Trayvon Watch Part 7: Section 776.041: Use Of Force By Aggressor

In part 6 of our Trayvon Watch series we delineated the most likely scenario given the testimony of Jeanette and the statements given by Zimmerman. In short, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon both in his car and then on foot. Confronted Trayvon, putting his hands on him in a forcible manner and then whipped out his gun when he found himself on the losing end of the ensuing struggle.

With this scenario in mind we need to look at the relevant statute: 776.041:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

The jury's decision will come down to whether they see Zimmerman as item 1 in the above statute or whether they see him as item 2 (a) or (b). These two scenarios hail back to my “short vs. long” theory.

Zimmerman, via his statement has attempted to put himself in category 2. He made statements that Trayvon told him “You're gonna die tonight”. Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon was beating his head into the concrete. Such a claim would put him squarely in 2(a). Zimmerman's final statement was that he was “headed back to his car” or “had turned to go back to his car”. These statements put him squarely in 2(b).

It is the wish of the defense that the jury see Zimmerman as the aggressor, in that he was seeking to protect his neighborhood from a robber or worse.

The prosecution has to place Zimmerman clearly in category 1. This corresponds to the “long story” theory. Zimmerman would have to be shown to be in the process of committing or attempting to commit a felony. If the prosecution cannot convince the jury that Zimmerman was attempting to commit or was in the process of committing a forcible felony then Zimmerman gets to walk.

Since the prosecution cannot use the shooting of Trayvon as the “forcible felony” since that is what he is on trial for, they need to establish that he was in the process of committing a forcible felony before the fight broke out. The three that are available under Florida statutes are:

Aggravated Assault, Aggravated Battery, Aggravated Stalking.

Lets take these one at a time:

784.021 Aggravated assault.— (1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault: (a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or (b) With an intent to commit a felony. (2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree,

Yesterday's post showed that armed Zimmerman had confronted Trayvon and then assaulted him (the “get off me” yells that Ms. Jeanette heard). This could be considered aggravated assault.

Aggravated Stalking:

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.— (3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. …. (c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

Trayvon's commentary of the “creepy ass cracker” following him, and Zimmerman's own statements in regards to following Trayvon while in his vehicle and then on foot establishes “ a pattern of conduct”. The question here is whether all portions of the statute (specifically the “and”) must apply.

Aggravated Battery:

784.03 Battery; felony battery.— (1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person: 1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or 2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person. (b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree,

Since we cannot establish that Zimmerman has a prior conviction for battery we cannot say that Zimmerman could be charged with felony battery. But Ms. Jeanette's testimony makes Zimmerman guilty of battery the minute he put his hands on Trayvon. With these items in hand it is possible (and probable) that the prosecution can convince the Jury that Zimmerman is squarely in category 1 of the Use of Force by an Aggressor statute. Failure to place Zimmerman in said category will almost definitely result in an acquittal.

Trayvon Watch Part 6: "Creepy Ass Cracker"

This is how Trayvon described George Zimmerman to his friend Rachel Jeantel. In testimony that cements the fact that Trayvon saw Zimmerman has a threat Jeantel testified:

She said she heard Trayvon say "Why you following me for?" Then she said she heard a "hard-breathing man" say, "what are you doing around here?" Then, she said, she heard Trayvon say "get off, get off."

Ultimately it will be up to Zimmerman to refute the statement of Ms. Jeantel. Zimmerman has claimed that he was returning to his vehicle and not confronting Trayvon. This testimony contradicts his statement.

Even if the voice on the tape was Zimmerman, this testimony would make a reasonable case that the ensuing fight was the result of Zimmerman's stalking and then confrontation with Trayvon with his "what are you doing here?" response to Trayvon's relevant question.

Given Jeantel's testimony and Zimmerman's statements I can make a guess what happened:

When Zimmerman asked Trayvon what he was doing here, Trayvon probably did not react well. I can tell you personally that if I were being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" at night, who demanded I tell him "what I was doing" wherever it is I may be, I'd tell him to fuck off. I think Zimmerman, in his anger at "this punk" (yeah..punk...right...anyway)was "getting away" and had an attitude, Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon. Trayvon. This is when Ms. Jeantel heard Trayvon say "get off, get off".

Trayvon drops his phone and fights for his life, managing to get Zimmerman on the ground. While on the ground Trayvon notices Zimmerman's gun, and thinks that the "creepy ass cracker" was in fact trying to kill him. At this point Trayvon makes the "you're gonna die tonight" comment that Zimmerman testified to. This is when Zimmerman manages to shoot Trayvon in the chest.

