This is a pantload...

Pardon me for saying so, but this is just incredible bull shit.  I hate that I am linking it, but it is better than cutting and pasting such drivel.

There are those who will never believe that the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with race, but with crime.  Please note that the white criminal in my post about a car-jacking was wearing a hoodie.  Wonder why?  Seems a viable way to obscure one's identity?  Could it be criminal garb, not black garb?

If the Zimmerman/Martin case had anything to do with race, it is just as likely it was in Martin's mind.  There are those who have to believe that they are hunted, beleaguered and down-trodden and that they are victims; perhaps since "I am black, I am being followed for no good reason.  I will visit violence on this [white] man in revenge for all the wrongs I have been taught to carry with me".  That sense of victimhood helps one believe they are justified, they can do no wrong, that wrong comes to them at the hand of oppressors.  They will stay where they are out of fear of being something else.

I fear a world where people have to create superstitions to justify misbehavior, no matter the color of the perpetrator's skin.  A world where people do contortions to explain what happens when one man assaults another, forcing him to defend himself and commit harm that I am sure he never wanted to commit.  Such superstitions will only perpetuate the divide they so vociferously pretend to decry; the goal is not to eliminate divisions, but to change the power within the divisions.

How little such small minded people know of how other people think or work.  How much they project their own fears, own inadequacies on others.  How melodramatic they become so that they can either assuage their own misguided guilt or maintain their victimhood, which seems their only cause celeb.  How much they ascribe their own motives to others.  "We view ourselves as victims, therefore you must be an oppressor".  Alas, it is not so.

“The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.” — Bertrand Russell

Actually - buffoons...

Most of us would note that this is not an issue of "black crime culture" or "white crime culture" but an issue of crime and OUR culture.  This who cannot see things through any other lens than race probably find that incredulous.

This oh, so clever bull shit does nothing to address the root problems with youth crime in our culture.  The fact that any discussions of such crime are reflexively seen as race-based is more evidence of willful ignorance and the insistence by some on either side of the issues that race must be a part of it.

So, as with my previous post, some refuse to see crime and criminal behavior as the core issue here, preferring to excuse it through a lot of hand-waving and obfuscation.  Some, on both sides of these important issues - the issues of our times - see humor and derision at the expense of any one who disagrees with them as the best remedy.  Again - it takes little energy to see examples where young white criminals are committing heinous and violent crimes (see my previous post on a USF car-jacking) and some being killed by armed citizens in the commission of them.  Hey, Chris, take the blinders off, poke your head up out of the sand long enough to look beyond the limited perspective you seem to wallow in - perhaps talk to someone other then Michael Eric Dyson and MHP.

Thus they laugh and laugh - yuck, yuck, ain't this grand, being smart, liberal, satirists, making up shit as we go along.  As the circus comes to town, we become a nation of buffoons and things keep going to hell.

BTW, how's that jocularity working out for y'all there at MSNBC?  Beat by CNN?

Now there's a shocker!

Michael Eric Dyson on Melissa Harris-Perry in a tizzy cause he wants to be the arbiter of who can sy what when.

How's that campus safe zone working out for ya?

As reported in the Tampa Bay Times this morning on the campus of the University of South Florida in Tampa, FL: 

"TAMPA — Authorities were searching for a man who carjacked a woman Monday morning in a parking lot on the Tampa campus of the University of South Florida.

The man approached the woman about 9:20 a.m. in Parking Lot 33, in the health sciences area of the campus, according to USF Police. The man brandished a black handgun and ordered the woman out of her car before getting in and driving off. The woman was not harmed.

USF police officers set up a perimeter around the campus to try to stop the fleeing car, police said.

Authorities were able to use a cell phone tracking system to determine that the car had been driven off campus. Police did not identify the make and model of the car.

Tampa police were called to assist in a search of surrounding neighborhoods, police said. Despite an extensive search, the car had not been found as of 11:30 a.m.

The man was described as having brown hair and wearing a white hoodie, police said.
Anyone with information about the incident was asked to call USF Police at (813) 974-2628."

Apparently no one told this person that firearms are not allowed on the campus of USF - or maybe they did!  And he was wearing a hoodie, too!

Can't be - Florida college campuses are safe zones!

Stand Your Ground? It depends...

Thanks to Jon Gutmacher for posting this:

"The Double Standard

I've been doing a little research on the web -- and found out that in several situations where a black individual had used self defense -- often very akin to the Zimmerman case -- black politicians and groups, including the NAACP have been VERY VOCAL in supporting their right to use deadly force. Take a look at this announcement from the NAACP about the John McNeal case. Just change the race situation around -- and you can imagine Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton beating down the doors to enforce the Stand Your Ground laws! You really gotta read this one! (and there were lots more)
http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/the-cost-of-self-defense-the-john-mcneil-story"

 

This may be a miscarriage of justice - indeed McNeil appears to have committed justifiable homicide in self-defense - and, no, it is not identical to the Martin case in the details, but it is illuminating to see how a little change in the race of perpetrator and victim (and you can decide which was which) makes a difference as to whether a law is good or not.

 

Hypocrisy?  Apparently!

Psychology weighs in, disappoints

So, today, along comes the American Psychological Association to weigh in on the "dialogue" we all need to have about race.  How about I start that "dialogue" by saying what I have been saying; the Martin/Zimmerman case has not been found to have been a issue of race - it was two people who sadly clashes - race was an afterthought of those who looked for it.  No one involved in the debate wants a "dialogue".  Hence, by using it as a springboard for their own purposes, their own perception of the world, the APA joins the long list of those using this event for some purpose. Might I say that, for the APA, this is another in a long line of sad attempts to gain relevance, attempts at social engineering.

