shoot to live. and that's what it's all about, being able to protect yourself when you're under threat of death or great bodily harm. >> but now some of the legislators who supported stand your ground are saying the law needs another look. the number of so-called justified killings has risen since stand your ground was enacted. the florida department of law enforcement statistics show that before stand your ground, there were about 13 so-called justified killings each year. that number has since risen to 36 justified killings each year. justified killing. think about that. how many more trayvon martins will there be until the laws are changed? that's "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. chris hays is filling in for rachel maddow tonight. >> thank you. >> rachel has the night off. something happened in washington d.c. today at the surfaced level

was the most benign and run of the mill thing in the entire universe, the least surprising thing and will probably appear on page a-19 of the washington newspaper. the senate rejected attempts to end oil subsidies. president obama was for ending oil subsidies and so were democrats in the senate but the republicans filibustered and it died. that three bullet point explanation can basically be said about everything that has happened in washington since 2010 or more-or-less. if you just think about it for a second, in this particular case, if you don't accept it at face value and instead take this case and hold it up to the light 15 degrees to see it at a new angle, it is down right bizarre this happened. it is a true mystery at a time when deficit scare mongering rules the beltway and physical probity is the flavor of the month, when nobody likes the oil

companies and the president has a majority in the senate and white house, they weren't able to pluck this low hanging fruit. it is a mystery, a washington caper. why does this particular piece of policy persist? a few possible reasons. maybe because this is a popular piece of policy, right? no. that can't be it. the nbc news polled on the issue last year and found that 74% of americans, 74% would like to do away with this policy three-quarters of americans would be in favor of eliminates tax subsidies for oil and gas industries. every year, gallup polls people on how they feel about various industries in this country. out of the 25 industries they polled on last year, the oil and gas industry came in 24th place, in terms of favorability. so the oil and gas industry is not very popular. the policy itself is not very popular.

maybe it's the case that subsidizing the oil and gas industry is a good piece of policy. it might be unpopular but economists everywhere recognize it's fundamentally sound. that's not it either. economists on the left have long argued for elimination oil subsidies. eliminate oil subsidies, two years for president obama. and from the foundry, elimiting all oil subsidies would be good for americantaxpayers and consumers. okay, maybe it's an industry on life support and needs the help. nobody liked the auto bailout but saving the auto industry was good for the u.s. economy. maybe it's not optimal policy and not popular but one of those things we need to suck it up and do because the oil and gas industries are in such dire straits. except that obviously not. the oil and gas industry is quite literally the most

profitable industry in the history of human kind. the big oil companies essentially mint money. the most recent quarter, the top five oil companies made a combined profit of $32 begin. finally, maybe there's a just durable partisan robust divide on both sides of this issue people on both sides of the aisle see the facts so differently they can't reconcile them and can't come to the consensus needed to get it over the hump. maybe republicans are fundamentally opposed to the idea of ending oil subsidies. >> i will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. they have plenty of incentive. >> i have voted to wipe out many of the oil subsidies to companies. they're doing fine on their own. >> we simply should not expect taxpayers struggling to pay their energy bills to continue

to subsidize the oil industry. >> look, i said everything's on the table. that includes ethanol. that includes all subsidies. >> oil and gas subsidies? >> on the table. >> on the table. >> if in fact they are making such enormous profits, perhaps they don't need the support and tax incentives given to them by the american taxpayer by the united states congress. >> would you be in favor of seeing some subsiies going to big oil at times of record profits? >> it's certainly something we ought to be looking at? >> doing away with these subsidies. >> when the federal government is short on revenues, we need to control spending but we need revenues to keep the government moving and they ought to be paying their fair share. >> that's not it either. even president bush, the quintessential republican oilman is on record saying we don't need oil subsidies. here are the heads of the top five oil companies themselves admitting on tape under oath what they think of the oil subsidies. >> yemen, the president say --