This does not support Zimmerman's claim of self defense. The reason for this is that it is clear from the testimony (thus far) that Trayvon was the one who saw himself in danger from the "creepy ass cracker" who was following him and who he later discovered had a gun. Zimmerman, by this testimony, confronted Trayvon and picked a fight. Once he found himself on the losing end of the fight he started he shot Trayvon. To allow Zimmerman to claim self-defense would be the same as allowing a mugger to claim self-defense if he shot his victim who resisted his attempts to mug them.

Trayvon Watch Part 5: The First Day

Did the Zimmerman defense team sink their client?

"You will see the evidence proves at least one thing. Trayvon Martin hadn't gone home," said West. "He had plenty of time, but choosing not to do that he either left or just hid in the darkness to see about this guy who was following him and turned out of the darkness and said why are you following me."

I believe that this statement by the defense team establishes that Trayvon was the person who was in fear.

just hid in the darkness to see about this guy who was following him

What kind of person "hid[es] in the darkness"? A person who feels threatened.

Why wouldn't Trayvon go home? Would YOU go to your home when you are being followed? You would let a stranger who is following you know where you live? You would lead them to your house?

Of course not.

So with this statement by the defense, it admits that Trayvon reasonably thought that he was in danger and did what he thought was in his best interest. If the jury is paying attention and the defense continues along this line they will have helped convict their own client.

Not One Mention

Gen. Keith Alexander on This Week didn't mention the US Constitution once. Not once in his discussion. You just think about that. Side note: Gen. Alexander commented on the 2009(?) report that finds that the agency never "broke the law". Which is convenient when laws are passed giving ex-post facto coverage to those breaking the laws at the time.

Trayon Watch 4: The Tapes

The judge in the Zimmerman murder trial has decided that expert witnesses for either side cannot testify as to who they think was on the 9-11 recording screaming for help.

I'll admit that when I first heard that tape, I was in my office crying like a baby. Due to my bias I had already made up my mind who the person on the tape was. Putting on my jurist hat I realized that I had no rational reason to believe it was Trayvon. Nor did I have any rational reason to believe it was Zimmerman. There was nothing in the actual words screamed by the party to indicate who it was. Had the voice said "Help! Rhis man was following me!" or "Help! He's beating me up!" then I could make a deductive argument that the voice belonged to one or the other party. So unless the prosecution has other recordings with something other than "help!" then no rational jurist can decide who the voice is.

I was actually hoping that the 9-11 tape would not be admissible. That was a long shot as it is evidence that the crime occurred and so would need to be admitted. This brings us back to my short vs. long story prosecution.

Lets assume that Zimmerman is the one calling out for help on that tape. Remember that Zimmerman does not have to prove anything in this trial. It is for the prosecution to convince a jury that Zimmerman is guilty of the charges. In my mind the prosecution should lay out all the steps leading up to the voice on the tape. That Zimmerman misjudged an unarmed, non-threatening Trayvon as some kind of criminal and stalked him while in his vehicle. That Zimmerman, contrary to the requests of the emergency situation public safety personnel, stepped out of the safety of his vehicle with a loaded gun and attempted to track down an unarmed, innocent Trayvon, who had correctly seen Zimmerman as a threat to his person. That Zimmerman, in the eyes of the now deceased, innocent Trayvon, was a stalking stranger who admittedly flashed his loaded gun. That it was Trayvon who was fighting to protect his life and even IF it was Zimmerman who was shouting for help, that it was Zimmerman who was the person posing a threat to an innocent and unarmed Trayvon.

The prosecution must make it clear that Zimmerman lost his "self-defense" argument once he purposefully left the safety of his vehicle with a loaded gun to stalk and confront Trayvon. Once they do that, they do not need to concern themselves with who the jury thinks is on the tape because Zimmerman would have been shown to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt (of criminally negligent homicide at least) by his own actions. So this tape ruling is not the biggest deal so long as it is played correctly. I do not think that the prosecution will be able to convince every juror that the voice is Trayvon. It only takes one juror to allow Zimmerman to walk. The prosecution would be negligent to make the tape a central part of it's case given all the other evidence in play.

Put Up Or Shut Up Part 2

When I posted that it was for the NSA to put up or shut up I said that there were conditions they had to meet:

let him provide the proof, as in actual credible plots, not some rambling by someone who was pissed off. Not someone talking shit to his boys back home. Actual factual, in the works plots by people that had not been identified by any other legal, above board means or could not have been identified by any other above board means prior to the so called "terrorist act".

