Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

In what should have been a "decided while sleeping...no...comatose" decision.

judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department had “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling”

Well duh.

But I must object. It doesn't even matter if it is direct or "indirect" racial profiling. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is quite clear as to when the police may bother a citizen:

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.

You cannot stop a citizen "just because", nor can you search a citizen "just because". It doesn't even matter that the vast majority of gun crimes in NYC are committed by African-American males. You CANNOT stop and frisk a citizen without probable cause.

Unless....

Being black is considered probable cause.

That is the ONLY reason that can be proffered to excuse this practice. Dare any elected official, or official seeking election come out and say it, if they support stop and frisk?

The data is clear. over 90% of the stops result in nothing. No arms found. Nothing at all.

Why is it we're even having a discussion on the legality of stopping citizens for no probable cause at all and with a "bust" rate of less than 10%?

Let's review my run down of the NYPD program from the previous link:

So let us review: 1) between 82 and 90% of the persons stopped by NYPD were innocent. They were not committing a crime, had not committed a crime and were not engaged in any behavior other than walking to and from wherever they had a right to go to or from perhaps with other people.

2) Of the remaining 20% of the people stopped, 86 percent of them were arrested or fined for having marijuana. And most of that was found after an illegal search (after the illegal stop). Your officers then willingly committed perjury in order to give these persons arrest records which would have a negative impact on their education and employment opportunities, therefore increasing the likelihood that those persons would commit "major" crimes. Smart.

3) The remaining 5% or so, actually had contraband or something warranting an arrest. And you as a professional cannot figure out a means of getting to these persons without blatant and gross violations of the constitutional rights of the massive number of people stopped.

As I said before It's the 4th Amendment stupid.

If It Walks Like A Duck....

Most of us know the phrase “If it Walks like a duck...'etc. This phrase is generally used when someone is trying to show that two things that are claimed to be different are probably not. It is also one of the weakest “intellectual” argument that exists.

Long ago I decided that the best way to counter the “walks like a duck” argument is to give an example of water and ethanol. Water is one oxygen atom with two connected hydrogen atoms (H=O=H). Ethanol contains 2 carbon atoms, 6 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. (H3C-H2C-OH).

Water and Ethanol are both clear. Walks like a duck. Water and ethanol are both liquids (at room temperature). Quacks like a duck. Both can exist in a vapour form. Looks like a duck.

One will put out a fire. One is very flammable and is a psychoactive drug.

Definitely not a duck.

This one example shows the weakness of the proposition that because an argument “sounds a lot like....” another one, that they are indeed equal.

As someone who strongly advocates for African people I often hear garbage comments like “that sounds racist” (and they don't mean that in the way I mean it). Similarly as someone who doesn't do the gender bullshit I get the “that's sexist/misogynist” commentary from folks who usually have never even bothered to research their own favorite topic because if a man wrote it it's wrong (mansplaining) and if a woman wrote it in “support” of men then she's a dupe.(brainwashed by The Patriarchy)

Like a duck.

This phenomenon one of the largest problems facing African intellectuals. They don't want to sound “racist” or that could sound like something a “racist” might say about black people and so they say something not entirely truthful or supportable with evidence instead of speaking frankly and truthfully. And that's when they're not busy burying unfavorable information.

For example I was listening to a podcast where a group of men were discussing the new movie Fruitvale Station. The conversation went into the Zimmerman verdict and one of the individuals decided to inform the public that when it comes to violent crime, white people assault/kill white people, black people assault and kill black people, etc. etc. His point being that criminals generally target the people who they live around and so the term “black on black crime” is stupid. Of course the statement is absolutely true. No doubt about that. The problem of course was that by and large the issue of crime is not so much who is doing crime against whom (though when you look at things such as the flashmob violence in Chicago and the epidemic of iPhone roberries, interracial crime can be higher than people think) but how much crime each group is committing. There was another salient fact left out of that statement. When you compare rates of crime, specifically assault and homicide, between the groups, African-Americans stand out, far and ahead as both perpetrators and victims. As a matter of fact in some geographic locations upwards of 90% of all assaults and homicides are caused by African-American males (generally between the ages of 15 and 30). In other words, in some places African-American males are theface of certain crimes.

Generally speaking there are many white people who object, quite strenuously, to the idea that they pay taxes that go to policing “those people” who they already pay taxes for welfare, etc. There are a lot of people, particularly African-American who do not want to make statements in public that seem to be supportive of such attitudes because it would provide “ammunition” for racists. Never mind that millions of black middle class families make such statements with their feet and money by moving into the neighborhoods that these “racist” white people created and live for “better schools” and “better lifestyles” and to “not deal with niggas”. I mean seriously did you see masses of rich black people moving INTO Detroit over the past 30 years or so?