gentlemen, the president says, and i quote, with 55 dollar oil we don't need oil and gas incentives for companies to explore. there are plenty of incentives. today, the price of oil is above $55 per barrel. is the president wrong when he says we don't need incentives for oil and gas exploration? if i could have a yes or no answer and go down the row? >> no. i don't think our company has asked for incentives for exploration. >> sir? >> agreed. >> in my oral comments, i said we did not need but do need access. >> just a yes or no. sir? correct? >> he's correct. >> sir? >> yes, he is. >> just to recap, this is an unpopular piece of policy, economically sensitive and

aiding an industry already the most profitable in the world the democrats are against and republicans in congress against and democrats in the past said they're against. but repealing, we can't seem to repeal it. it fails. it fails to pass out of even one chamber of commerce. not just this year, it fails year after year. today, when i was googling around to find articles like this, i kept finding the same headlines from previous years. we go through this almost every single year. i am almost sure i guest hosted for rachel when congress knocked down a bill to eliminate oil subsidies. the mystery is why does this persist, when it's unpopular policy, democrats hate it, republicans have in the past supported getting rid of it, why does it persist. the most plausible way to find out whodunit, take a look who

voted for oil subsidies and who voted against them and look at how much money those two groups got from the oil. 51 members of the senate, mostly democrats, voted against them and collectively received$5 million in campaign contributions from big oil. the 47 senators who voted to protect the oil subsidies today, they got this much money from big oil. nearly $25 million. if this were a game of clue, i think we just solved the mystery. big oil with the wallet in the cloak room. big oil is a big industry, not a lot of pop and mom but mainly the top oil companies domestically. some of most recent data show the top five oil companies have 95% of the capacity. it's a concentrated market.

when teddy roosevelt started breaking up these markets, he wasn't concerned about primarily the thing we talk about and obsess over now, the way those market concentrations affect consumer prices. no. what teddy roosevelt worried about was the way that concentrated economic power would skew the political system. if our political institutions were perfect they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs. there are not a few public men who, though they would repel with indignation an offer of a bribe. >> in other words, terry roosevelt was worried about what we just saw today. even though we have something everyone agrees is bad policy. when it comes down to brass tax, we can't get rid of it. why can't we get rid of it?

you're looking at it. teddy roosevelt's nightmare come true. >> joining us now, dan dicker, author of "oil's endless bid." he is a trader with 25 years trading experience. >> call me dan, chris, as you always do on your own show. >> dan, can we start with a really basic question. every time i report on this and look at corporate profits, it's more profitable than just about anything else. >> $130 begin last year alone. >> why is it so profitable? why is extracting oil from the ground and selling on the market so profitable? my econ 101 instincts tells me it's not a competitive market and if it were, the profits would go down. >> no. it's cheap to get. the old picture of the oil spewing out with everybody dancing around, this is $2 a

barrel to get out of the ground. $2 a barrel. the most. oil to get out of the ground is deep water, ultra deep water like the horizon incident in bp, way down, that's $35 a barrel to get out. you can realize why somebody in 2005 would be able to sane front of a senate committee, a ceo of a major company would be able to say once oil prices go above $45, we're good, we don't need any more subsidies. there's no reason for them to provide them, especially since 2005, we're up 2 1/2 times the price of oil where we were back then. >> the point is the cost of this remains fairly fixed if you're extracting oil and expensive difficult to extract oil like deep water coming in at a value far below what oil is trading at. you just profit. >> yes. >> you call yourself a

manufacturer, apply for a manufacturer tax credit and the idea to incentivize to off source manufacturing. of course, you cannot off source or offshore where a big oil field is. >> yes. a lot of incentives are very wonky, tricks of how to amortize the cost of a rig over 12 years or 18 years. it's a very big difference. the president isn't asking for that much. asking for $4 begin. if we compare that to the amount of profit these guys make in a year, $130 begin in 2011, we're really talking about small small amounts of money. even more than that, he's looking to remove that money, looking to force that money into incentives for renewables that have run out since the 2009 stimulus package ran out in september of last year and then again in december of last year.

