task Force recommends the Legislature review applicable standards for recognized neighborhood watch groups, as defined in Section 30.60 and Section 166.0485, Florida Statutes, to define the role of neighborhood watch participants as limited to observing, watching, and reporting potential criminal activity to law enforcement. The participant's purpose is not to pursue, confront, or provoke potential suspects.
The Task Force heard testimony from a neighborhood watch volunteer, crime prevention coordinator, and private security companies regarding standards for neighborhood watch groups. The standards for neighborhood watch groups ranged from the loosely organized to sophisticated organizations that employed written policies and procedures and strict standards for volunteers.
The Task Force learned through these presentations that neighborhood watch volunteers
are residents of their respective communities who volunteer their time; however, there are usually no requirements to participate or training provided to them. This could result in occurrences of volunteers acting outside the scope of the intent of neighborhood watch, which is to observe and report only, not to pursue, confront, or provoke potential suspects.
5. The Task Force recommends the Legislature examine the definition of "criminal prosecution", as defined in Section 776.032(1), Florida Statutes, to remove any ambiguity for law enforcement to fully complete their investigation.
The Task Force heard examples from law enforcement expressing concern for the definition of "criminal prosecution" and the affect of that definition on law enforcement's ability and authority to investigate, detain or arrest a person engaged in use of force.
6. The Task Force has considered the Florida Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Peterson v. State. The Task Force believes the pre-trial adversarial proceeding set out in that case is proper.
The Task Force reviewed the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Peterson v. State, which established a pre-trial adversarial proceeding for determining immunity for an individual claiming self-defense. Absent a clear procedure in current law for granting immunity under Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, the Florida Supreme Court established this procedure. The Task Force has determined that this procedure is adequate.
7. The Task Force recommends the Legislature consider whether the civil immunity provision should extend to innocent third-party victims. The Task Force discussed the possibility of innocent third-party victims being injured or killed during use of force incidents. Although an individual may be granted civil immunity for their use of force during that incident, it is not clear whether that immunity would apply even when innocent third-party victims are injured or killed due directly to the actions of that individual.
8. The Task Force recommends the Legislature consider funding further study of the correlation and causation to include variables such as race, ethnicity, gender, application and fairness of the law in regards to the expansion of self defense laws in the State of Florida, including a statistical comparison with other states. The Task Force recommends any report be issued by 2015 with periodic updates.
The Task Force enlisted the assistance of the University of Florida, Levin College of Law, in compiling and analyzing data related to the use of force in defense of self and others within the State of Florida. Professor Monique Worrell of the university presented her findings to the members at the meeting held in West Palm Beach. During her presentation, Professor Worrell provided data related to trends in homicides, justifiable homicide claims, crime rate, gun license applications, and tourism. However, Professor Worrell pointed out that conclusions regarding the impact of recent changes to Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, could not be drawn without a more complex analysis of the data.
9. The Task Force recommends the Legislature review Florida's 10-20-Life law to eliminate any unintended consequences.
10. Vice Chair R.B. Holmes, Jr., State Attorney Kathleen Fernandez Rundle, and Public Defender Stacy Scott each submitted other specific recommendations, which are included in Appendix E of this report.


text:
- Report: #1149754
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: SATNAM GURM
SATNAM GURMNationwide USA
SATNAM GURM subway owner LOW LIFE Trail Nationwide
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
Ordered a sub asked for more pickles would not give them to me even offer to pay still no! Did not want peppers or olives so why not a few more pickles???? For a owner he was very standoffish and rude! When i go to a Subway in my town and ask for more they say is that enough or do you want more. Sub is made my way. When i left complaining to myself i met someone outside that laughed and said you don"t know the half of it. Checks are late t4 are late no food is wasted even if out dated.He screws anyone he can for a buck. So i emailed vancouver main office but i guess since no reply they don"t care either!!
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/26/2014 03:32 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/SATNAM-GURM/nationwide/SATNAM-GURM-subway-owner-LOW-LIFE-Trail-Nationwide-1149754. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on SATNAM GURM
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Three reasons common atheist arguments against God fail spectacularly.
