Zimmerman-Martin: A Rush to Judgement

If you are like most of the media and much of the audience, you have already tried this case in the court of public opinion and reached a verdict "guilty whether charged or not". You do not know exactly what happened that night, and other than George Zimmerman, No one does.

The police have collected evidence, including witness statements, and thus far decline to charge. Zimmerman with any crime.

In the absence of factual information, the media and certain biased special interest groups have constructed their own narratives. But these narrative serve their own interests, not the interests of justice. All of these stories are the product of personal bias crossed with personal agenda and vivid imaginations.

No one has all of the facts, but, since everyone seems to have a narrative of what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, I've got my own, constructed without personal agenda from the facts thus far revealed.

On the night of February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman was on patrol. Zimmerman was the captain of the Neighborhood Watch program for his community. [This was not a matter of Zimmerman acting as a self-appointed cop. He was recognized as captain of the Neighborhood Watch program by the local Home Owners Association and the HOA newsletter referred new residents to Zimmerman on security issues] The had been several recent garage break-ins and vehicle burglaries in the neighborhood and Zimmerman was especially alert for suspicious strangers.

Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin walking along the street. It was late at night, and Martin was a stranger to Zimmerman. Martin was wearing a white hooded sweatshirt (a "hoodie") and his face was hidden. Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line to report a suspicious person. Zimmerman was known to the police operators because he was frequent caller. [I have seen several media references to Zimmerman's calls as "paranoid" and excessive. The number of calls may or may not be indicative of anything since, as captain of the Neighborhood Watch, with residents told to contact him on security issues, he would be the most likely to call police to report any suspicious activity observed in the neighborhood, whether by him or by residents.]

Trayvon Martin had recently been suspended from school in Miami where he lived with his mother and was staying with a friend of his father during the suspension. [there is suggestion that he was staying with his father's fiancee or his father so that his father could help him with his disciplinary issues] Martin had walked to a local convenience store and was returning to his father's fiancee's condo carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of Arizona Iced Tea.

Zimmerman, in his vehicle, followed Martin as he walked down the sidewalk, apparently looking at the cars parked along the curb and talking on his cellphone. [apparently to his girlfriend in Miami] While Zimmerman was on the phone with the police operator, giving them directions to his location, Marin spotted him, stared at him, and started walking towards him. Then he left the sidewalk, following a cut-through that took him to a walkway between the homes. Zimmerman could not follow in his vehicle and left the vehicle to follow Martin, still on the phone to the police operator. While Zimmerman was giving directions to the operator, Martin started running. Zimmerman ran along the walkway that Martin had taken but could not see him. The police operator asked Zimmerman if he was following the subject (Martin) and when Zimmerman said Yes, advised Zimmerman he didn't need to be following Martin. Zimmerman said "OK, he ran" and was returning to his vehicle to wait for police. He confirmed that the operator had his cell phone # and it was agreed that the officers would call him when they arrived for his exact location.[The complete transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and the police operator contains no indication that Zimmerman confronted Martin at any time. In fact, it suggests that after the operator told him not to follow Martin, Zimmerman said "OK, he ran" indicating that Martin's whereabouts were unknown and Zimmerman was returning to his car to wait for police to arrive. The call terminates at this point.]

At this point, Martin [maybe still on the phone to his girlfriend] stepped from the shadows behind Z and demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman, surprised, turned quickly. The two exchanged words and then Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, knocking him to the ground. Martin then jumped on top of Zimmerman, punched him several more times and slamming his head into the sidewalk. Zimmerman screamed for help. Several residents heard the screams, one came to investigate, saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, yelled for him to stop and returned to his residence to call 911. Once inside, there was a shot and from the window, the witness saw Martin lying on the ground and Zimmerman getting up. [Another resident called 911 shortly after Martin confronted Zimmerman. On the call, muffled shouts and calls for help can be heard and then a gunshot.]