he's looking to move that money into something so desperately needs the help from something that desperately doesn't need the help. >> do you see any horizon in the future on big oil's strangle hold of american policy. you can try to chip away and try to make arguments and try to pluck this low hanging fruit and it's so hard to do. is there a point at which that power begins to diminish? >> i think one of the ways you move is take the oil market and get out of what has become a global oil market controlled by these five. one of the ways is to move into natural gas. i know there are a lot of environmental hurdles in front of it. it becomes less of a mom and pop marketplace less affected by the money into the political side of this. >> as the money goes into that market, we will see how long it lasts. >> dan dicker and author and

contributor of the book "oil's biggest bid." i would say we invited someone from the oil and petroleum company but they informed us nobody was available. the american economy appears to be so determined to extract its revenge on mitt romney. in the two years he has been . splenda® essentials™ no calorie sweetener with b vitamins, the first and only one to help support a healthy metabolism. three smart ways to sweeten. same great taste. splenda® essentials™. and it showed me the pressure points on my feet and exactly where i needed more support. then, i got my number. my tired, achy feet affected my whole life. until i found my number. i tried the free dr. scholl's foot mapping center. in two minutes, i got my foot map and custom number. i'm a 440. that matched up to the dr. scholl's custom fit orthotic

inserts with the right support and cushioning i need. i am a believer. i'm a believer! i'm a believer. find your closest foot mapping center at drscholls.com.

in the two years he has been running for president this time around, mitt romney has made two main arguments for his candidacy why republicans should nominate him and ultimately americans should make him president. first, mitt romney says barack obama has throttled job growth and the economy he has, to cite a now infamous phrase, made the economy worse. >> he did not cause this recession but he made it worse. >> he didn't create the recession but he made it worse and longer. >> when he took office, the economy was in recession and he made it worse. >> the central part of mitt romney's campaign, even if he has a kind of etch-a-sketch approach to actually owning those words. >> how can you continue to say that things are worse when they really aren't worse? >> i didn't say things are worse. >> well, you did, but what if. point being mitt romney is selling himself as a business

guy who can restore a robust economy and bring back jobs. >> i'm an economic heavyweight and know how this works and i will get it going for the american people. >> the problem is the economy is beginning to work again for the american people. unemployment has been falling and economy growing and firms are at long last hiring more workers. corporate america is having trouble getting more output out of existing employees. that's not terrible news for the average american. certainly would not be terrible news no matter how badly mitt romney might want it to be. we have roughly seven more months to go, jobs can keep growing and seven more months for mitt romney's first big argument for himself to get that much weaker. his second argument i think is far less attractive to voters, president obama is saddling the nation with debt. the romney campaign makes it today a cute baby not as cute as mine, that the american future

is being ruined by someone named barack obama who keeps piling up the debt. presidenam added by president bush, the younger. that's obama's spending on the right, a much shorter list, eye balling it. the bush appetite for wars and tax cuts account for much of the current debt and mitt romney has said he's open to starting a new war with iran plus he really likes tax cuts. for that matter, mitt romney really likes the republican fiscal plan, congressman paul ryan's budget. for the second time in two years, house republicans lined up for the budget. that has the budget, let us all remember, that phases out medicare. that is the budget, my favorite factoid. that would leave the federal government almost unable to spend a single dime on anything besides social security, health care and defense by 2050. that's the budget mitt romney

has twice now said he loves last year and just this week. mitt romney loves the paul ryan budget makes no sense and that republicans keep throwing themselves over the cliff for. it's one thing to continue on with rail painful gaffes that make you look rich and out of touch, whether it's the news for elevators for cars mitt romney wants for his other other mansion in california or this week's ha-ha humorous reference to his father laying off workers in michigan and trying to run for governor. those mistakes will hurt mitt romney but survivable. what's not survivable is for the core rationale of his candidacy to be anae lighted by things getting better, by the evidence with enough political will they could even get better faster. a lot could happen between now and november. right now, that's the trajectory mitt romney is on. there is one obvious way to criticize the obama recovery to point out the gains from it are extremely uneven distributed with profits outpacing wage gains and share of the national

income going to wages and salary and benefits as low as it has been in decades. making that argument is hardly what a baron wants to or can pull off. given romney's history, who knows, if it looks like it might make him president, maybe we'll see him marching with occupy wall street before this is all over. be right back.