Even though doing so would have raised property values, provided an increased tax base and provided employment which would have lead to better schools (among other things) for that 86+% black city? Nope. Shortly after the Zimmerman verdict I saw a repost of the report that every 28 hours there is an extra-judicial killing of an African-American. Certainly that is a cause for concern. Police ought not be killing anyone who isn't an immediate threat to them or others. However; in the few weekends that past after the Zimmerman verdict we saw 15 people shot in a weekend in Brooklyn NY. All African-American. All.

In Chicago 21 people were shot over a single weekend of July 15. On the weekend of July 20 another 22 were shot, 6 dead. In Chicago.

Oh and over the July 4th weekend, 72 people were shot. In Chicago.

If my math skills serve me correctly that's 130 shot in two cities in the space of a month. According to the Malcolm X Movement document it would take the police, nationally, 4 months to shoot that many people. In fact between NY and Chicago alone in July, AA men have shot at more AA men than the total number of extrajudicial killings cited in the report.

I take my police brutality seriously but methinks there is a far larger problem afoot. But what do I know?

My friends, acting as if there is not a serious crime problem in our communities and playing “it's no different than any other group” is not going to play in the world where statistics and news is but a click away for anyone to find.

But that isn't the entire argument though because even with these absolutely horrible statistics, the fact is that relative to the entire black population of Chicago and NY. These individuals represent a small minority of the population. That is what makes citing such information “not racist”. Because it separates out the criminals from the general population. It is racist to state that the high level of crime is representative of all members of the community.

To underscore this fact we can look at an old report at the Heritage Foundation we find the following:

In a longitudinal study of 394 families in England, David P. Farrington, professor of criminology at Cambridge University, found that approximately 4 percent of these families accrued almost half of the convictions of the entire sample. "The fact that delinquency is transmitted from one generation to the next is indisputable.... [F]ewer than 5 percent of the families accounted for almost half of the criminal convictions in the entire sample.... In order to achieve such concentration of crime in a small number of families, it is necessary that the parents and the brothers and sisters of offenders also be unusually likely to commit criminal acts."

This is similar to the study done about male rapists where it was found that ~4% of the men had committed 90% of the admitted to rapes.

Overall it is a small portion of the population that is causing a LOT of problems.

So beware the “Walk Like A Duck” argument. The person offering that argument is telling you that they aren't interested in details and specifics. That's always a bad sign in any attempted informed conversation.

Fraternities Are Gangs?

Sometimes...well more often now than in the past I read some stuff on "liberal" media that just gets my head shaking. Makes me wonder exactly what kind of editorial oversight went into posting pieces. I mean it appears that if you belong to certain organizations or have big name recognition in left circles you can write just about anything and get it posted to prominent blogs without so much as a "hey ummm....this is not factual, you need to change this if you want us to publish this here."

So it is with one Rodolfo Acuna who in his piece Love the Kids, Hate Gangs wrote the following:

This is not true only of street gangs but also other close knit groups. For instance, at the college level fraternities are gangs, and I feel much the same about fraternities as I do about street gangs. I love the kids but feel ambivalent about fraternity culture.

Really?

This fellow thinks the same about say Alpha Phi Alpha as he does about Crips?

What. The. Fuck?

A thinking person would have stopped themselves as soon as they wrote that bullshit because they would realize that for whatever surface "close knit group" characteristics a fraternity like Alpha Phi Alpha may have with Crips (which would be male membership), they have NOTHING else in common. They don't share a identity, purpose or direction.

Lets be clear. If any "close knit group" is a gang, then the word "gang" has no meaning. Indeed we have seen references to "The Gang of Eight" in reference to immigration legislation. But in reference to this piece we know full well that "gang" is used here in order reference street gangs involved with violence and drug sales and making a direct comparison with male greek letter organizations on college campuses and we're supposed to believe this to be a valid comparison.

Of course Acuna can make such a statement because he has a bias against fraternities and in particular against straight male identified fraternities. He says so himself:

Universities spend a hefty portion of their student service budget on catering to the Greeks. The members are middle and upper class kids who are generally not progressive in regards to homophobia, sexism, and racism and drinking.

You'll note that this....person does not even bother to say "Fraternities and Sororities". He does not do this because well, the women can be excused I suppose since they are perpetual victims of The Patriarchy(tm). No, the problem is with straight males (White males in particular in reference to his piece) who are in his opinion holding values about drinking, gender and sexism that do not meet his standards.

And just who the fuck is he?

Oh right just another left academic of sorts who love to rail against opponents who are "not progressive" by using dubious examples of behavior and passing judgment on people. Just the kind of things that in the recent past, the same lefties complained that the conservatives were doing. I suppose now it's OK.

Technology and Labour...

A few months ago I wrote a piece on the upcoming changes in gender relations that will be caused by massive changes in technology. The piece upset a "few" people who thought I was being "anti-male". Unlike a lot of folks, I don't have my head in the sand. Of course things do not have to work out as I predict but that does not make it any less likely to happen.