With every bounce of his head off of the concretes, Zimmerman grew more in fear for his life. Zimmerman was armed with a Kel-Tec PF9, semi-auto pistol. He had a valid permit to carry the weapon concealed. Being in fear for his life, he drew the weapon. Martin saw the gun and grabbed it. Zimmerman fired one shot, striking Martin in the chest and killing him. [The police report says that when recovered, the weapon had a spent case in the chamber and a full magazine. This indicates that the weapon did not cycle as it should have when fired. The only thing that would cause this is something obstructing the movement of the slide and that is consistent with a second person grabbing the gun and attempting to wrest it away]

When the police arrived, the officer asked Zimmerman if he saw what happened. Zimmerman told the officer that he had shot Martin and that he was armed. The officer took Zimmerman's weapon and observed he had grass on his back and was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head. Zimmerman received first aid from paramedics and was then handcuffed and transported to the police station where he was interviewed by detectives for several hours. During the interview, Zimmerman stated that the shooting was in self-defense and all available evidence supported that claim. Per Florida law, there was no probable cause to suspect otherwise so Zimmerman was released.

In his role the Neighborhood Watch, Zimmerman had every right and reason to do everything he did. Leaving his vehicle to follow or pursue a running Martin was questionable judgement, but there is nothing in that act that is illegal or prohibited. Zimmerman did not catch Martin, and did not confront him. Zimmerman did not shoot an innocent, unarmed boy just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Zimmerman shot a 17yo muscular football player, large for his size, wearing clothing which hid his face who confronted him from behind and attacked him without warning.

So what is all the national uproar about? Simple. Politics. The States Attorney could have defuse pubic outcry by making a truthful and accurate statement to the press. He chose not to do so and instead made a statement that served his political goals. A little history lesson is in order. When Florida became the first "shall issue" state requiring the issue of concealed weapons permits to anyone who qualified, it undercut the power of local sheriffs and States Attorneys who often decided whether or nto a person got a handgun permit and reserved them as perks for political supporters. They responded by prosecuting law-abiding citizens who used force they didn't agree with in self-defense, citing the common law duty to retreat in the face of threat, and going so far as to prosecute for murder even when retreat was not an option.

Florida's Stand Your Ground law was intended to put a stop to that practice by making it clear that law abiding citizens who were where they had a legal right to be and were not engaged in any illegal activity had no duty to retreat from a forceful confrontation and had the right to meet force with force, including deadly force if reasonably in fear for their life of of serious bodily harm. In other words, if you are attacked, you can fight back to keep from being killed or injured. Some States Attorney's were opposed to this law and looked for ways to undermine it, just as they had tried to undermine the shall issue law.

In the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, the States Attorney found a case perfect for his purpose. The apparent victim (but probably actually the assailant) was black. His killer (but more probably his victim) was Hispanic (in some places characterized as "White-hispanic"). Racial tension was high in the community and could get higher if there was a racial incident. A responsible public servant would try to keep the peace and diffuse the situation. The States Attorney could have attempted to do this by truly and accurately telling the press: "We have a suspect, but he has claimed self-defense. In accordance with the requirements of Florida law [not the Stand Your Ground section, but a different section on immunity in cases of self defense]we will conduct a thorough investigation and there will be a hearing to determine if a self-defense claim can be supported. All evidence will be presented to the Grand Jury as required by law. While we can't make an arrest until the investigation is complete, the suspect is cooperating and is not considered a flight risk, so there is no need for an arrest at this time."

Instead, the States Attorney, said, "The Stand Your Ground law does not allow us to make an arrest when a suspect claims self defense. Since we have no evidence other than his version of the events our hand are tied." The reaction was predictable. The Stand Your Ground law as characterized as allowing gun toting vigilantes to shoot anyone they felt threatened by. The States Attorney did nothing to correct this misconception as it served his personal agenda. The SA and the Chief of Police declined to pursue an investigation as the law allowed them to do and instead claimed that the law required the opposite. They worked to create a racial incident to bring public pressure on the legislature to repeal the laws they disagreed with. It was a shameful and unethical act and both the SA and Chief of Police have since resigned.

If it is not too late, there may finally be a chance for a real trial in a fair court, not the intentionally biased court of public opinion.

More BS from the BCS

Boring, Congested, Sloppy. That is the BCS. Auburn and Oregon waited 37 days to play a game that was overhyped to be a contest between two high-powered, high-scoring offenses. The over-under on this game was something like 74 points. What we got were two rusty, out-of-sync offenses against two very well prepared defenses...on a field of new sod that had players on both teams slipping, sliding and suffering serious injuries.

If we must have a champion based on opinion polls, at least play the game in a realistic time frame: no more that 2 weeks after the end of the participating team's seasons. Don't wait until after the other 33 meaningless exhibition bowl games have been played. The outcome of the bowls has no bearing on the "championship", so why wait until they are played to play the "championship" game.