after six hours and three days of oral arguments from the supreme court, one surprising

theme started emerging. when people started challenging the constitutionality, the basic premise was it was a non-issue and the commerce clause the administration said gave the government the power to regulate health insurance. the legal scholar types who try to predict how the supreme court was going to rule generally agree it will rule in favor of the obama administration and it was clearly constitutional, seen as if not a slam-dunk almost a layup. a funny thing happened in the two years it took to get the hale reform law going through the courts and to the highest courts, arguments about what the affordable care act does had formed in circles and right wing media and somehow crept into mainstream and into the court

and ultimately out of the mouths of sitting supreme court justices. for instance, there is the broccoli argument. that if the government can force you to buy insurance, they can force you to eat broccoli, too, or at least purchase it. this has been a very popular argument on the right. senator tom coburn made essentially the broccoli argument during justice kagan's confirmation hearings. >> if i wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits everyday, and i got it through congress and it's now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the commerce clause? >> sounds like a dumb law. >> justice kagan pointing out to senator coburn precisely why the broccoli law is silly because it's hard to imagine congress passing the amendment.

and it worked its way to the popular venacular, if it can force you to buy insurance, what can it do and lo and behold was the supreme court. >> so you define the market as food, therefore everybody is in the market and therefore you can make people buy broccoli. >> it wasn't just brock col i. it was the length in pages, the idea something so long is terrible and horrible has been one of mitt romney's favorite tropes this campaign season. >> this obama plan is a 2,700 page massive tax increase medicaid cutting monster. it's 2,000 page bill that takes over health care for all american people. >> this is 2,700 pages, a lot i don't agree with. if i'm president of the united states, i will repeal obama-care. >> 2700 pages. obviously, it must be terrible to be so long.

straight from republican debate stage to the united states supreme court. >> you really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? [ laughter ] >> and do you really expect the court to do that or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? is this not totally unrealistic? that we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one? >> perhaps the most egregious example of partisan political rhetoric slow creep into the supreme court in this case is the case of the notorious cornhusker kickback. when they needed support, democratic leaders offered nebraska senator ben nelson and exemption from his state for its share of the medicaid expansion of the bill and that dubbed the corn husker kickback became a health reform bunching bag for a while. >> mr. president, they're outraged that a back room deal

for our state might have been what puts this bill across the finish line. >> outrage of the so-called co husker kick back for the state of nebraska. >> one deal for one state and another state. >> the corn hus ski kickback has become a political cancer. >> everyone was outraged about ben nelson's sweetheart deal including justice scalia. >> if we struck down nothing in this legislation but what it's called, the cornhusker kickback, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality [ laughter ] >> very funny justice. the main thing about the cornhusker kick back is it did

not make it into the final bill. it was removed. it's not part of the law that's before the court. justice scalia seemed blithely unaware of the fact. watching the justices conduct oral argument this week, you would almost thing they were reading straight from commo threads on red state.com. >> and talking to every reporter who will listen, how unbelievable he saw the proceedings. i was appalled to see at least a couple of them were reporting the most tendoutious of the tea party arguments. to hear it coming from the bench was depressing. former solicitor of president clinton and recently filed a brief on behalf of the democratic leadership in the house and senate defending the affordable care act. thanks for being here.

>> good evening, chris. >> here's where i want to start with you. i get the sense people who are court watchers who have watched this develop over two years started out basically thinking there wasn't going to be much of a problem. after listening to arguments in the first three days are now maybe beginning to reconsider that. what do you think accounts for the mismatch between perceptions early on how squarely the law fit within the four corners of current interstate commerce jurisprudence and where the justices on the supreme court seem to be headed in oral arguments? >> let me preface my answer in saying i'm not certain how this case will come out and i don't think you can tell from oral argument what the court is going to do with the mandate. both chief justice roberts and justice kennedy did express concerns with the challenger's positions. justice kennedy said they were coming -- that people who were