They start with terms like "Zimmerman's culpability" which seemingly have less to do with some form of reasonable "dialogue" than with an assumption - similar to the assumption that this is a race issue.  I would think that psychology could serve a more useful function by highlighting the possibility that Martin's behavior also contributed to this event (well, of course they can't and won't - the APA can't risk being called "racist" even when it is inaccurate).  But given the long history of learning theory, social learning theory, developmental psychology, the massive database on the effects of media portrayal of violence, the literature on the effects of drug abuse during development, psychology could do more than simply jump on the bandwagon of "good guy/bad guy"; could be two good guys or even two bad guys.  APA joins the chorus of those who apparently think it would have been better if Zimmerman had died to satisfy this "dialogue"  Psychology is in a unique place to be relevant if they can be impartial, look at both sides and not pander to one of the other.

Next on their agenda is "Stand Your Ground" laws.  It has been said so many times that it is ridiculous that it need be said again, but such laws were not an issue in the Martin/Zimmerman case.  They only entered the fray because people are either a) too ignorant to know the law and the court case b), confused about SYG law and self-defense law in general (APA you are at least here), or c) have an agenda to create guilt by association in any way they can.  Just as some people stood on the graves of children in CT to forward a given agenda instead of seeking other solutions (another place the APA could have been useful), so are those here who will never let a good tragedy go to waste.  In any case, it is again a shame that the APA cannot serve an educational function here rather than joining in on the march of misinformation.  It is clear that the APA cannot do so on SYG because they do not understand it.  It does make them look foolish.

For instance, it is noted that "Florida’s “stand your ground” law relies on a person’s reasonable belief that he or she is in imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.  The statute’s ambiguity in its use of "reasonable" is problematic. This places the onus on the jury to try to ascertain the reasonableness of a defendant’s beliefs based on subjective standards"

That is not what SYG does at all - what they have stated here is basic self-defense law that has existed for centuries and in every state in the union.  That is, the reasonableness criterion for whether self-defense is justified existed well before SYG in Florida.  Under SD law, prior to SYG, a person was required to retreat if they could do so without suffering lethal harm (this is why it was not part of the recent case - Zimmerman had no chance of escape).  Now - let's talk about ambiguity and uncertainty - how does one who is being assaulted make such a decision, much less a jury member in the safe courtroom hearing that story, judge whether one could have retreated without being killed?  Anyway, clearly APA does not know or does not want to know the law it is criticizing.

There then ensures a long discussion of perception and bias - to which I would only say that all of the bias in this tragic case was not on Mr. Zimmerman's side of the equation, but again, no one can say that out loud.  Mr. Martin was also biased; the crowds who only see one possible interpretation of the event are also biased, and the APA, who thinks they know the truth and are thus unwilling to take a larger educational role in this situation are biased.

Perhaps, if psychology wants to talk about bias, perception and so on form all sides of this affair, they could learn a lesson from this pastor.  It is sad that it takes a black pastor to be able to explain both sides of this story.

As a member of APA, I think you missed the mark here in your job of educating people.  "Dialogue" implies some give and take, some rational and impartial perspective, a role psychology should provide.

APA has taken a side which makes it a "diatribe".

"Stop and frisk" saves lives?

So - New York City Police Chief Ray Kelly visited Boring Joe this morning and the discussion went to the constitutionality of "Stop and Frisk" laws and crime in NYC.
 
According to Huffington Post, the "Key to that drop in crime, Kelly says, is stop-and-frisk, New York’s much-criticized program that allows police to stop and question anyone if they suspect wrongdoing. Critics say the program is institutionalized racial profiling and point to the disproportionate number of stops that affect minorities."

And:

"He pushed back against co-host Mika Brzezinski’s claim that many who are stop and frisked are not doing anything wrong, saying that police presence prevents crime."

So - when a resident of a gated community sees a suspicious stranger in the neighborhood and suspects wrongdoing, he is in the wrong to follow that person so as to inform police.  On the other hand, if the police actually do accost the person (on no better evidence and perhaps even less than the civilian had), it is necessary to "prevent crime"?

Sure - I get it.

Dudes, you're breaking my heart!

Now can we convince them to forbid their names to be spoken or words to be printed or images to be shown as well?

From Huffington Post:

"A number of top-level celebrities are reportedly following in Stevie Wonder's footsteps and plan to boycott Florida in protest of the state's "Stand Your Ground" laws. The list, which was first reported by AURN's April Ryan and credited a "a source close to Wonder," includes the likes of Madonna, Usher, Kanye West, Jay Z, Rihanna and Rod Stewart."

Of course, anyone who is not willfully ignorant about, well, just about everything, but in this case various state laws on self-defense, knows...and as noted by Cam Cameron on NRA News...if these "superstars" are going to boycott states with SYG laws, then they are going to have less than half of the states to make money in.

Also from Huffington Post:

"Florida is not the only state with "Stand Your Ground" laws on its books -- at least 23 other states have similar provisions providing varying degrees of legal protection to those who use force in perceived self-defense."

Most estimates put it at more like 31 states.  But, anyway, you get the idea.

Especially when at least a few of these self-important "superstars" do more to model how to behave like a jackass and to promote violence than any law on the books.

As opposed to...

say...dragging out white and black liberals who will agree with the president?  Move along, no room for agendas here.

Crooks and Liars bemoans the fact that conservative media can find black conservatives who will criticise our black president.

They seem to think it is a travesty when black commentators do not reflexively agree with a black president.  Well, given that a white commentator who disagrees will be considered racist, I am thankful that some individuals of color are willing to be critics.  Of course, C&L see nothing wrong with panel after panel on news shows that are trotted out to further a liberal agenda.  Further they assert that the black commentators are unfair when they suggest Obama should not talk about race, that they are saying "How dare our first President of color think it's his place to talk about racism, or what he experienced first hand."

I suspect for most the point is that it is no more seemly for a black president to, first and foremost, adopt a side in this discussion - to become a "black president" - than it would be for a white one to do so - to have prioritized his race in the discussion - his "whiteness".  He is the president of all the people and was elected via votes cast by many of the white Americans he now seems to discount and demonize at his earliest convenience, who he specifically marginalizes when he becomes Martin "35 years ago".  Talk of race and racism - absolutely.  But, regardless of color, approach American issues as a black or white president and you have now become the president of a certain group.  Politically this happens all the time - racially, this device has been decried for decades.