This is the litmus test. You don't get to do something just because it is "easier" or "more convenient". The point of the constitution is to restrain government. It should be relatively "difficult" for the government to spy on citizens. In any case the news today fails the above test spectacularly.

Mr. Joyce described a plot to blow up the New York Stock Exchange by a Kansas City man, whom the agency was able to identify because he was in contact with “an extremist” in Yemen who was under surveillance.

What was this? already under surveillance? If that is the case, then there is no need or justification for mass collection of user call data. The subject of this example was clearly within established law. No FISA court would even be needed since the Yemeni (or person in Yemen) was already under surveillance. This means that there was probable cause as required by the 4th Amendment to get a warrant for a tap on the target's phone.

So no, this example does not explain how the NSA program uncovered plots.

The second example is very murky:

. Mr. Joyce also talked about a San Diego man who planned to send financial support to a terrorist group in Somalia, and who was identified because the N.S.A. flagged his phone number as suspicious through its database of all domestic phone call logs, which was brought to light by Mr. Snowden’s disclosures.

Was this a "known" terrorist group? Who was the contact in Somalia? Unlike the previous example there is no claim of a foreign target that was already under surveillance. But this example is HIGHLY problematic. Number one, "sending financial support" is not an "imminent threat" to the US and therefore cannot even be claimed to have been thwarting ANYTHING dangerous at all.

Secondly this guy was "searched" and "seized" without a warrant. His phone number was "suspicious"? How do you get a "suspicious" phone number?

Seriously? An agent of the government can tap your shit because you have a "suspicious phone number"? I think this is the kind of activity the 4th amendment was designed to prevent. No lives were threatened by this person. No plot was unfolding and by this description there was no probable cause to look at this fellows call data.

It's pretty shocking to me that lawmakers who are oath bound to uphold the US Constitution did not hammer this guy over this example.

I won't even get into the bullshit claim about how 9-11 coulda, woulda been prevented. A number of the persons directly involved with 9-11 were known to authorities already and were allowed to board planes even though it was known that there was a plot involving planes underway.

Trayvon Watch 3: RE: Liberals killed Trayvon Martin, and Jamiel Shaw, and…

So one Erik Rush of the Canada Free Press is of the opinion that Trayvon Martin was killed because he wasn't "genial" enough when confronted by an "authority figure".

Trayvon Martin, on the other hand, appears to have been far less genial, and more a victim of his lifestyle than a victim of George Zimmerman. The press narrative spun the picture of a little black waif skipping home with his Sprite and bag of Skittles, only to be ambushed and blown away by a nightstalking, cackling bigot. Though time will tell how it pans out in court, reality tells a different story, one of a thug-in-training for whom being accosted by an authority figure might have presented a welcome and self-affirming confrontation.

If only Trayvon had been more polite to the strange man who was following him in a car and then on foot and then flashed his gun.

I get it.

The victims of 9-11 know all about what happens when you're "genial" to folks who pose a threat to you.

First of all the media has not "pun the picture of a little black waif skipping home with his Sprite and bag of Skittles".

The fact is that "skipping" aside. That is exactly what Trayvon was doing. He was walking home from the store with a Sprite and a bag of Skittles minding his own business. He was not "casing the neighborhood". He was not armed. He was doing what every citizen of the US has a right to do: Walk down the street minding his own business.

As for the "thug-in-training for whom being accosted by an authority figure", this guy can kiss my ass.

First of all. If Zimmerman wanted to present himself as an "authority figure" he could have told Martin he was a part of the neighborhood watch. Perhaps wear a fucking uniform. No. Zimmerman was, in the eyes of Trayvon some creepy white guy who was following him in a vehicle and then on foot. Zimmerman never testified that he presented himself as an "authority figure". Read his numerous commentary and the commentary of his supporters. Never once does he say that he identified himself to Trayvon as an "authority figure". So where is this fellow getting the "authority figure" angle from?

Maybe he thinks that young black men ought to see random white men on the street as having authority over them?

Note to Erik: If you follow me in your vehicle and then on foot, I won't be too "genial" about it either. And I am not a thug.

Trayvon Watch 2: The Burden

Writing in WND, Jack Cashill proposed that

When George wrote this he had no idea that a 911 call from a neighbor would record someone desperately yelling “help” or “help me” 14 times in 40 seconds before the screams ended with a gunshot.

As part of its “burden,” the state must prove that Martin was the one yelling for help. The impossibility of that task is just one reason why Robert Zimmerman remains confident.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/george-zimmermans-brother-spanks-media/#rIyGSLgL0R1sVMmA.99

I do not believe that determining who was crying out for help is a burden on the state. It may work to the defense to have a determination that Zimmerman was the one crying out for help, but it does not help Zimmerman if the state has a lesser included charge of negligent homicide.