not buying insurance, who would inevitably be in commerce were very closely approximately connected to commerce and the chief justice kept correcting the challengers when they would say this law forces people who would not be in commerce into commerce. the chief justice would correct them saying, no, that's not the government's argument. the government's position is people would inevitably enter into commerce. i do think i certainly was one of those who thought this was not a serious challenge. i was heartened by the fact that every really serious conservative judge agreed that this wasn't a serious challenge. judge silver man on the d.c. circuit, judge sutton on the ohio circuit, prominent conservative judges, judge wilkinson on the fourth circuit who wrote in the "new york times" all said this is an issue whether this is within commerce among the states and surely a regulation of one-seventh of the

national economy is among commerce among the states. regulates how you will pay for a product in which virtually everyone is going to be using at some point and says you need to pay for it in advance. there were perfectly sound limits that don't include the right of congress to tell people to purchase broccoli or any other similar product because here, you will use the product. the cost is transferred to others because the government makes sure at least some minimal health care is provided to people. when you transfer that cost to others, it conflicts with how the market works. sure enough, the drumbeat of one-sided arg mentation on this almost seemed to overwhelm the court. i was very struck with what former reagan solicitor charles freed, one of the most respected figures in the law said later today. he said what the solicitor-general, who argued the case for the government encountered tuesday was quote a

barrage of hyperbolic hostile rhetoric of tea party slogans masquerading as questions. that's charles freed, who after being reagan solicitor-general became a supreme court justice from the judicial court of massachusetts. i wish i knew more how this tide had tended to come into the court and make this seem like such a political case. >> let me ask you that. i have been close to supreme court clerks and spent time around the supreme court. there is this gap of perception and say is the not a political body. everyone thinks we're a political body and this is just partisan. actually, we're not and a perception outside basically liberal justices will vote one way and liberal another and kennedy will decide in the middle. how can they confirm this vision of the court when the most looked at cases are ones like this?

>> if i tried to defend it, i would say the justices come to the courts from their political parties with an approach to law that leads them to favor different conclusions. some people are more comfortable with federal power, some come from a background they see virtues in statesovereignty and their parties nominate them and they divide. what we saw was different, the justices seem to be definitelying into issues of social and economic policy they're very ill equipped to handle as members of the court. some of the justices seemed not to understand why and how this works to expand insurance coverage to 30 million americans. i think there was a sense that i got that some of the justices really didn't understand how the insurance market works. they thought this was just a subsidy to insurance companies without understanding that the

linchpin of the bill, the provisions that grant people the right to purchase insurance when they want it works only if you give people an incentive to buy insurance in advance. i think some of the justices didn't seem to even understand how that -- how that worked. i heard tremors reminiscent of the 1930s, as justices seemed to suggest there was something illegitimate about programs that may subsidize one group at the expense of another. that goes back to social security, which even a conservative court uphold in 1937. the court at times sounded very much like a throwback to the 1920s this week. >> walter dellinger, former acting solicitor-general under president clinton. thanks so much. the mega million lottery is up to half a billion dollars this week and the person who wins and takes home all that dough will not be close to rich as those financing republican campaigns.

shelton adelson speaks and tells you what he thinks of needle of candidates. democracy as it stands, post citizens united next. [ female announcer ] when skin meets goddess... romance happens. confidence happens. ♪ when skin meets goddess, anything can happen. introducing venus & olay, a match made in skin heaven. olay moisture bars release skin conditioners to help lock in moisture and boost your shave. while five blades get venus close. revealing smooth. renewing beauty. and goddess skin begins. only from venus & olay.

know rick. i like him.

we're friendly. i got to tell you something, i don't want him running my country. romney, the problem with romney, i've talked to romney many many times as recently as he was in vegas for the caucuses a few weeks ago. he's not the bold decision-maker like newt gingrich is. he doesn't want to -- every time i talk to him, he says, well, let me think about it. everything i've said to mitt, let me look into it. i'm in favor of newt gingrich because i like people who make decisions. he's a decision-maker. it appears as though he's at the end of his line. because, i mean, mathematically, he can't get anywhere near the numbers and unlikely to be a brokered convention. >> my favorite tape. sheldon adelson whose millions of dollars made newt gingrich the technically viable candidate he used to be until he determined he was at the end of his line.