The only reason to wait that long would be have a playoff tournament. But we can't do that. Oh no!. A meaningful playoff tournament would detract from the 35 meaningless exhibition games we have now. Why is top-tier college football the only sport that has its exhibition season after the regular season?

Maybe the NFL will get with the program when the work out the next CBA. They can have a 20 game schedule, then the Pro-Bowl all star game. And the team with the most players on the winning team will be declared the World Champions. Makes as much sense as the BCS.

Government of—not by—the people

Given the turnout for recent elections, it may be presumed that Americans don't care much about their freedom either. A great majority choose to leave governing to others and do not vote, leaving one to assume they don't care how they are governed as long as someone else does it.

The majority of the ones that do vote, complain that their views are not adequately represented yet consistently vote for the same representatives that they complain about. Generally because it is just too much trouble to do anything other than vote for the candidates that are presented to them. Again leaving one to assume that they don't care who governs them as long as someone else does it.

The Democrat and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. Both seek power to govern the many for the benefit of the few. Neither wishes to represent the interests of the voters, instead, they wish the voters to embrace the interests of the party. And then go away while the government pursues policies that benefit the supporters of the party in power.

By supporters, I mean financial supporters. There are two kinds of votes in this country, everybody has one that they cast on election day. But those are not the "voters" that are represented. It is the "vote" of the monetary contributor that speaks the loudest and those "voters" are the ones whose interests are represented.

The monetary vote can be trumped by real voters refusing to vote for the candidates that are presented. But refusing to cast a vote for the major parties is not enough. The vote still has to be case for someone to have any weight. Vote for who you know, even if it is your neighbor or best friend. Write in their name. Write in votes are still legal and must be counted.

One way or another, we are responsible for the government we have. If it is going to change, we have to change it ourselves with our votes, not hope someone else will and wait for it to happen.

The American Way

In an Op-Ed column titled "The American Way" in today's New York Times", Bob Herbert says,

"Murderous gunfire claims many more victims than those who are actually felled by the bullets. But all the expressions of horror at the violence and pity for the dead and those who loved them ring hollow in a society that is neither mature nor civilized enough to do anything about it."

What rings hollow is Herbert's reference to a mature and civilized society. The beginning of maturity is the recognition and acknowledgement of reality. What Herbert doesn't understand is that we don't live in a mature and civilized society. We never have. The most consistent thing in human history is mans' inhumanity to man. This is why those of us who are mature enough to recognize the reality of the shortcomings of our so-called civilized society choose to arm ourselves in self-defense. Fortunately, the right to do so is the American way.

Restored rights for felons?

In a post over on Alphecca, among the comments is one by AndyA. suggesting that felons who commited non-violent felonies such as political corruption or financial mismanagement should have their rights restored (so they can vote and own guns among other things). A simple reason comes to mind: The loss of rights is one of the consequences of committing a felony. It is one of the things that sets felonies apart from misdemeanors. In this era of plea bargaining, probation and parole, it is often the only thing.

Limits to freedom

Back in 2003, there were a number of folks upset with how the Secret Service was dealing with protesters at Pres. Bush's public appearances, Blogcritics.org among them. You can read the whole thing here, but this passage jumped out at me:

In the letter to Ashcroft recently released, the members of Congress called the prosecution of Bursey for carrying his sign outside the designated free speech zone "a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending."

"As we read the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a 'free speech zone.' In the United States, free speech is the rule, not the exception, and citizens' rights to express it do not depend on their doing it in a way the President finds politically amenable ... We ask that you make it clear that we have no interest as a government in 'zoning' Constitutional freedoms...

No interest in zoning Constitutional freedoms? Since when? It looks to me as if someone decided to interpret the Constitution with some consistancy for a change and read the First Amendment the same way the Second Amendment has been read for many years.

But they are actually right. There are no zones of Constitutional freedoms. Per the First Amendment, the entire United States is a free speech zone. And per the Second, it is a free to bear arms zone as well.

As we read the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the United States is a 'free to bear arms zone.' In the United States, the individual right to keep and bear arms is the rule, not the exception, and citizens' rights to bear arms do not depend on their doing it in a way that Sarah Brady or anyone else finds politically acceptable.