This goes back to my Short Story vs. Long Story theory. The prosecution will have to continuously remind the jury that Trayvon was not doing anything illegal. That he had no weapon and posed no threat to anyone.

Assuming that the Trayvon's girlfriend will be able to testify that Trayvon felt endangered by the strange man following him in his car and then on foot, it can be easily established that Trayvon felt endangered by Zimmerman. Furthermore:

“As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911,” George continued, “the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled ‘Help’ several times.”

Zimmerman has alaready said that Trayvon "spottted his gun and went for it". Now we see why. Zimmerman flashed his gun when he "tried to find his phone".

So putting ourselves in Trayvon's shoes. Man follows him in car. Man follows him on foot. Man says "I have no problem with you" and then flashes a gun (that would be menacing).

Does it matter who was crying for help when the only person with anm ongoing threat to his life is Trayvon?

I don't think so.

Think of it this way: You don't get to walk into a bank and threaten to rob it and then when one of the customers beats your ass, you shoot him and claim self defense.

NSA Spying and the Fourth Amendment

Follow the link and read it.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Seizure – the taking of private information – is what the government has now been forced to admit. Whether or not the state ever chooses to “search” the seized information, the universal, non-consensual seizure itself of what used to be called “pen register” data grossly invades individual privacy and vastly empowers government, all in violation of the Constitution if “unreasonable.”

[My emphasis]

Decision To Arm Syrian Rebels Was Reached Weeks Ago

U.S. officials said that the determination to send weapons had been made weeks ago and that the chemical weapons finding provided fresh justification to act.

"Fresh justification'.

Yup.

"Justify"

Syria Has Used Chemical Arms on Rebels, U.S. and Allies Find

American intelligence analysts now believe that President Bashar al-Assad’s troops have used chemical weapons against rebel forces in the civil war in Syria, an assessment that will put added pressure on a deeply divided Obama administration to develop a response to a provocation that the president himself has declared a “red line.”

“Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year,” the deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said in a statement released by the White House on Thursday afternoon.

Of course they do. It's not like this could have been predicted.

Put Up or Shut Up

N.S.A. Chief Says Phone Logs Halted Terror Threats

WASHINGTON — The director of the National Security Agency told Congress on Wednesday that “dozens” of terrorism threats had been halted by the agency’s huge database of the logs of nearly every domestic phone call made by Americans,

Except Boston. Except NY.

But anyway, let him provide the proof, as in actual credible plots, not some rambling by someone who was pissed off. Not someone talking shit to his boys back home. Actual factual, in the works plots by people that had not been identified by any other legal, above board means or could not have been identified by any other above board means prior to the so called "terrorist act".

Put up or shut up.

These folks apparently do not understand that the FIRST duty of all government agents it to protect and uphold the US. Constitution. You know, that sovereign law of the land. You know, that piece of paper that says the govt can't search or seize my stuff without probably cause and under oath. In other words, unless I, personally am a suspect in a crime you can't search and seize my shit.

How hard is this to understand?

It is THIS and other so-called "guaranteed" rights that I want the government to protect. And I accept the RISK that I might get dead as a consequence of being free from random searches and seizures of my shit by a government that has handed the executive the power to declare who is and is not a terrorist.

How hard is this to understand?

Two Faced Liberals

With President Obama in the White House, Democrats stand in support of the NSA’s methods, 49% to 40% in the Gallup survey. Republicans were opposed 63% to 32%. When President George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were supportive of government surveillance efforts and Democrats opposed.

And I've been saying this since 2008.

A Conspicuous Absence

So due to the recent announcements out of Apple Inc. this week, I was watching the videos. There is something conspicuously absent in all of the recent Apple advertisements:

Black men.

Yes there are black persons, specifically black women, in most (if not all) the adverts (usually but not exclusively with natural hair) but there are zero black men.

None.

Not a one.

There is the expected Chinese presence. There are all kinds of folks, with the other obvious exception of clearly "blue collar" males, but I've watched the videos and when the people are shown (not photos but we can add them if you like), there is not a single black male.

I don't think it's accidental either. Meanwhile, I'm watching this JC Penny commercial with a black family, on a "white" channel. And it's not even Black History Month! Guess where I shop?

Trayvon Watch

Similar to what we did with Sean Bell, we will have running commentary on the Zimmerman trial. Right now jury selection is happening. Won't be commenting on that but I will give an overview of what I expect the jury to be presented with.