but his millions will probably help mitt romney take on president obama in tv this fall. that's how it works in almost every race in this country. they don't have to have strong feelings about you but if they hate your opponent to wear a button like this, you are in the money. massachusetts scott brown and elizabeth warren made a public agreement not to allow third party type adelson money into the race and those two have insulated massachusetts into the decision. everywhere else, it's government plainly and boldly by and for the ultra rich. joining me now someone who knows how it's going down. senator brown, in the midst of his own campaign. >> good to be back. >> tell me about the state of play of this dark money, third

party money in your senate race. >> you see karl rove conducting the orchestra. karl rove sends this group in for three weeks and they spend $400,000 a week and sends another group in. they don't ever seem to overlap. in my race since november, they spent more than any race in the country, they spent around $5 million. they're now spending, we think, about $600,000 a week. they're running in basically every ohio market, cleveland, columbus, cincinnati, youngstown, toledo and west virginia markets. they're flooding the air waves with attack ads. interestingly a national group could politte to fact does fact checking, nonpartisan plays it straight and fair and repeatedly found given their lowest truth rating they call "pants on fire" over and over again in these ads, the station still runs them, a lot of money there and

karl rove keeps writing them. it's the way it's played now. it's $5 million and unrelenting and will keep going. >> we have a long relationship with polito-fact we won't get into. do you try to raise more money yourself from small donors or basically try to get your own super pac. is there a friendly billionaire who owes you a favor you can call up and ask to come in and match that kind of spending? what is the next move when you're under assault in this way? >> one of the next moves is we will have the best grassroots operation in the country, in ohio working with the president -- on our own but working with some synergy with president obama's campaign. another part of this is to step up our fund-raising. people have responded online and responded in larger amounts, too, but we do very aggressive

online fund-raising. we continue to build an operation. we ask people to come an sign our petition to begin to fight against this citizens united case, sherrod brown.com and had 130,000 people sign on. i encourage your viewers and listeners to do that. on every level we're fighting back. we don't have a billionaire or anybody who will come in and write a big check. whether we hope to get all kinds of outside help, it hasn't happened yet. we're doing everything we can control, which is a lot in a campaign, grassroots effort, small dollar fund-raising and the larger amounts we can raise, 500, $1,000, that kind of thing, we're doing. we're doing okay. this kind of millions of dollars from special interests, is it oil company, those that outsource jobs, chinese company, my work on the chinese currency bill, the biggest bipartisan

jobs bill that passed the senate last year, all these things were pushed and i continue to do my job in the senate. we're always focused on job creation. we're aggressive -- i'm aggressive as a candidate. >> senator sherrod brown, democrat from ohio. it's been a while since you lost a race, if i recall your bio correctly. >> i lost a race, i don't want to do it again, i lost a race 20 years ago, something like that. i think that -- i think if you do your job right, my view in politics, a bit of an old adage, i didn't make it up, the best politics is to do a good job. just this week, i brought 50 college presidents to washington, done it five straight years since i've been in the senate, how do we help colleges and units? two year, four year, private schools, community colleges, how do we help them work with businesses to create jobs, all those kinds of things. >> senator sherrod brown. >> thanks. good to be with you. >> the best new thing in the

world coming un the shooting

ahh, now that's a clean mouth. i wish i could keep it this way. [ dr. rahmany ] after a dental cleaning, plaque quickly starts to grow back. but new crest pro-health clinical plaque control reduces plaque and is clinically proven to help keep it from coming back. new crest pro-health clinical plaque control toothpaste. splenda® essentials™ no calorie sweetener with b vitamins, the first and only one to help support a healthy metabolism. three smart ways to sweeten. same great taste. splenda® essentials™.