Boring Joe bloviates some more...

As usual, Joe Scarborough was bloviating this morning about the bloviating of Sean Hannity on the President's remarks on the Zimmerman/Martin case.  I have noted my thoughts on Obama's comments elsewhere - I think he missed a chance to be everyone's president because he is too attached to an agenda and, seemingly, identifies first and foremost with race.

Boring Joe was on about Hannity's comment that Obama might have been like Martin because of gang-affiliations and drug use.  Joe's felt it was unconscionable to apparently impugn Martin for doing something that many other youths, white and black, do and that it should not make one "fair game".  Certainly not - but that is irrelevant.  Marijuana use hardly makes one fair game for assault.

The problem, Joe is this:  From the day this tragedy happened, people (including the president) have tried to cast Zimmerman as a "white devil" and Martin as a "black angel".  No, drug use is not the deciding factor in this.  But if one wants to make the case that Zimmerman is evil and Martin an angel, then reality dictates that we examine them more closely.

Try as they might, the only evil things that have been attributed to Zimmerman is that he is white (well, white-Hispanic - "white enough") and carried a firearm - both legal.  He followed a stranger in his neighborhood, which had seen increased crime.  Martin has been presented solely as a victim.  Yes he was followed and asked about his reasons for being there.  Then he sucker punched Zimmerman and was in full mount pounding on him.  Is it okay to ask why?  Joe and others would have us believe it was justified righteous indignation for being observed, followed and questioned - that Zimmerman deserved it.  I would suggest it is acting out on images and norms he has been fed for many years - and which many seem to be perpetuating.

Martin was no angel; that is the point.  This is not to speak ill of the dead, it is not to say Martin deserved what happened - the fact that people see it that way is just more evidence of a desire to rewrite the facts.  This was not a case of evil Zimmerman walking up to angel Martin and shooting him, no matter how Joe might wish to twist the facts.  This is not like the case in Georgia where the young criminal simply shot a 13 month-old child in the face for the fun of it (BTW, why are you not shouting about justice for that child and all the dead in Chicago?).

The facts, as reported by Zimmerman and eye/ear witnesses, and as corroborated by physical evidence evaluated by experts do not corroborate the idea that Martin was a passive victim of this event.

Boring Joe, as usual, knows the truth and will not let facts cloud his judgement.  He and Hannity both are using this case for their own purposes.

For a more reasoned look at how this case became the issue it is, see Romany Malco's commentary on Huffington.  It is clearly a necessary and eye-opening commentary.

Hmmm....bullshit, Sir! (UPDATED)

Today the president, who could be a source of reason on the issues we are facing, decided to join the chorus excusing bad behavior.  Notably, Obama said, "When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

Yes, sir!  If 35 yeas ago you were a teenager who, if asked what he was doing in the neighborhood, would have felt it was your right to answer by assaulting your questioner, then I suppose it could have been you (were the marijuana use, school suspensions, fighting and so on also part of your teenage repertoire?)

Huffington post also noted that:

"Obama said he understands why people are so upset that George Zimmerman was found not guilty for shooting and killing Martin, an unarmed teen who was walking down the street one night in his Sanford, Fla., neighborhood in February 2012. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, pursued Martin for no clear reason and ultimately shot him in what he said was self-defense."

For no reason?  Zimmerman "pursued" (I think there is some contention on that description and how well it hews to the facts) Martin because his neighborhood had seen some recent burglaries and Martin appeared suspicious (and even if it had been racially motivated, which there is no evidence to support, it would still have been for that reason) and was moving in manner that made him seem out of place.  If a neighborhood were being burglarized by young men your white males, would it not make sense that an unrecognized white male who seemed out of place and might be skulking would be suspicious.  Why does this have to include race?  Zimmerman did not accost Martin; he did not, as far as the evidence shows, assault him in any manner.  He did not throw the first punch nor was he the first person to lay hands on the other.  He was trying to ascertain Martin's reasons for being there.  If Martin found that insulting, a simple "Fuck you!" and walking away might have sufficed, not a sucker punch.  However, the data show that Martin could have been home by the time he confronted Zimmerman, had he chosen to walk away.

Obama noted:

"There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me."

The president, like so many others seems to be suggesting that being followed or asked a question - whether innocuous or insulting - justifies a physical assault in response.  It does not and this seems a terrible message to give any young person.  It seems as if this point is lost on people - people who should know better, including the president.  It is a disservice to be standing there and saying to young people "If someone - in this case a white-looking someone - follows or stops you - in this case a black you - and asks your reasons for the being where you are, since history has been unfair, you can beat his ass".  How is that not what is being said?!  I have been followed in department stores, too.  As a young white man I was detained without cause in many such places as well as walking down the street.  None of that can ever be allowed to justify violence!

Now, I could say that this is clearly a race thing - no one wants to make race an issue (except those who need it to be one, Mr. President), but by saying Martin was justified to assault Zimmerman because Zimmerman "pursued" him is doing just that - because so many black citizens have been unjustly followed, they are justified in lashing out.  That is, that no white person has a right to follow or ask this of a black person and, if they do, they deserve the beating they get.  The way we settle such issues is violence!  In that case, this would all have been all right if Zimmerman had been killed, I suppose.  We would never have heard about it (is that because were it to go down that way, it would be too "typical"?).  Would Obama still say that it could have been him 35 years ago who did the killing?

And this is the truly laughable part:

"More generally, Obama lent support to the idea of creating a coalition -- of business leaders, elected officials, celebrities, athletes -- to address the need for African-American men to feel that they are 'a full part of this society.'"

How is telling someone that they are justified in assaulting people who follow them, who they see as challenging them, helping anyone to feel a full part of this society.  It is double-talk, BS.  You have told them they do not need to be. You're creating a special, disabled class of people who need to be part of society.  Is beating your way into your place in society a good goal?

Swing and a miss, Mr. President.  Time to be President  - you were not elected by one race or ethnicity - and not an apologist for bad behavior, no matter who is committing it.

