Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee's decision came less than a day after city commissioners gave him a "no confidence" vote, and after a couple of weeks of protests and uproar on social media websites. Lee has said evidence in the case supported George Zimmerman's claim that the Feb. 26 shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was self-defense.

"I do this in the hopes of restoring some semblance of calm to a city which has been in turmoil for several weeks," Lee said.

About three hours later, Gov. Rick Scott announced that the local state attorney, Norman Wolfinger, had recused himself from the case. In a letter to Scott, Wolfinger said that while he thought he could fairly oversee any prosecution that develops in the case, his recusal was aimed at "toning down the rhetoric and preserving the integrity of the investigation." Scott appointed Angela B. Corey, the state attorney for the Jacksonville area, to take over the case.

[www.csmonitor.com]

What in the hell is going on?

"...preserving the integrity of the investigation..."?

Is anybody even investigating anything ?

I hope the Feds come in and clean up this cesspool.

I agree , it will take the Feds to fix it. I also expect the Personal Space shoot to kill law will be repealed. Never made any sense to me.

Quote
cbelt3
I also expect the Personal Space shoot to kill law will be repealed.

Don't forget that the law was introduced at the behest of the NRA who have been deafeningly silent on the matter. Those that opposed this law when it was proposed predicted these dreadful scenarios but I doubt they will get much comfort from saying "I told you so". It certainly isn't helping advertise Florida as a tourist destination.

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

While it stinks, the state's hands are tied as by the letter of the law in Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, what took place was legal.

This is exactly what opponents said would eventually transpire when the state GOP controlled legislature (by super-majority in both chambers) and GOP Governor allowed this to become law with virtually no official debate.

The law essentially says a person claiming to feel threatened may use deadly force to protect themself. It does not limit the action to protecting one's self from deadly intention, it does not say the other party need be armed, nor does it say you must be on your property or defending your property. You do not have to try to leave or avoid the other individual. You do not even have to show that you were physically threatened. Essentially if you feel threatened, you can use whatever force you deem neccessary to feel safe again - up to and including deadly force.

Florida also allows individuals with a permit (granted to just about anyone who takes the concealed weapons course, which requires everyone be passed) to carry a weapon anywhere in the state other than schools (and that is being debated in court) and the state legislative chambers.

Since their are no witnesses to what transpired, the only evidence is what the shooter says. He said he felt threatened and used the force neccessary to protect himself.

Yes, it is an idiot's law that is shortsighted and ill-conceived (IMHO). Quite frankly, I'm surprised anyone has been charged with murder since this law went into effect last year. With any luck, it will be amended in some fashion to correct it's many flaws. So far, no member of the majority party in Florida has raised that possibility.

So welcome to the wild west, hopefully you'll survive your next trip to Disney World - just don't look mean at Mickey or he could blow you away.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

Quote
Spock
Those that opposed this law when it was proposed predicted these dreadful scenarios but I doubt they will get much comfort from saying "I told you so".

I don't think the law would have changed anything that happened before he was shot. This guy was going to shoot someone eventually, regardless.

It's what happened after the shooting.

Zimmerman: "I shot him in self-defense."

Police: "Well, okay then. You're free to go! Have a nice evening, sir!"

Even the guy who wrote the "Stand Your Ground" law said it doesn't apply in this case.

He may not have intended it to apply, but several legal experts have said it will be very hard to get a conviction because of it. Even bringing charges is difficult.

Intentions do not mean a thing legally.

Once again a lawmaker didn't bother to listen to anyone pointing out the flaws in a proposal. Now he is trying to distance himself from the controversy.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

>>While it stinks, the state's hands are tied as by the letter of the law in Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, what took place was legal.

That should be determined after a complete investigation.

---

The problem is people of color wearing hoodies.

Stop that sartorial choice and problem solved.

Quote
beagledave
The problem is people of color wearing hoodies.

Stop that sartorial choice and problem solved.

That's rather stupid logic, but the Rican and Guat gangs here have their hoodies. They are verboten in all the schools. Even kindergartens. Advisable if you are or look twenty-something or younger to be very, very careful what you wear if you go to the Mall on the weekend. Shoppers have been shivved because they had a hood up walking around.

Zimmerman has a friend, Frank Taaffe, who came to his defense:

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

Wait! A little research on Zimmerman's defender, Frank Taffe, brings this up:

[mugshots.com]

[mugshots.com]

You CANNOT REHABILITATE the hoodie!!!!!!!!

