The expense argument is a particularly odd one.
Apparently the paper believes the state saves money by having a full-blown trial rather than a single-day hearing.
It is also very odd to claim that a law should be repealed because defense attorneys attempt to use it where it doesn’t apply, unsuccessfully in this case. That’s what defense attorneys do. In fact, it’s what they’re supposed to do.
Did you notice the attempt to claim self-defense because the shooter’s perception was damaged by past trauma? I suspect that’s another misapplication. Surely when the law says “reasonably believes” it refers to a rational person, not a delusional one, whose beliefs are by definition not reasonable.
Here's another argument, from the Democrat legislator who started his own task force, from Bay News 9:
Monday, state Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, came out with the findings of his own task force, which found that people who fire their guns at others and claim self-defense should still have to face a grand jury.
Grand Jury? Zimmerman could have only been so lucky.