I don't want to like Rick Scott, but you CAN make me

I did not vote for Rick Scott and had never thought I would even consider voting for him when he seeks re-election.  However, as is probably apparent from my recent posts and the fact that the history of this blog will chronicle a shift in my willingness to consider conservative alliances, the liberal media and their fervent anti-firearms rhetoric has made me what I said I was not; a single issue voter.  So I am more likely to support a man who I think is really not a good governor.  I will not sacrifice a right that is important to me for the sake of others who would take it away.

Yes, I have said it before; until such time as my rights become important to such people, I will not act in support of their rights.  If that means voting for a governor who would deny them those rights, but who will protect and preserve mine, then so be it - I have no choice.  What most "liberals" don't realize is that their movement needs people like me who are not all liberal or conservative, who are libertarian in nature, to support it; those who believe that "rights are rights" and all need protection.  But, throw me under the bus (as a white, straight, upper middle class male with no need for gay marriage, abortion, food stamps, etc.) and I will move on (catch that reference ;<)?).  I will not stand with you as you seek to disarm me.  Frankly - molon labe.

Thankfully, for those of us who are law-abiding firearm owners and carriers who want nothing more than to exercise our right and protect ourselves, Scott met with protestors in Tallahassee and renewed his support for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law (which, any rational person knows, is and was irrelevant to the case).

I will not launch into another description of my view of the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, but it is clear that Zimmerman was defending himself.

Yes, there are those who want to claim that Martin was defending himself by throwing the first blow - but that is not how the law works.  If that is what you are teaching your children (or are not dissuading them from), black, white, or brown, then you are setting them up for the very tragedies you abhor.  Black and white writers have talked about "The Talk" - spun in their own way - that they may need to give their children - but the version of it that needs to be had would note that verbal provocation is never justification for violence, any more than someone cutting you off on the road or honking their horn at you justifies road rage.  Questioning a stranger walking through your neighborhood may seem foolish (I have noted I would not have done as Zimmerman did), but it is not illegal and, to some, it is an exercise of good citizenship and responsibility.  Physically assaulting someone who questions you is illegal and initiates an action that can end with lethal self-defense.  Those who keep insisting that such an action was reasonable need to read the law and have that "Talk" with their children.  It is such tacit acceptance of the idea that if someone gets in your face you can punch them that lead to this tragedy.  And that was not what I was taught as a teen.  The talk of my youth was "You respect everyone".  The talk today seems to be "You deserve respect, but do not need to give it. Lash out for your right to respect."

Damn - said I wasn't going to go through all that again.  Anyway, I applaud the Governor for standing firm (standing his ground?) in the face of attempts to change policy that was irrelevant to this case.

Now for something completely different!

Time for something that has nothing to do with the foolishness surrounding self-defense law, standing one's ground, or firearms rights and ownership.



Instead it will have to do with the foolishness of Hollywood (a generic reference to movie-making).  happened to catch some of the movie this morning and then came across announcements that a remake of the cult classic Weird Science is being put together.  It may (well, no "may" about it) belie my age and curmudgeonly nature, but I find this idea sacrilege.  Has anyone seen any remake of any classic movie - comedy, sci-fi, or otherwise - that has not completely ruined it.  Can't Hollywood (generic reference) come up with any new ideas and not butcher our memories?  Do they have to take something that was clever and funny, just as it was, and update it to todays' tastes (actually today's lack of taste).  Could they at least name it something different?

You need not think too hard to imagine what this remake will look like (in the guise of being "edgier" or hip).  There will be ample and totally unnecessary computer special effects - because we can and "This kids love it".  There will have to be more than the brief (very brief) nudity of the original (no, I am not a prude and, yes, many a young man fantasized about seeing the rest of Kelly LeBrock in that shower scene - and more), but the original did not need it to be entertaining and certainly any remake need not rely on an R rating - except that it is what sells - "What, they made a women and we didn't even get to see them tie her down and screw her mercilessly").  No improvement there.  I am sure the parents will have to come across as even more stupid and clueless.  Chances are the Wyatt and Gary characters will need to have mohawks and baggy pants slung low.  It is likely - for marketing purposes - that one will be rewritten to be a minority - perhaps Lisa will be played by Halle Berry  (shit, now I'm going to be accused of racism).  No, it is not an issue of race - such a change likely reflects the current demographics - but it is an issue of remaking a movie that is a classic in a way that changes it and, to me, denigrates it.  Such a rewrite will necessitate bringing in all manner of overt and implicit racial humor that is simply not necessary.

Anyway - my non-Zimmerman, non-Martin, non-firearm rant about stupidity for today.

There's your problem...

Nope - not going to watch it.  Nope - didn't watch any of it and not the parts that included Rachel Jeantel.  Nope, not going to bother to try to figure out why there have to be so many rules and qualifications on who can and when they can use the word - whether with an "er" or an "a" on the end.

To paraphrase and expand (something we white males do):  "Well, it is racist if it is Tuesday, your over the age of 18, you're white, and we don't want you to use it."

Of course, Crooks and Liars calls this schooling someone.  Nope - not a Rush Limbaugh fan - nice try - I think he is an asshole who needs to be schooled on a lot of stuff.  But this is not schooling, it is BS about making a set of ever-changing rules so, on a whim, someone can decide when or if a term is "racism" or a person using it is a "racist".  This is as ridiculous as the fact that this 19 year-old (?) is now a celebrity for being a friend of Martin's and a witness at a trial - and an authority we should go to for such rules.

The conundrum; the goal is a society where all are welcomed and valued  The way to get there is to make a long list of convoluted rules about who can say what.

There's your problem..."equality" seems to be the furthest thing from most folks mind.

The tragedy of losing a child

The parents of Trayvon Martin appeared today on "CBS This Morning".  I would hope that any of us who have had a 17 year-old child can feel empathy for the loss these parents have suffered.  In fact, I would hope that we could feel that empathy for any parent who had suffered the loss of a child, whether due to illness, motor vehicle accident, drug overdose or, in this case, gunshot. None of us, as parents, can ever say we know how this must feel if we have, thankfully, not experienced it.  Perhaps we can imagine how we might feel.  I think we have to acknowledge this grief and also acknowledge the dignity with which these parents have comported themselves throughout this affair (even if those who surround them have been less so - social engineering?).