Quote
Dennis S
Wait! A little research on Zimmerman's defender, Frank Taffe, brings this up:

What does

Quote

Charges: VIOLATE INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOM VIO

mean? I have no idea if this is even relevant.

---

Quote
beagledave
The problem is people of color wearing hoodies.

Stop that sartorial choice and problem solved.

The sad thing about being Black in too many parts of this country is that you do have to accommodate the bigots in order to avoid injury or death.

"A Mom's Advice To Her Young, Black Sons"
[www.npr.org]
This is the stuff that white people don't think about. I know I never have.

But it IS wrong to blame the victim. Obviously, I don't think murdering someone because their hoodie made you nervous should be allowed.

---

[www.cnn.com]
"Obama said Trayvon Martin's death particularly resonated with him as an African-American parent.

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said in brief remarks outside the White House."
- - -

Damn right. The culture of guilty of being black is still pervasive in America. It's a bad thing.

Historically it takes one or more horribly cases on injustice for a sea change in American thinking. Hopefully Trayvon has not died in vain, and his murder will resonate throughout our collective consciousness and prevent other prejudices from taking place.

Ed... a personal note. I've been hassled by criminalistic types several time, and the amount of melanin in their skin has varied. So personal experience tells me a hood is a hood.

But.. I'll still confess to finding myself reacting with stress to young black men more than young white men. I don't understand why... I don't think I'm prejudiced on a racial basis, but there was definitely a strong neighborhood cultural programming growing up in the Missouri in the 60's. My parents were both highly educated and would happily talk to anyone... Dad was a university professor, mom substitute-taught English in inner-city schools where a majority of her students were black.

Such soul searching is necessary on a national level.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2012 11:19AM by cbelt3.

Quote
$tevie

Quote
Dennis S
Wait! A little research on Zimmerman's defender, Frank Taffe, brings this up:

What does

Quote

Charges: VIOLATE INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOM VIO

mean? I have no idea if this is even relevant.

Maybe he violated a restraining order. Maybe a court of law with the accused murderer on trial would determine if it was relevant. Oh, wait.

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
Spock
Those that opposed this law when it was proposed predicted these dreadful scenarios but I doubt they will get much comfort from saying "I told you so".

I don't think the law would have changed anything that happened before he was shot. This guy was going to shoot someone eventually, regardless.

It's what happened after the shooting.

Zimmerman:" My lawyer told me to say: "I shot him in self-defense." "

Police: " ( lawyers, Well, okay then. You're free to go! Have a nice evening, sir!"

I have not read the Florida law, but if Zimmerman was chasing Martin, this is obviously different from standing his ground. The intent of the law presumably was that a law abiding person does not have to attempt to escape from a violent offender first, and only then use force to protect himself. In some way this makes sense -- why should the rest of us have to give up our own rights (like being in a public place without bothering anyone else) to accomodate violent criminals? But the law should not be written as carte blanche to shoot anybody you don't like, particularly if that dislike stems from a generalized racial fear.

As I said, I have not read the florida statute, so if it is written in a way that allows for murder, it ought to be scrapped immediately. But if there is any sense to it at all, and if the prosecution can show that Zimmerman chased down Martin, precipitated a physical fight (there is evidence that the two made contact) and then shot him, it comes pretty close to premeditated murder.

The recusal by the local DA is proper because the entire local law enforcement mechanism has come under public scrutiny. The DA is the highest law enforcement official in the county, so he or she is also tainted as of now. The replacement by the state's attorney for the district is the next step and seems proper to me.

In other words, if the "stand your ground" issue is made moot in this specific case by a court ruling, then the jury's choice would seem to be between first and second degree murder. Alternatively, a criminal prosecution could be brought in which the jury is asked to determine whether the facts are consistent with the "stand your ground" principle, in which case they would have a choice between acquittal and the murder charges.

Let's see how easy a black guy gets off when he tells the cops, "Oh, I shot that white kid in self-defense."

Oh, there's no question in my mind that the races of the parties involved is a major factor in how this was handled by the police. Although Zimmerman's "race" is open to interpretation, he is un-black, just to clarify my first sentence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2012 12:52PM by $tevie.

Quote
Dennis S

Quote
$tevie
What does

Quote

Charges: VIOLATE INJUNCTION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOM VIO

mean? I have no idea if this is even relevant.

Maybe he violated a restraining order. Maybe a court of law with the accused murderer on trial would determine if it was relevant. Oh, wait.

OH, domestic violence. I truly couldn't interpret the meaning.