the shooting death of 17-year-old trayvon martin has gripped the country. thousands of people have rallied in sanford, florida, where trayvon martin was killed. thousands more have marched in cities across the country in support of martin's family. given the facts as we know them there is rightly a deep, deep sense of injustice and thirst for accountability. also a natural sense of

curiosity about what exactly happened on the night of february 26th when george zimmerman shot and killed trayvon martin. the details about this case are coming to light in a haphazard and frustrating fashion. earlier martin's high school records were leaked to the media as yet an unidentified person. it shows he was suspended which proves nothing. also earlier george zimmerman's account of what happened was leaked to the press claiming martin attacked him. martin is no longer alive to refute that. also a video release. abc news of zimmerman at the police station on the night of the shooting. people have been watching the tape and trying to figure out if zimmerman seems injured like he says he was or not. none of these leak, none of these pieces of information is helping us figure out what happened the night trayvon martin was killed. again, when one side is no longer alive and able to sell his side of the story it makes sorting through the supposed facts all the more difficult and, in fact, that's exactly the role a trial is supposed to play. but there can't be a trial until

there is an arrest and one of the things we know for sure about this story is when asked directly why they did not arrest george zimmerman or treat it like a potential murder or manslaughter case the police responded the reason they did not arrest him is because florida's stand your ground law explicitly bars arresting a person if the person credibly claims that they did what they did because they feared for their life. according from the law, a law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. florida stand your ground law which florida pioneered and jeb push signed into law is law in two dozen states. since it went into effect justifiable homicides reported to the florida department of law have increased threefold. it has been used to excuse killings in bar brawls, gang shootouts. in the wake of the shooting there's been a focus on stand your ground laws and cases which

use that defense. it's clear they have resulted in shocking cases. when you dig into the facts you find a shocking case isn't an anomaly. the laws reiably produce them. the case of joe horn, taxes paed their law on september 1th or went into effect september 1st, 2007. mr. horn saw two men breaking into not his home but his neighbor's home. he called 911. there's a bit of the tape. >> i want you to listen to me carefully, okay? >> yes. >> we've got officers coming out there. i don't want you to go outside that house an i don't want you to have that gun in your hand when those officers -- >> i understand that, okay, but i have a right to protect myself too, sir and you understand that and the laws have been changed in this country since september the 1st and you know it and i know. i have a right to protect myself. he's coming out the window right now. i got to go, buddy. >> don't go out the door. mr. horn? mr. horn?

>> goddamn it, they just stole something. i ain't let them get away with this. they stole something. they got a bag of something. >> i don't want you going outside. >> well, here it goes, buddy. you hear the shotgun clicking and i'm going. >> don't go outside. >> hello. you're dead. >> joe horn killed two men 30-year-old diego or tez and hernando torres. they decided not to charge his. his defense was he feared for his life. and there's what might be the most shocking stand your ground case from florida. the grace of graceton garcia. the details are as follows mr. garcia caught a man named paid grow roteto in the process of stealing the radio out of his car. he grabbed a knife and chased

him and said the would-be chief swung a bag of radios at him and he stabbed and killed the man he caught trying to steal his car radio. quote, garcia did not call police or 911 but went home and fell asleep. he later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. he sold two of the stolen radios and hid the knife he used to stab and kill someone he chased down. circuit judge beth bloom quoted that he was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property. the defendant had no duty to retreat and could lawfully pursue a fleeing felon who has stolen his property. this is the kind of justice and fact finding the stand your ground law encourages. that does not sound like the rule of law at work. it sounds like privatization of the state's most core function. it sounds like chaos.

best new thing in the world, this man, 98-year-old retired lobsterman from mystic, connecticut named captain james henry was pulled out of school in the third grade and put to work and never learned to read. hid his literacy talking his way out of having to take a written driver's until he was in his 90th. he learned to read, he wrote his first book. it's called "in a fisherman's language." he recounts of death of a fello lobstermen. the water was so clear i could see hank but he was way down deep and i'm getting smaller every second. i knew i wouldn't be able to hold my breath just to get to him never mind coming up. he was so deep he looked the size of a kid. we couldn't save him. marion and i just watched him disappear" it