It has been said, in many ways, that a parent's love is sometimes blind.  This is probably a good thing and another concept that I think most of us who are parents can attest to - we are programmed to see the good in our child, the redeeming qualities, and do what we can to ignore the bad.  It keeps us from giving up.  We, as parents, know their true heart, their inherent goodness, and will work tirelessly to bring it out.  We are forgiving of many things our child does (e.g., the fights, the trouble, the suspensions, the drug possession) that we would condemn in the children of others because this is our child and we know who they really are.  Believe me, this is not to denigrate Martin's parents nor Martin, but to say that, as a parent who had two children - one a son - who went through that age that I know this happens.  In cases where a child may truly be headed for trouble, this parental denial usually persists well beyond when it should and when it is useful.  No one can say that is what happened here, it is just a grandparent's observation.

Still, this is one reason that society cannot allow the emotion, the despair of a parent over such a loss to be our guiding principle in adjudicating an outcome.  For instance, his parents make the point that Martin was no burglar; what parent would, until forced to, ever consider their child a burglar?  And, at least in light of available evidence, Martin was not a burglar.  He was not killed while committing burglary.  He was, however, garbed as a potential burglar might be, in a neighborhood that had been frequently burglarized.  And no one perceived that HE (Martin) was a burglar - but that this unknown person, certainly unknown to Zimmerman, seemed suspicious in light of recent events in the neighborhood.  This is a parent, doing as parents do, and saying "No one should have suspected my son".  In truth, no  one did; they suspected an unknown male.

With regard to comments by the juror who noted that her son might bear some responsibility for the outcome of his encounter with Zimmerman, a mother's love shines through in that this juror did not know her son and that a teenager should not be held responsible for their actions over an adult.  This makes sense when that teenager is your son, but less so when one realizes the percentage of violent crime committed by 17 year-olds.  It would seem to suggest that adult society should place itself at the mercy of 17 year-olds.  To a mother, this is her baby, to someone else (who does not know his age), this is a man-sized assailant, whose age and identity are only known in hindsight.  Again, this is why parents do not decide verdicts - because for most parents - include me in this - their child could never be guilty and no harm done to their child could ever be justified.

Interestingly, I also see that they mention a civil case yet, as I posted yesterday, I am not at all clear how, at the state level, current Florida law allows this.  I suppose we will see; I gleefully do not claim to be an attorney.

I will say again that these parents have acted with dignity through a terrible ordeal, even though surrounded by those who have not done so.  I cannot imagine and do not want to imagine being in their position; I know that I would have stood by my son - even after his death - just as they have done, even though I know he was not angel.

What having your tail between your legs does for freedom.

Morning Joe on in the background this morning - my wife likes it and I guess I figure that mornings suck so much anyway that I might as well make them totally aversive (helps me get motivated to leave the house) with the likes of Joe, Mika, and "the gang".  Something about incredibly stupid and self-important caricatures of humanity makes it easier to head to campus.

So, suffering through Mika doing a brief segment on the ACLU noting that police departments are tracking massive numbers of vehicle movements with little oversight.  As I have noted before and as with Snowden's revelations about NSA surveillance, there are those who are so scared of shadows, think so much of their personal safety that they want someone to follow them and keep all the mean people at bay.  Somehow they think that only good can come of having nameless, faceless, unmonitored overseers keeping an eye on them (and us).

Ever the moron, Donny Deutsch, as with most such scared people when discussing this, fell back on that tried and true approach of exclaiming that he was not a criminal, not a terrorist and if he was doing nothing wrong then he did not care if they tracked his whereabouts because it would keep him safe.  Apparently he, as with most who believe this, is firm in his conviction that a), the laws will never change and that all he is doing today will continue to be legal tomorrow (and that they will not assert the ability to prosecute him for past violations of present law), and b), even more likely, that such data, which might show he did nothing illegal but something abnormal or immoral, will not somehow become available to the media or general public.  Or, to put it briefly, he is delusional; if he were more intelligent, I would suggest he should know better.

Donny Deutsch?  Do something immoral and get caught at it (in surveillance photos)?  Preposterous!

They're watching you, Moron.

This is murder!

Perhaps some of those who have fantasies about what Zimmerman did and what it was should watch this video.  This is murder, this is what murder looks like, this is a defenseless young man and the old crazy SOB who shot him in cold blood and needs to be buried under the jail somewhere.

UPDATE:  Guilty!

Civil action against Zimmerman?

I keep hearing talk about (and I am not referring to the potential Federal Civil Rights charge) the possiblity of a civil action filed by the parents of Martin.  Seems to me, from my reading of the Florida Statutes, that he would be immune to such an action.  Isn't the verdict of not guilty sufficient under this statute to show that he used force as permitted under 776.012 and thus confer immunity for civil action? Doesn't (3) also award Zimmerman remuneration for his expenses given the not guilty verdict?

FL Statute 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
 

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Mas Ayoob - ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 2: THE “UNARMED TEEN”

This is a good read from a man who has been at this sort of thing for awhile.  I know it will not sway those who "know the truth" as they see it, but it is, nonetheless, an informative read for those who acre to think.

ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 2: THE “UNARMED TEEN”

Tuesday, July 16th, 2013

It seems that the verdict of a sworn jury in our criminal justice system means little to the haters, who are still screaming that George Zimmerman killed “an unarmed seventeen-year-old.” Given that seventeen is old enough to enlist in the Marine Corps and to be tried as an adult – the Gainesville Sun recently headlined that a “sixteen-year-old man” was to be charged with murder in the selfsame Florida criminal justice system – the age issue doesn’t hold a lot of water when seen through a clear glass.

“Unarmed?” Actually, NO. The history of adjudicating deadly force actions shows that Trayvon Martin was “armed” two or three times over.