Short Timeline vs. Long Timeline

The Zimmerman defense will hinge largely on whether they can convince the jury that the only part of the evening's events that matter is Zimmerman'as claim that he had given up following Martin and was returning to his vehicle when he was confronted by Martin who Zimmerman claims jumped out of "nowhere" and started to punch him.

This "short time line" defense will claim that regardless of what Zimmerman did prior to the confrontation once he no longer posed a threat to Martin (if they even concede such a point) Zimmerman was acting in his self defense once Martin confronted him and "started the fight".

The "Long line" story which could be presented by the prosecution would be that Zimmerman created an environment that lead to Martin's death. They would claim that Zimmerman was the one who stalked and confronted Martin. They would claim that Martin was acting in self-defence against an armed man. They would claim that Zimmerman, being bested by Martin decided to kill Martin in order to escape a violent situation he created.

In either case, the claims of who initiated the violence will be hotly contested. Any claim of self defense requires that the defending party not initiate violence.

For Martin, the prosecution will need to show that Martin was in fear for his safety. Zimmerman's own statements already set up such an argument. Once (and if) Martin's alleged statement to Zimmerman of "why are you following me?" is accepted by the jury, the prosecution's job will be mostly done.

The Charges


I still maintain that the state has a near impossible task of showing malice. Neither scenario indicates malice. While Zimmerman may have had bad intent when he followed Martin, I do not believe it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that at up to the moment of discharge that Zimmerman intened to murder Martin.

What is provable beyond reasonable doubt is that Zimmerman created an environment in which a death could occur. He was armed when he followed an unarmed Martin who was not engaged in any illegal activity. It is clear that had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle that Martin would be alive today.

That is criminally negligent homicide. That is provable. itr does not require going into Zimmerman's or Trayvon's background.

The Statistics

When I was looking up the statistics for the Men Get Sick Too post I looked up data on deaths broken out by race and gender. I got lucky and found a report that broke down race, gender and age. Two things caught my attention.

1) Skin cancer. It's coming up to summertime and the pharmaceutical companies and the "news" are pushing sunscreen heavily on the public. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be but there is something they aren't quite letting the public know. Looking at the data:

Malignant melanoma of skin (C43) 9,154

Total melanoma deaths in 2010 for the entire US population was just under 10k people.

Malignant melanoma of skin (C43) 8944

This is the total number of deaths attributed to melanoma of the skin among "whites".

Malignant melanoma of skin (C43) 135

This is the total number of deaths attributed to melanoma of the skin among those classified as "black"

That is over an order of magnitude difference in death rates. It's 66x times less than those for "whites". In fact if you break it down by gender the incidences of melanoma among "whites" is two order of magnitudes different.

Two.

Now why is this? Naturally occurring melanin as found in all human beings dissipates UV radiation. In fact it dissipates 99% of UV radiation. The darker a person is the more natural protection against UV radiation one has. So it is a matter of fact that black people do not need sunscreen to protect against UV radiation. The problem of course is WHO we are calling "black". I have no idea how the persons in the study were classified but I'm willing to bet that a number of them, the vast majority of them, were in fact "light skinned". It is known that red headed freckled persons are genetically predisposed to skin cancer. Any African-American (black) who has a red head in their family has a "problem".

Not to say that a melanoma cannot happen to a black person. Anything can happen and clearly does. It's just that I'd like for one of these shows to up and admit that black folks don't need to use the product(s). But y'all still need to use lotion.

2) Life expectancy: According to the CDC as of 2010 White women had the highest life expectancy of all groups in the US. Second to White women were Black women who, interestingly have a similar life expectancy as white males. Black males fall way behind everyone else.

Of course the question is why? That leads us to point three. 3) Violence. Now for the not too good at all. I too was dismayed that mayoral candidate Thompson essentially gave his thumbs up to Stop and Frisk. I still say it is unconstitutional and blatant violation of the 4th amendment rights of the citizens involved. That said, when we look at the killings happening in places such as Chicago and the most recent spate over the holiday weekend in NYC that saw 22 victims of violence. There is clearly something wrong. Lets look at some really sobering facts:

Assault (homicide) (X85-Y09,Y87.1) 7,863

This is the total number of whites killed via assault in 2010.

Assault (homicide) (X85-Y09,Y87.1) 7,818

This is the total number of blacks killed via assault in 2010

The numbers are the same. This is expected as I pointed out in my discussion of Bill Bennett's commentary about aborting all black babies. But here's the problem: black people make up 13% of the US population. If blacks were killed by homicide in proportion to their population then we'd expect something on the order of 1,000 homicides (using white homicide rate as the benchmark). It is clear that the homicide rate among African-Americans (blacks) is way out of proportion.