Quote
Dennis S
Let's see how easy a black guy gets off when he tells the cops, "Oh, I shot that white kid in self-defense."

The answer... trial for first degree murder. Here you go:
[www.tampabay.com]

"but several legal experts have said it will be very hard to get a conviction because of it. Even bringing charges is difficult."

I've also seen statements by several Florida prosecutors that the law does not apply in this case. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I'd love to see some statistics showing number of perpetrators shot and/or killed while they attempted to commit a crime vs. number of regular citizens shot and/or killed during stupid arguments, drunken brawls, mistaken identity, and so forth. I've got a feeling the latter vastly outweighs the former.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2012 02:26PM by $tevie.

Quote
$tevie
I'd love to see some statistics showing number of perpetrators shot and/or killed while they attempted to commit a crime vs. number of regular citizens shot and/or killed during stupid arguments, drunken brawls, mistaken identity, and so forth. I've got a feeling the latter vastly outweighs the former.

You clearly don't watch enough TV.

---

The states largest newspaper ran an article today looking at the application of the Stand Your Ground law across the state.. interesting read. Good to hear that several of the laws proponents are admitting it needs to be reexamined. Too bad it took a 17-yr-olds death and national condemnation for that to happen.

[www.tampabay.com]#


Tally of 'stand your ground' cases rises as legislators rethink law

By Ben Montgomery and Connie Humburg, Times Staff Writers

Published Thursday, March 22, 2012

The controversial law that police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.

A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half. The analysis shows that police and prosecutors continue to apply the law unevenly.

As pressure mounts to charge George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored police advice not to confront the unarmed teen on Feb. 26, Gov. Rick Scott announced he would convene a task force to study the law. No group keeps a tally of cases in which Florida Statute 776.013 (3) — commonly known as the "stand your ground" law — is invoked.

The law expands a citizen's right to use deadly force anywhere that he has a right to be if he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to stop another person from killing or hurting him badly.

The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality.

In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.

In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge, and nine cases were dismissed.

In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.

Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.

Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)

The Times analysis also shows that "stand your ground" is being invoked with greater frequency.

In the first five years the law was in effect, it was invoked 93 times. In the last year and a half, it has been invoked at least an additional 37 times.

"Justifiable homicides" reported to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement have increased threefold since the law went into effect.

Proponents say the law is working, allowing citizens to protect themselves from harm without worrying about legalities in the heat of the attack.

But the law has also been used to excuse killings in bar brawls, gang shootouts and road-rage incidents.

And if history serves, it's no wonder Zimmerman has not been arrested. Depending on how a police chief, prosecutor or judge interprets the law, which asks them to consider something as nebulous as a man's state of mind, they may find that under the law Zimmerman was justified in shooting young Martin.

At Wednesday's town hall meeting in Sanford, where more than 400 people sat inside the Allen Chapel AME Church and another 200 or more rallied outside, state Rep. Geraldine Thompson, D-Orlando, said repealing the "stand your ground" law would be a top priority for the Legislature's black caucus.

"What about Trayvon's right to stand his ground and defend himself?" she asked. "How do you claim self-defense when you're in an SUV and you pursue a person on foot? How did Trayvon provoke an attack when he was running away?"

The problem that often hamstrings police and prosecutors is that there are often no witnesses. Two people meet in the dark, one of them kills the other, and the narrative of what happened solely belongs to the person interested in staying out of jail, the analysis shows.

When Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, heard about the Martin case, "I went to my files and yanked out all the ones like it," he said. "I found 15."

Among them was a 2010 incident in Town 'N Country in which a man on a jog about 1 a.m. was punched in the face by a teenager. The man thought he was being robbed so he pulled a gun, and the teen started to run. The man fired eight shots. Four hit the teen. The man was not charged with a crime. His court file says "justifiable homicide."

In the Tampa Bay area, the law has been invoked 31 times. Hills­borough County leads the state with 14 such cases.

Several cases have prompted much controversy, including an incident in which a man who stabbed another with an ice pick was cleared of wrongdoing and one in which a man who legally carried a gun to a neighborhood park to shoo away a skateboarder shot and killed a man who confronted him. That case is pending.

Police chiefs and prosecutors have decried the law for years, but it wasn't until the Martin shooting that notable Republicans, including the bill's author, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, have said the law may need to be reconsidered.