First, the haters (like the prosecution) assiduously ignored George Zimmerman’s statement that while Martin was “ground-and-pounding” him, Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun in its now exposed holster, told Zimmerman that he was going to die tonight, and reached for his victim’s pistol.

If I’m your criminal attacker, you don’t have to wait for me to shoot you before you can shoot me to defend your life, and you don’t even need to wait until the gun is in my hand. If I announce my intent to murder you and reach for a gun, I’m bought and paid for right there. And it doesn’t matter whether the gun I’m reaching for is in my holster, or yours. That’s why every year in America, when thugs try to grab a policeman’s gun and are shot, the shootings are ruled justifiable.

Even before Martin’s reach for Zimmerman’s still-holstered pistol, the circumstances that were proven to the satisfaction of the jury showed that Zimmerman was justified in shooting his attacker. Remember when defense attorney Don West said in the defense’s opening statement that Martin was armed with the sidewalk? That sounded ludicrous to lay people, and I would have phrased it differently myself, but professionals understood exactly what he was talking about.

The operative principle at law is called “disparity of force.” It means that while your opponent(s) may not be armed with a deadly weapon per se, their physical advantage over you is so great that if their ostensibly unarmed assault continues, you are likely to die or suffer grave bodily harm. That disparity of force may take the form of a much larger and stronger assailant, a male attacking a female, force of numbers, able-bodied attacking the handicapped, skilled fighter attacking the unskilled, or – in this case – position of disadvantage.

Position of disadvantage means that the opponent has full range and freedom of movement, and you don’t. You’re seat-belted behind your steering wheel while he rains punches onto your skull through the open window…or you are down and helpless in a martial arts “mount” while your opponent pounds you at will.

Finally, we have the clearly proven element of Martin smashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk. If I picked up a chunk of concrete or cement and tried to smash your skull with it, you would certainly realize that you were about to die or be horribly brain-damaged if you didn’t stop me. It would be what the statutes call “a deadly weapon, to wit a bludgeon.” There just isn’t a whole hell of a lot of difference between cement being smashed into head, and head being smashed into cement.

Clearly, Trayvon Martin possessed the power to kill or cripple Zimmerman. That is why, under law, Zimmerman was justified in defending himself with a per se deadly weapon.

The jury got it. Too bad the haters didn’t understand…or didn’t want to understand.

Why are we talking about "Stand Your Ground"?

The Tampa Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) has had a thing for SYG for a while now.

What one has to ask is why the Zimmerman case, which had nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”, has brought that law back into their headlines?   First, Zimmerman, through his attorneys, declined to even present a case based on that law.  Why?  The reason was obvious; Zimmerman's report and the available evidence presented in that case showed that retreat was not an option for Zimmerman, being pummeled by Martin from a full mount position. Anyone who has watched mixed martial arts (MMA) knows how difficult it is to escape such a position; in fact, once one fighter assumes that dominant position, it usually spells the end of the fight in their favor.  And the fact that Zimmerman was supposedly training in "martial arts"?  Well, most who are trained in combatives or MMA will tell you that traditional martial arts training may do little to prepare one for real, street-level violence. (Sorry - that's just the way it is - even MMA training may not be adequate preparation for the street).

 

So, why is SYG now in the Times headlines?  It is clear that the Times has had a thing for “Stand Your Ground” (as do many others) that seems to have been exacerbated by this tragedy when it happened 18 months ago.  They have, in the absence of data to show that it has increased crime in Florida, chosen to focus on the most egregious cases where it was applied.  Has it been misapplied?  Probably, as are many other laws.  But that is a matter of case law, judicial interpretation or a need to clarify the law.  For instance, some of the examples seem to include drug deals gone bad, yet Florida Statues, when discussing justifiable use of force (of which SYG is a part) note that the presumptions of reasonable fear do not apply if the "The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity."

Note that self-defense and the absence of a duty to retreat are defined in Fl 776.012: 

"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

 

Note this refers to the circumstances permitted under 776.013 - one of which asserts as above: 

 

"The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

.

.

.

The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity"

One cannot stand their ground in an act that is not justifiable self-defense.

It appears that, as with so many other outlets, the Times has chosen to go with via guilt by association, to link SYG to this tragic case even though it was judged a case of justifiable self-defense and is not relevant; to damn it by association with this tragic affair.  What is puzzling is why other, less biased or partisan outlets do not seem to suffer this ignorance.  If an outlet like the Times is going to purport to cover “news” and cloak itself in the guise of being a “newspaper”, then perhaps some knowledge of the law, the data, and how the law applies to the data would be in order.  A headline that says it is not an issue (July 16) which is followed by a long treatise on how it is to blame is disingenuous at best.

With all due respect...

...which isn't much - what the hell does Eric Holder know about it.  He is just another in a long line of people who should know better, mistating the law and facts.  This is such a dog and pony show, with each mouthpiece having to stand up and get its time in the spotlight and profess their ignorance.  Since when did being the top law enforcement officer in this country become a political partisian operation. 



The end of law and order as we know it - our law enforcement and legal system commandeered by policy and politics.

That good ol' liberal bias - round 2

UPDATE: Of course, Huffington Post is back this morning using that same, years old picture of a "child" Martin (the point being that this is nothing more than manipulation - why isn't a recent picture shown?) in an article suggesting 6 "decisions" that could have averted this tragedy.  Sadly, if not unexpectedly, all ignore any possibility that Martin could have avoided it and exclusively prescribe actions Zimmerman could have taken. Then, in a kind of a throw away final sentence, they acknowledge their bias by noting that "Trayvon Martin could have chosen to not defend himself" which was, apparently, not worthy of mention in the top 6.


Looking at this picture of a 12 year-old Martin it is hard to imagine him acting violently. 
Is that why the liberal media use it so much - to fit their narrative?