Looking at the age data we see the that for African-American women between the ages of 15 and 24, homicide is the second leading cause of death. After age 24 homicide drops to the 4th, then 7th and then drops off the chart.

For black males, Homicide is the second leading cause of death for 10-14 year olds.

10 to 14 years of age.

Homicide is the number one cause of death of African-American males between the age of 15 -34.

15 to 34.

So to recap, between the ages of 10 and 34. If an African-American male is reported dead, the most likely cause was a homicide. It is also highly likely that the person who killed that person was also African-American. Going back to the chart where we see that the average life expectancy of the African-American male is just shy of 70, that he on average has to worry about being killed by assault for about one third his life. But wait.

Between the ages of 35 and 44 homicide is the 3rd most cited cause of death. Assault does not drop to no. 7 until age 45. At this point heart disease takes over with HIV complications following close behind. I would hazard to guess that living with the idea that one is at high risk of dying via assault by another member of your group informs much of that heart disease incidence.

In comparison, white women have a death rate that is dominated by "accidents" and "self harm" as the number one and two causes. In contrast to all the dangers that they claim men pose to them, the most dangerous thing to a white woman is herself.

Similarly, white males have a number one cause of death as "accidents". Between the ages of 10 and 14 homicide is the number 4 cause of death (as compared to number 2 for black males of the same age ranger).

White males between the ages of 15 and 19 have homicide as the number 3 cause of death (compared to number one for black males)

White males between the ages of 20 -24 have homicide as the number 3 cause of death (compared to number one for black males).

White males between the ages of 25 and 34 have homicide as the number 5 cause of death (compared to number one for black males).

Homicide drops to number 6 and then off the charts for the remaining age groups.

Don't let the number 3 ranking fool you. When at 20-24 blacks were the victims of homicide to the tune of 1,549, whites in the same group were at 925.

Remember blacks make up a far far smaller percent and number of the population, yet killed off each other at a 50% greater rate.

So lets be clear. While Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional and clearly ineffective (most of the people stopped and frisked had no contraband whatsoever) there is a problem in our communities when it comes to violence that must be addressed. The data does not lie.

Steve Wozniak Wants 'Human Computer' to Tutor Kids

The regular reader will recall my recent post on how technology will change gender relations and the nature of "work" and economics in the near future. One of the points I made was in regards to the changes that will come to"traditionally female" jobs such as nursing and teaching.

"We are moving closer to where a computer is like a person and we can have normal conversations with it," Wozniak said. "We will be able to have one teacher per student and let students go on in their own direction."

He added that the growing trend of mobile devices becoming more human-like over the next few decades will pose new opportunities for innovation.

"A computer is an awful cheap teacher, it has to get more human in its characteristics — anything another human being can understand is what I want my phones to understand," he said.

Steve Wozniak, for those who do not know is the co-founder of Apple Inc. back when it was known as Apple Computer. He has seen a lot of change in the technology landscape that persons born in say 2010 will not even appreciate. I want the reader to look at what he said in terms of the economics:

A computer is an awful cheap teacher

The economics of it all is what will drive the adoption of human replacing technology in civilian life. In the military, policing and firefighting it will be economics coupled with safety concerns.

Of course there will be another byproduct of the use of non-humans to teach children, the absence of adult authority, what I'll call the master-student relationship (already eroded by the internet) and the alienation of humans from each other as they become more and more accustomed to interfacing with machines that have instant answers and no need or desire for reciprocity.

In case you think not, Please do see the "robot student" Now here's the kicker: Once the robot (or the internet) is able to replace the "standing in front of you teacher" then there is no reason to have a school building. Which means none of the administration. None of the teachers. None of the support staff. And a whole lot of ancillary businesses will be gone as well. All you need to have is a Khan Academy "teacher" ready to teach your child at home (or schools will simply be one big daycare center since all those single mothers will be out in the workforce).

So all these calls for more male teachers? Temporary. Teaching as a profession is on the way out and only a few people know it.

Verizon, The Patriot Act and The 4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

So yesterday we were told by The Guardian UK that the Justice[sic] Department ordered Verizon (and most likely other companies, we shall see) to turn over call logs of it's customers for all calls made from the USA and regardless of whether they were domestic or foreign in it's outbound connection This was done with a warrant from the FISA court.

Writes The Guardian:

The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. FISA court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.