5 Ways Western Christianity Distorts God
Do you bear any un-Christlike misunderstandings of God?
Pastors: 7 Hard Truths You Need to Tell Your Church
If we as leaders don't set our congregations straight now, they'll be blindsided later.
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss another story
Our best and most popular articles, delivered to your inbox twice a week


text:
You may have seen the LPGA's Belen Mozo wearing a Callaway hat, carrying a Callaway bag and even using Callaway sticks this last year, but the iconic golf brand took to Twitter on Wednesday to anno
OWINGS MILLS, Md. – Beatriz Recari sized up the International Crown trophy during the gala on the eve of the inaugural matches and made a bold claim.
OWINGS MILLS, Md. – Spain's Belen Mozo clinched the inaugural International Crown on Sunday for her country.
No one has ever accused Tiger Woods of being golf's Mr.


text:
Latest Post:
Started By:
165 days ago.
by slinky
Nothing seems to add up in this Ambassador Stevens murder. Orders to stand down. Poor security on 911. Could Stevens have been sacrified as an eye for an eye for taking out Bin Laden with the Muslim radicals? What do you think?
Member Comments
"Give us some proof that Fox news lied about a story.."
Not sure the topic exactly but here is some info: Hannity: ***********politifact****/personalities/sean-hannity/ O'reilly: ***********politifact****/personalities/bill-oreilly/
Posted 1032 days ago.
Debbie Poodle Hair Shultz is back on TV. The would be a signal that BO needs help.
Posted 1186 days ago.
Munster, Quit while you're behind.
Posted 1188 days ago.
" deny deflect MIS-LEAD and lie ! " YEP! That pretty well sums up the 12 changes in the talking points made by the Obamanites to hide the cause and details of the Benghazi attack.
"At this point, what does it matter...". Well Hillary, it doesn't matter to carbuncles upon the purposes of what Americans should expect from their public servants to people like you AND Munster.
Munster - " deny deflect MIS-LEAD and lie !". ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If a mirror had an as$hole, I'd know your mailing address.
Posted 1189 days ago.
4 Amercican died in Benghazi. Hilllary's take on it? "At this point, what difference does it make?"
Posted 1189 days ago.
Let's take a look at the incestuous relationship between Obama and the Liberal Media.
"News Organizations have "Ties" to the White House"
h ttp://catholicglasses.c om/2013/05/15/news-organizations-have-ties-to-the-white-house/
Posted 1189 days ago.
Hey Stupid MFer! When you say, "It maybe like JFK ,we wont ever know !" Do you not recognize the difference between (A) a long running mystery that may never be solved because of deceased witnesses OR (B A present day batch of scandals, with the promise of new witnesses/Whistleblowers emerging, who's testimony points to one small group of corrupt individuals with significant motive to have profited from they're legally/constitutionally questionable undertakings?
Posted 1191 days ago.
Munster, thats being very patient of you. but since it seems that this will be a rather long and drawn out retrieval of information from the administration, i would be happy for you to present the true timeline that you glean from other sources. i would even entertain the submission of what the MSM have uncovered so far. you can feel free to use the talk shows starring susan rice as well as jay's press conferences as starting points if you desire. oh and lest not forget the presidents own words....please oh please include dame hillary's inspiring testimony. poorly contructed and supported lies do have a way of finding their way back to their owners. your denial, deflections and smearing of others really doesn't work.
Posted 1194 days ago.
the true timeline munster...thats the one. you need to educate yourself on the funding of security that you seem to continue spouting. there apparently was funding in place for security. research whom was hired for that job. were they paid in weapons or camels and goats? also, which department of our "transparent" government hired common street thugs turned militias for our consulates protection? dear god munster. i and others tire from your nauseatingly repetative posts on here. please exert a little energy to show you think deeper than being puzzled on how they get the peanut into an m&m.