It would be great if someone would point out the data (not the speculation or wishful thinking) that show that Zimmerman was physically aggressive toward Martin, as pre-supposed in saying that Martin "could have chosen not to defend himself".  The evidence the jury saw suggested that Martin initiated the physical altercation, which is never justified to "defend" against verbal provocation.  Martin was not "defending himself".  For some reason (I shan't speculate), people with a certain agenda must believe that it could not have happened that way, that Zimmerman must be lying and that no teenager, black or white, would ever commit felonious and deadly assault on another human being with no more than verbal provocation (ever watch the news?).  They seem invested, beyond all reason, in Martin being an angel and Zimmerman being evil.

Why, in all the possible scenarios one can imagine, is it out of bounds to consider the possibility that Martin had a chip on his shoulder, did not like getting challenged by a pudgy "white" guy, and decided, in an act that contributed to his own death, to sucker punch him when he turned his back, leap on top of him and beat his face in?  Why is that considered impossible?  He would not be the first teenager, white or black, to act in such a way.  Again, it seems that all would be well to these people if Zimmerman had allowed himself to be killed.  It is a certainty that we would never have watched this trial on TV had that happened.  Move along, nothing to see here.

The article begins by noting that: "It's impossible to know whether it was Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman who threw the first punch in the confrontation that ended Martin’s life. The jury apparently relied on that ambiguity to acquit Zimmerman of murdering Martin, because he said he killed the 17-year-old in self defense."   No agenda there! Start with an assumption - because one party is a teen and black and the other is armed, adult and Hispanic it must be that the young black male was profiled and assaulted for "walking while being black".  With that assumption faithfully and unswervingly held, it is easy to ignore anything that does not agree with it.  They jury relied on the evidence available, not on ambiguity.

Once upon a time, liberals at least tried to make a pretense of being intellectuals - even to the point of calling Obama a "smart president".   It was one of their more endearing qualities - as an intellectual I even thought so.  But they, including Obama, have sadly turned into nothing more than emotional crazies with an agenda who happen to live at the other end of the political spectrum from another group of emotion-focused crazies.  Obama's suggestion that this is a "gun violence" issue and not simply a "violence" issue - and an issue of violence that potentially started with an aggressive teenager - is more than enough evidence of this.  Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

It is illuminating (and demoralizing) to see all of their assumptions in action.

The misdirection of liberal media

I am white and male, so perhaps anything I have to say on this matter will be automatically tainted by my observable characteristics.  It seems there is no way to discuss issues these days without being labeled a racist.  This is especially true in the liberal media - a source of information I can no longer tolerate.

As the gun control debate has gone on and the Zimmerman/Martin case progressed and came to the valid conclusion based on available evidence and the law, the liberal media has put its stupidity on parade.  Take, for example, the Huffington Post's "outrage" at a comment by Zimmerman's brother:  "I want to know what makes people angry enough to attack someone the way Trayvon Martin did."

Then follow that with this sentence from the President's statement on the Zimmerman verdict:   "We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis."  Pardon me for noting, sir, but this was not a simple case of gun violence and it was precipitated by non-gun violence.  Whether you like it or not, a man may have saved his life by using a firearm - from an assault by someone who looks like your son would look if you had a son.  Perhaps you should also ponder whether this is how your son would behave and if it would be a better outcome if Zimmerman had been killed.  That, in essence, is what the critics are saying.

So I think we need to do that question better - let's ask ourselves if we - as a nation - and he - as a President - are doing all we can to understand and stem a tide of VIOLENCE (not just gun violence) in our society - one that is most especially evident in the proclivity for violence that we see in many young Americans.  Quite clearly some of the answer to that can be seen in a culture of violent video games and music that glorifies crime, violence against women and any one else who challenges us or has expectations of us, that fails to teach better ways of responding to others, and passes on the symbols of that violence to new generations.  And, just as clearly, we are doing nothing about that because we are focusing on guns for selfish political reasons.  If all you see when you look at this incident is gun violence, then you are willfully blind.

Two acts of violence occurred in Sanford that night; one, the first one, when a 17 year-old who was verbally challenged as to his activities by an older male decided that the best response was to sucker punch and take to the ground the person who would dare challenge him.  So - why is it that youth today are so ready to respond to anything with violence?  Is it a lack of consequences?  That act of violence by Martin precipitated the second act of violence that occurred that night.  All the evidence presented at trial and evaluations of it by experts agree that Martin was pummeling Zimmerman from a full mount position.  Zimmerman fired his pistol defending himself from that beating.  A jury decided was a justifiable act of self-defense.  You may wish and speculate that it was otherwise, but there is no evidence to support the idea that an innocent Martin was shot.  Sadly, the ensuing debate has little basis in logic and fact.  In fact, some seem to simply wish (and I will not speculate outloud on their motivations) that Zimmerman had allowed himself to be killed.

Thus, there are at least a couple of different steps along the way that may have kept this sad trail of events from unfolding as it did.  If Zimmerman had shown wisdom and called in his report and remained in his vehicle to let LE do its job, this would not have happened.  Still, he did not break any law by being foolish (and Lord knows what would happen if we outlawed stupidity - they'd be executing Nancy Grace).  If Martin had not been so ready, so primed to react with violence, had not decided that the best response to being asked what he was doing was to assault his questioner, then this would not have happened.

The verdict as delivered was the only possible verdict under Florida (and most other state's) self-defense laws.  These laws have their precedent in history in English common law.  The available evidence suggests that violence was initiated by Martin as the aggressor and that it was reasonable for Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger.  Perhaps Zimmerman is simply a nerd who was unprepared to defend himself - again unwise.  Perhaps Martin got the jump on him with a sucker punch from behind as Zimmerman walked away.  Perhaps Zimmerman lives a cushy lifestyle and does not get into fights on a regular basis and has not lived a life of violence.  In any case, he was being beaten that night and in fear of his life. Hence, he was not guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.  While it is clear that this does not satisfy the emotional need for revenge, it is, after all, the data and the law.

In the aftermath of what, in truth, was the only possible verdict, there are many questions to ask.  If we can, but for a moment, put away the need to infantilize Martin as a child victim in this case (Yes, he was someone's child, but he was not "a child", not that cherubic 12 year-old we keep seeing), it is clear that one of them among many is the question that Zimmerman's brother suggests; what is it that makes people angry enough to attack people who merely question them?  Such youth violence is, sadly, not a rare occurrence.  We hear it on the news every day.  Fortunately, deaths associated with it are rare.