The specific issue at hand:

"We believe," they wrote, "that most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted" the "business records" provision of the Patriot Act....

Such metadata is what the US government has long attempted to obtain in order to discover an individual's network of associations and communication patterns. The request for the bulk collection of all Verizon domestic telephone records indicates that the agency is continuing some version of the data-mining program begun by the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack.

The NSA, as part of a program secretly authorized by President Bush on 4 October 2001, implemented a bulk collection program of domestic telephone, internet and email records.

I wrote an 11 part series entitled American Big Man in which I demonstrated the non-constitutionality of the Patriot Act as well as the dangers that not holding Bush and his co-conspirators responsible would have to the US Republic. Therefore I find nothing surprising that Obama, the so called constitutional lawyer, would be doing the same thing that Bush did.

I find it particularly fortuitous that this revelation came on the heels of the 4th Amendment decision out of the Supreme Court. In that decision I found myself in the camp with A. Scalia. The argument that he put forth in his dissent (signed on by the so called “liberal members” of the Court) apply directly to this case. Lets look at that argument and then apply it to the issue with the Verizon court order.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the police can take a swab of your bodily fluid by sticking something IN your body without a warrant. The stated purpose of that search and seizure was to “identify” the arrested person.

Scalia pointed out quite clearly that the defendant in the case had already been identified and known to the state. The search of his body and the seizure of his bodily fluids from inside his body was not to identify him but to identity some other evidence for some other crime that the defendant was not arrested for.

For those confused by this you need to understand that when the police are interested in you they can approach you and ask for your voluntary cooperation. If they want your DNA they can ask you for it but you don't have to give it to them (and you should not). You are under no obligation (5th amendment) to cooperate with the police unless you are arrested. In order for a police officer to search your property (and your body and it's contents is your property) an officer must get a warrant. That warrant cannot be issued unless there is probable cause. The warrant must say what the police are looking for as well.

Of late the “what you're looking for” has been expanded to mean just about any and everything you own. I think that has constitutional issues as well and is possibly how the case came to the Supreme Court.

The state cannot in the process of trying to convict you of the crime it arrested you for, then up and decide that it will “take the opportunity” to “search you” for evidence of some other crime it can find you guilty of.

Say for example you smoked a joint on Monday. On Tuesday you're arrested for shoplifting. While under arrest the police order you to take a urine test (non-invasive) and discover THC in your urine and decide to prosecute you for unlawful use of a controlled substance. Just like in the case before the supreme court, the bodily fluid clearly connects the individual with a crime. It didn't hurt the arrested person to give the urine. As a matter of fact it is far less messy to get urine into a cup than it is to have ink removed from your fingers. And urine, like a cheek swab, in an entry into the body, a search and a seizure.

The majority of the court felt that since it wasn't a “big deal” and as “easy as a fingerprint” (which I actually question now for anything other than matching to the scene of the crime) that it's permissible. Never mind that it is in fact a search and seizure. Never mind that, in this case at least, it was a search and seizure of evidence for an entirely unrelated case. So essentially the Supreme Court's opinion is that the 4th Amendment isn't at issue so long as it's not “inconvenient”.

The obvious abuse situation here is that the state will decide to arrest someone for anything and then use that as a pretext to get DNA (or anything else deemed not “inconvenient”) from that person in order to discover if they have committed or are implicated by that evidence in another crime. Here is the crux of the problem: The assumption that the state can gather evidence from you, without a warrant to attempt to connect you to a crime without any reasonable suspicion that you did in fact commit a crime. With no evidence other than the one it got via search and seizure without a warrant.

This is what the Bush administration was doing and it is what the Obama administration has been caught doing. None of the persons who Verizon was asked to turn over evidence on are or were suspected of any crime whatsoever. The government has simply taken the position that because it can grab “evidence” that may “incriminate” you without “inconveniencing” you (or itself since there is a a backdoor in the FISA statute that allows after the fact warrants) with a “property” search. Furthermore the government will assert that the phone records are not yours but are actually the property of Verizon therefore you didn't have to be notified nor did you need to have a warrant presented to you.

Of course there are folks who will [continue] to say that if one hasn't done anything wrong then one has nothing to worry about. These Benthamites, don't care about limited or constrained government that ought not have the power to intrude on you and your business without documented reasonable reasons for for why it should be involved in your business. These people, who no doubt see themselves as children under the watchful eye of their parent (Government).

So I'm not surprised that the Obama administration has done what previous administrations have done without penalty. I'm certain the next administration will do the same.