"As far as I'm concerned, that neighborhood watch guy was breaking that law as soon as he started following that kid. He was stalking him. That's not standing your ground," said Rep. Richard "Rich" Glorioso, R-Plant City, who voted for the bill. "If the law is applied right, it's a fine law. But we worried about how people would interpret it, and how it would be applied, when we were discussing it."

Therein lies the problem.

The analysis shows the law is being unevenly applied across the state. A case that's dropped in Tampa might make it to a jury trial in Miami.

Hayhoe said the Martin case shows a clear need for reconsideration.

He's surprised it hasn't happened earlier.

"Most of these cases don't go beyond the local paper," he said. The Martin case is different.

"There's been more dialogue in the last three days than we've gotten for seven years," he said.

Ben Montgomery can be reached at bmontgomery@tampabay.com. Investigations editor Chris Davis, staff writer Lane DeGregory and researcher Carolyn Edds contributed to this report.


'Stand your ground' cases

130: The total number of "stand your ground" cases we have identified since the law was passed in 2010. Of those cases, the number of people who have been cleared of wrongdoing is 74.

In Tampa Bay:

Trevor Dooley, 2010, Valrico: Dooley walked to a park to chase away a skateboarder when David James, who was playing basketball with his daughter, confronted him. Dooley produced a gun and fatally shot James. Judge heard testimony in a "stand your ground" hearing and is expected to make a ruling soon.

James Behanna, 2005, Tampa: First Hillsborough case to test the law. Paralegal stabbed man who trespassed on property and then threatened to kill Behanna. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Granted new trial on appeal, pleaded guilty and got 42 months of probation.

Jacqueline Galas, 2006, Port Richey: Prostitute shot 72-year-old customer in self-defense after he threatened her with a gun. This was the first time prosecutors in Pasco had dropped a murder charge because of the law.

Max Wesley Horn, 2008, Pasco County: Horn fatally shot Joseph Martel after argument at Chasco Fiesta. He was acquitted after two years in jail.

Gregory Allan Stewart, 2009, Wesley Chapel: Shot William Kuch, a drunk, unarmed and confused man, who tried to enter the wrong house. Charged with aggravated battery but charges were later dropped.

© 2012 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

Quote
billb

Quote
Lux Interior

Zimmerman:" My lawyer told me to say: "I shot him in self-defense." "

Police: " ( lawyers, Well, okay then. You're free to go! Have a nice evening, sir!"

Your edits are not applicable here.

Cops came. Zimmerman claimed self-defense. Voila.

He didn't have a lawyer present. He didn't need one. He wasn't arrested. He wasn't even taken to the station for questioning.

When a person shoots and kills another person, there should be an arrest and a trial. Then, they can decide if "Stand Your Ground" applies.

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
billb

Quote
Lux Interior

Zimmerman:" My lawyer told me to say: "I shot him in self-defense." "

Police: " ( lawyers, Well, okay then. You're free to go! Have a nice evening, sir!"

Your edits are not applicable here.

Cops came. Zimmerman claimed self-defense. Voila.

He didn't have a lawyer present. He didn't need one. He wasn't arrested. He wasn't even taken to the station for questioning.

Make it criminal justice professor then.

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote
billb

Quote
Lux Interior

Zimmerman:" My lawyer told me to say: "I shot him in self-defense." "

Police: " ( lawyers, Well, okay then. You're free to go! Have a nice evening, sir!"

Your edits are not applicable there.

Cops left. Zimmerman claimed self-defense. Cello.

He didn't have a dentist present. He didn't need one. He wasn't arrested. He wasn't even taken to the bus station for questioning.

---

New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]

Quote
Dennis S
When a person shoots and kills another person, there should be an arrest and a trial. Then, they can decide if "Stand Your Ground" applies.

That this is not current practice is simply unbelievable.

---

New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]

It is insane that a man can shoot a guy and kill him with no witnesses, tell the cops it was self-defense, and go home still carrying the gun. And I think over 20 states have this law.

it's like the WILD WILD WEST - laws take the back seat to GUNS.

---

---

This is all an NRA wet dream.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

It seems Zimmerman has been kicked out of college because of the problems he has caused himself. Even worse for him is:

The New Black Panthers were handing out flyers at a rally at Sanford City Hall with Zimmerman's picture on them. The caption read “wanted dead or alive.”

[www.examiner.com]

It seems he was a little short-sighted when he decided to play cop.

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm; but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”'

T.S. Eliot

Apparently there was at least one witness who seems to confirm the shooter's POV:

[www.myfoxtampabay.com]

Incovenient as that may be for the lynch mob.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2012 04:00PM by Bill in NC.