In that light, perhaps we need to consider whether the likes of Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and others - whose actions can clearly be seen as stoking and justifying that anger and violence and, thus, placing many young men at risk - have some stake in creating and fomenting unrest and must take some responsibility for such outcomes.  They desperately want and need this to be about race, about an innocent child (of course, Al, we all remember the Tawanna Brawley affair); they seem to think that acting in anti-social ways will somehow change the perceptions of a society.  Sharpton is  a huckster. 

We need to ask why some people want to foment such violence and why some young people are so ready to act in such violence, why are they infected with so much anger?  We might also ask how this is a response that will be helpful (as opposed to potentially getting you shot by a shopkeeper and being the next media trial)?



Asking such questions - in the words of the President's statement - is "...the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

So...Crooks and Liars...

If you want to make this case,  then shouldn't you also be noting this:

Ah, Nancy, some things never change...and some Zimmerman/Martin stuff

During an interview last night Nancy Grace (ever a font of foolishness - remembering back to the Chris Benoit case and how ignorant she was), after cutting the microphone of someone who did not agree with her, asserted that: 

 

"Yes, everyone has a right to carry a gun but it it's still extraordinary that you think it's so normal that [Zimmerman] carries a loaded gun—with ammo, no safety—to walk his dog."

 

So:  It is one's right, it was Zimmerman's right, but she reserves her right to consider it extraordinary that one might exercise that right.  With ammo! (Oh, so he should carry it without ammunition?).  With no safety? (As if it will go off all on its own?).

 

I do not think I have said much, if anything, about this case.  But I would not have done what Zimmerman did - followed someone who was not a direct threat to me, to my life or the life of a loved one, personally.  I would have, as he did, call 911, reporting what I saw and being a good witness.  But I would not have followed the potential criminal, the suspicious person.  I know that some people think that not doing so, not defending one's neighborhood from potential crime is an abdication of responsibility, whether neighborhood watch or just everyday citizen resident.

I personally would not have done so simply because I would have known it might end up just where Zimmerman has found himself.  Even an innocent man - one who seemingly committed a justified act of self-defense homicide - can be punished for it by being dragged over the coals and having to defend himself in court.  Stopping a potential thief in my neighborhood - one who has yet to commit a crime I know of or present a lethal threat - would simply not be worth that possible outcome.  It is unfortunate that our society has created a situation where citizens will not challenge others' behavior (and where those who might be asked what they are doing feel it necessary for ego purposes, to respond with violence) because even if innocent they will be punished.  Had Zimmerman not followed, he could have avoided this - even if he did not break any laws in doing so.  Had Martin not "bowed up" and decided to fight, he could have avoided his own tragic death.

 

There is seemingly no evidence available to convict Zimmerman.  The only "evidence" is the emotional evidence, the racial animus, fear of race-based retribution, and the seeming assumption that Martin could not have been a bad actor and that when a white, Hispanic male kills a black teen aged male, it must be murder, it must be racially motivated.  It seems that any possible Zimmerman conviction will be based on emotion, based on race, not based on the data.  It is a tragedy that anyone died in this incident; sadly it seems clear that someone was going to once both initiated the event.  The available evidence seems to clearly suggest it happened as described by Zimmerman.  Again, would I have ever put myself in that situation?  No.  Was Zimmerman unwise to do so?  Yes, I think so.  Does that justify the beating he may have taken?  No.  Did he shoot in self-defense, in fear for his life?  Likely so.  Would any reasonable person in his position have done so?  Yes, if they could - if they valued their own life.

So I might not ever have decided to do as he did, but if I somehow found myself in his predicament, being beaten down, fearing for my life, I would act in similar fashion.  There is a well-known, if seemingly crass, saying in the armed citizen community; "It is better to be judged by 12 (6 in this case), than carried by 6".  In the end, it is clear both outcomes suck, but Zimmerman seemingly did as any reasonable person would; it seems definitional of a lack of reason if one is willing to allow themselves to be beaten into unconsciousness and potential death rather than defend themselves.

Both men made foolish decisions that lead to this tragedy - I have detailed what I see as Zimmerman's mistake; Martin's was to think he was invulnerable, too tough, too much a gangster.  Too much ego, too much "bad ass".  He was too ready to go to blows and assume that he was facing someone who could not defend themselves against him.  He, too, made a decision I would never make; "I am going to kick the MFs ass".  It is good to remember - all you young men out there - that you never know who you are facing and what they can or will do if you put them in a corner, if you threaten their life.  Think twice.

Speaking of which:

 

Sadly, as shown above, there have been numerous race-based threats posted on the internet, twitter and so on about retribution that will be attempted if Zimmerman is found innocent (I do not normally read The Blaze, but have no reason to doubt the veracity of these statements).  Of course, Nancy is implicitly supporting this - as are so many others - by suggesting that Zimmerman and any one else who carries a firearm (exercising their right) is doing something "extraordinary" and abnormal.  The state has proved nothing of the charges, but their approach has inadvertently (I hope) justified this anger and any misbehavior that follows.  Sharpton, Crump, Herbert and others have also used this case to justify racial animus. 

Sure, some of these threats are bravado, but here's a group of young people who seem to be thinking of making the same mistake that Martin made - "I am impervious to harm, I can do what I want, I'm bad, blah, blah, blah".  It cannot end well, no matter how it goes.

When (I wish I could say "if") something does happen, the next big trial will emerge.  If it is a case wherein an innocent "cracka" is killed, I am sure some will justify it by talking about this trial, the injustice done, the long history of racial injustice.  Foolish!  If it is a case where the young revenge-seeking "gangsta" is killed, then Nancy Grace will further indict those who wish to defend themselves, but it will be, as this case appears to be, a lawful case of self-defense.  Sad!

And, thus, the sad saga will continue.