App Camp For Blacks

Once again the liberal gender parade continues. Lauding the "App Camp for Girls" in an industry where black folks of either gender are few and far between.

Whats' the unemployment rate for blacks in the US? Double digits? What's the unemployment rate of young black men in NYC alone? Over 50% in some areas. What's that "they don't want to go and do the work"? Same shit said about women in tech right?

Yeah, this is me with a smirk on my face as these suddenly "conscious of gender imbalances" don't even touch the companies with a virtual "no blacks allowed" policy when you look at their boards and management. Start ups where there is almost invariably a woman but apparently none of these folks know a black person of any gender they could even think about working with.

Oh and it's the height of fucking irony that the people running this have no black folks. NONE on their team.

Yeah..diversity in action.

Oh and where oh where are the black girls? Look at those pictures folks. Not a single one. I guess they ought to relabel that camp as App Camp for [Not Black] girls.

This is my E-Trade baby shocked face.

M.L.S. Club Owner Has Latinos-Only Policy, Suit Says

Chronopoulos said that when Vergara arrived at the meeting, which was held at a Beverly Hills hotel, he began speaking in Spanish to a group of roughly 60 people. After a few seconds, he laughed and switched to English, but then asked for a show of hands from the employees to indicate whether they spoke Spanish.

Then, Chronopoulos said, Vergara told the group, “If you don’t speak Spanish, you can go work for the Galaxy,” referring to the other, more popular, M.L.S. team that also calls the Home Depot Center in Carson, Calif., its home stadium. Vergara then added, according to Chronopoulos, “Unless you speak Chinese, which is not even a language.” ...

Chronopoulos and Calichman also said that in subsequent meetings with the team’s president, Jose David, they were informed that the team was seeking to “return to its Mexican roots.” Chivas Guadalajara, which is also owned by Vergara, has been celebrated for using only players who are Mexican or have Mexican-born parents since being founded in 1906...

On two occasions, Willmore recalled, the manager of his son’s under-11 team inquired about examining his son’s birth certificate and asked for background information on both Willmore and his family, including his parents.

Willmore was offended by the request — “they basically wanted to know if we had any Mexican heritage in my family,” he said — and the lawsuit charges that David, the team president, told Chronopoulos to determine the heritage of all the academy players shortly after Vergara made his comments to the staff.

See, the Ghost is not confused about our some of our "friends" south of the border. The Ghost has read his history books.

Supreme Court DNA Decision.

A DEVASTATING dissent from Scalia. I had assumed an agreement with the majority but Scalia's dissent is devastating in it's statement of facts and logic.

In fact, if anything was “identified” at the moment that the DNA database returned a match, it was not King—his identity was already known. (The docket for the original criminal charges lists his full name, his race, his sex, his height, his weight, his date of birth, and his address.) Rather, what the August 4 match “identified” was the previously-taken sample from the earlier crime. That sample was genuinely mysterious to Maryland; the State knew that it had probably been left by the victim’s attack- er, but nothing else. King was not identified by his associ- ation with the sample; rather, the sample was identified by its association with King. The Court effectively de- stroys its own “identification” theory when it acknowledges that the object of this search was “to see what [was] al- ready known about [King].” King was who he was, and volumes of his biography could not make him any more or any less King. No minimally competent speaker of Eng- lish would say, upon noticing a known arrestee’s similarity “to a wanted poster of a previously unidentified suspect,” ante, at 13, that the arrestee had thereby been identified. It was the previously unidentified suspect who had been identified—just as, here, it was the previously unidentified rapist.

My position is that this statement here kills the central "identification" argument used by the majority. I am partial to DNA evidence as a means of determining whether a crime has happened. I am partial to DNA evidence as a means of making sure the right person is tried and convicted, but it is laughable to say that such DNA evidence is meant to "identify" the arrested person.

Soon We'll Have To Step Off The Sidewalk...Again.

Fourteen-year-old Tremaine McMillian didn't threaten police. He didn't attack them. He wasn't armed. All the black teenager did was appear threatening by shooting Miami-Dade police officers a few "dehumanizing stares," and that was apparently enough for the officers to decide to slam him against the ground and put him in a chokehold.

From John Eskow in a piece at Counterpunch:

But the truth is that these so-called “dehumanizing stares” are really “humanizing” stares—stares that forced the cops to realize that they were not successful in terrorizing this kid, and that he was committing that ancient Southern offense of looking a white man in the eye.

I suppose NY Mayoral candidate Thompson will consider adding choke holds for "dehumanizing stares" to his list of approved police tactics for Stop and Frisk.