Posted 1196 days ago.
i will be up quite late tonight and will check in on your thoughts regarding benghazi. it would be great if you could post an essay of the timeline of what happened. now don't skip any of the juicy parts either. be sure to include the hillary..."what does it matter...they're dead"! line. that could apply to so many dead in our recent history that you seem to crow about. btw....enjoy your evening.
Posted 1196 days ago.
Munster, the problem with your points are that you follow them by asking a question that you are either too inept, too lazy or too fearful of posting which would render your point ridiculous. just as an exercise. why not answer the question in your latest repeat a thousand times post. i am indeed curious.
Posted 1196 days ago.
Yup, lts, it was the clandestine agenda of the cia that prompted me to say, in the to-begin-with, that barry would not be inclined to be as candid as all those shrill voices demanded. I did not go back to refresh my memory, but I believe that was what I conveyed. And more shall be revealed.....
Posted 1198 days ago.
moderation...a correction to my last post....it should be kevin instead of steve. mental slip.
Posted 1198 days ago.
moderation, after reading your suggested article, it seems to me that steve quoted another "news source" that referenced an unnamed official lending little to the credibility. i did note that should the source be true, stevens would have turned down military security and not the requested security from the state department which he requested at least four times. it is possible that he anticipated state department security and declined the military security in anticipation of such. another consideration is the involvement of the CIA which adds a whole other variable to the equation. would you not agree? unfortunately we can't interview the deceased for the "truth".
Posted 1198 days ago.
lts- try politico 5/15/13 ,kevin cirilli .
Posted 1198 days ago.
upon review of the past post, it is clear that i was off on the exact number and ratio of personel.
Posted 1198 days ago.
date of the assault and of the CIA's authoritative role at the consulate. The operatives evacuated mission personnel and took control of an unarmed U.S. military drone to map possible escape routes, the officials said. The MQ-1 Predator drone, used by the CIA for reconnaissance, began providing video surveillance. In the midst of the assault, the operatives also dispatched an emergency reinforcement team from Tripoli, the capital, and chartered aircraft that ultimately carried surviving U.S. personnel to safety, the officials said. Of the more than 30 U.S. officials evacuated from Benghazi, only seven worked for the State Department, officials briefed on the intelligence told The Wall Street Journal. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, the Journal said.
Posted 1198 days ago.
good morning moderation...at least for me! the long game is fine it is the second shot in most cases that comes close to ruining the game. you sound like you are doing well and that is a good thing. i was not aware of any refusal of extra security. there seems to be an abundance of evidence to the contrary. however the following is the referenced post to you from 99 days ago. "moderation: The CIA was the real commanding agency at the attacked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, not the State Department, senior U.S. intelligence officials said. The intelligence officials said that within 25 minutes of being alerted to the attack in a desperate phone call, the CIA rushed a half-dozen security operatives to the mission from a secret base about a mile away.The operatives, who arrived at the mission about 25 minutes after that, joined State Department security agents in a futile search through heavy smoke and enemy fire for Stevens, the officials said in the most thorough account to da
Posted 1198 days ago.
masked man... whatchu say and wuz happening? There is documentation that the ambassador refused additional security. It was exhibited on a tv news broadcast. Did you see it or are you aware of it? How's your long game, by the way ? Take care
Posted 1198 days ago.
r1kra8 compared to Harpo Marx. ( moderation, (May,'13)
Posted 1198 days ago.
Post a Comment
You must first login before you can comment.


text:
Target Two Point Zero is a competition that gives teams of students aged 16 to 18 the chance to take on the role of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. Each team will assess economic conditions and the outlook for inflation and then set the interest rate to meet the Government's inflation target of 2.0%. The teams will present their analysis and monetary policy decision to a panel of judges.271 schools and colleges took part in last year's Challenge which ran from September 2015 to March 2016.
Contact the Target Two Point Zero Team:-
Tel: 020 7601 5366
Target Two Point Zero Resource ManualThe manual provides guidance on what the Challenge involves. It explains how the economy and monetary policy work, and what factors determine and influence inflation and monetary policy decisions. The manual is updated annually and this year's version will be available in early September 2016.