There's an article splashed all over CNN's page touting an exclusive interview with former Sanford police chief Bill Lee (not sure what the linking rules are here, but it's hard to miss on the main page).
It's working pretty hard to leave open the possibility that he and his department are racists, but I think it's just as likely that they acted professionally and complied with the immunity law that I mentioned above.
Purported quotes from Lee reproduced in the article:
...the evidence provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene...
Arresting Zimmerman based on the evidence at hand would have been a violation of Zimmerman's Fourth Amendment rights...
I think that's absolutely true in light of the immunity provided by section 776.032.
Compare that to the status quo in the absence of 776.032, where the cops would almost certainly make an arrest, because the suspect did kill somebody, which is no small thing. It's not asking too much that a person who takes the life of another, regardless of circumstances, face a little inconvenience by getting locked up until arraignment and bail, thereby starting the prosecution process, which will provide an opportunity to argue self-defense. Correction: I guess that is asking too much in several states.
I think the article also nails down my general misgivings about this ending up in local hands and state court. The feds tend to operate more professionally (this personal belief is currently up for review in light of the recent ATF hijinx in Milwaukee and AZ, but I still cling to it) and more quietly than is possible in a local investigation or state trial.
Public opinion should never influence this kind of thing. The public really shouldn't have an opinion on this kind of thing in general, because, by and large, the public has no idea what it's talking about. We have no shortage of entertainment options in this country. I don't understand why everything has to end up part of the entertainment industry.