I think the inconvenience lies with the dead child's family.

That aside, this doesn't really tell me a lot other than there was a physical struggle.

Quote
Bill in NC
Incovenient as that may be for the lynch mob.

Seems to support that if anyone should have been shot in self-defense, it was Zimmerman, seeing as Martin was merely "standing his ground."

Sounds like the witness saw the fight after it had already begun. Remember, Zimmerman was not a policeman and was not authorized to be chasing Martin in the first place: if he was following Martin and especially if he pulled a gun on him, Martin was more than justified in doing whatever he felt necessary to escape an unknown gunman.

I'd like to remind everyone that THIS is why we have police take a shooter into custody or at the very least have an investigation of the incident, rather than let someone go with no questions asked, just because he claims he was "Standing His Ground". Had the police done so in the first place a lot of this brouhaha might have been avoided. It's why the Stand Your Ground law is so fatally flawed.

---

Quote

if he was following Martin and especially if he pulled a gun on him, Martin was more than justified in doing whatever he felt necessary to escape an unknown gunman.

These have been my thoughts, too. How does one react to being stalked at night by a car driven by a gunman?

Except you're forgetting that what the witness saw is completely consistent with Zimmerman's claim that he was jumped on his way back to his truck.

Without another witness, or other evidence, there doesn't appear to be anything to contradict the above.

As for the latter, there would be significant civil liability for both the officer(s) and department for taking someone into custody (for simply being the shooter, without probable cause for an arrest), so I'm not surprised that didn't happen.

Quote
$tevie
Sounds like the witness saw the fight after it had already begun. Remember, Zimmerman was not a policeman and was not authorized to be chasing Martin in the first place: if he was following Martin and especially if he pulled a gun on him, Martin was more than justified in doing whatever he felt necessary to escape an unknown gunman.

I'd like to remind everyone that THIS is why we have police take a shooter into custody or at the very least have an investigation of the incident, rather than let someone go with no questions asked, just because he claims he was "Standing His Ground". Had the police done so in the first place a lot of this brouhaha might have been avoided. It's why the Stand Your Ground law is so fatally flawed.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 11:57AM by Bill in NC.

WTF. People are taken into custody every day for a lot less than holding a weapon which killed a person. For heaven's sake, we've got an entire legal system set up and we're supposed to use it, not circumvent it.

---

The stupid law specifically forbids arresting someone for 'standing their ground' - it's very clear. The police would most certainly be open to a civil case against them.

Quote

Except you're forgetting that what the witness saw is completely consistent with Zimmerman's claim that he was jumped on his way back to his truck.

The witness say a physical struggle, it is extrapolation that he was on his way back to his truck. One someone is killed, the situation merits more than extrapolation of one witness' statement.

Quote
Bill in NC
As for the latter, there would be significant civil liability for both the officer(s) and department for taking someone into custody (for simply being the shooter, without probable cause for an arrest), so I'm not surprised that didn't happen.

"simply being the shooter"

WTF?

He shot and killed an unarmed civilian. Even a cop who does that will get taken off the street pending an investigation.

Not to mention the quote from the witness in that link says nothing about how that apparent struggle ensued. So it proves nothing.

Everyone knew Zimmerman had cuts and bruises. But he very craftily claimed "fear for his life" and hid out while they healed and were no longer useful for any investigation.

---

Quote
hal
The stupid law specifically forbids arresting someone for 'standing their ground' - it's very clear. The police would most certainly be open to a civil case against them.

Ugh! It defies common sense and centuries of common law interpretation in the western world, but no you won't be arrested or sued under "stand your ground" unless the person you kill is a cop.

150 Section 4. Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, is created
151 to read:
152 776.032 Immunity from Criminal prosecution and Civil
153 action for justifiable use of force.--
154 (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s.
155 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is
156 immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of
157 such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a
158 law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was
159 acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the
160 officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any
161 applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably
162 should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer.
163 As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution"
164 includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or
165 prosecuting the defendant.

His injuries are consistent with his version of events.

Again, given current evidence what crime do the local police charge him with, considering Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything, but the local DA does?

I appreciate you don't like the guy, but exactly what crime has been committed?

Quote
$tevie
Not to mention the quote from the witness in that link says nothing about how that apparent struggle ensued. So it proves nothing.

Everyone knew Zimmerman had cuts and bruises. But he very craftily claimed "fear for his life" and hid out while they healed and were no longer useful for any investigation.