The primary point of the piece was that the changes will occur as a result of displacing men from the workplace by eliminating physically dangerous manual labour by means of robots and drones. Robots and drones will replace firemen, police officers, and the like because they will be able to do the same work for far less costs such as salaries, healthcare, sick days, liabilities and of course risk of death. A few men and women will be hired to maintain and program these drones but they will be far fewer than the vast numbers of men who will be tossed out of their jobs.

The next thing I'm going to point out is the mechanization of the farm. This is important for two reasons. The first is the current immigration debate. Understand that many illegal immigrants (I refuse to use the term "undocumented") are in the US to be exploited on farms and factories across the US. Jobs that Americans allegedly will not do. What happens when the robots hit the farms?

The engineers were testing the Lettuce Bot, a machine that can "thin" a field of lettuce in the time it takes about 20 workers to do the job by hand.

The thinner is part of a new generation of machines that target the last frontier of agricultural mechanization - fruits and vegetables destined for the fresh market, not processing, which have thus far resisted mechanization because they're sensitive to bruising.

Researchers are now designing robots for these most delicate crops by integrating advanced sensors, powerful computing, electronics, computer vision, robotic hardware and algorithms, as well as networking and high precision GPS localization technologies. Most ag robots won't be commercially available for at least a few years.

Bruising is the primary bottleneck to robots doing the work of humans in the field. That hurdle will soon be cleared. Believe that. And when this hurdle is cleared a lot of field that requires pressure sensitivity will be affected. Nurses to give shots? Not anymore. But that's for later.

Understand that once this technology is perfected the mass importation of labour will be no longer necessary. The only person the farmer will have to pay for is himself and those who repair his machines. Productivity will skyrocket and more humans will be displaced. Of course they will be told that they have been "freed" from physical labour and can now compete in the upper (more prestigious) jobs that requires a high debt college degree.

Of course all these unemployed men won't make for "good" husbands, unless of course they are stay at home dads.

*smirk* In the movie Surrogates, the "Dreddies" rejected technology. They did so because ultimately the technology had made being human with human interdependencies and vulnerabilities impossible. I'm not suggesting that one become a luddite. I certainly am not against the use of technology but I think that too few are thinking of the huge changes that are upon us in societies that are "advanced".

Other links:

Technology and The Coming Gender Relations

Steve Wozniak Wants 'Human Computer' to Tutor Kids

I, robot, The Social Problem

No Group Struck More Than Black Mothers?

So while reading a piece here I saw the quote from Essence Magazine in which the author (not stated) said:

The Zimmerman verdict disappointed and enraged millions this weekend—but perhaps no group of people was more struck than Black mothers, who worry daily about the dangers their sons face because they are profiled without consequence. These are women that ESSENCE seeks to serve and support every day.

Two points here:

1) How is it possible that the group that is "most struck" by the Zimmerman verdict are Black mothers and NOT All black men (fathers or not) who are the targets of said violence? Black mothers can be "concerned" as much as they want. At the end of the day it is the men and boys who are the ones who are potentially on the exit end of a gun. It stands to reason that these men and boys are the most struck by anything in the system that makes it easier for them to be gunned down by so called "well meaning citizens".

Which leads me to point two.

2) I long since stopped reading Essence and Ebony. I would say that Essence is not for me as a black man anyway. They even say so:

These are women that ESSENCE seeks to serve and support every day.

Fine. If I'm not being served and supported then I don't patronize. I'm not one of those folks who sit at counters where I'm not wanted. *ahem*

I have more problems with Ebony. That was a magazine I assumed (wrongly) was for black *people*. However since about 2 years ago it seems it hired a cotorie of so called "feminists" who have proceeded to turn that magazine (website) into a place with a lot of bullshit. It's pretty clear to me that there are no straight black men with an ounce of self respect working in any editorial decision making capacity at that location. The last thing I read....no...second to last, the last thing is going to be posted on, over there was how men can stop rape. It had to be the WORST, factually erroneous piece I have seen in many many years. Yet it was supported and circulated, without question, by so called Intelligent Negroes(tm).

So yeah, Essence completely blew that opening paragraph. It's been up for just under a month and apparently nobody there has thought to modify that paragraph.

*smh*

How Zimmerman Could – and Should – Have Been Convicted Under Florida Law

Actually, there is such a law. In Florida: "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows [or] harasses ... another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree." Fla. Stat. § 784.048.

Ummmm... I said this a long time ago and I'm not even a lawyer.

The Risks

So yeah, I'm back after a little break. Haven't posted so much since I first opened this blog. I see all you regulars in the stats. Thanks for checking in. :-) Anyway. The following is old news for people who keep up with such things: Florida Cops Shoot Unarmed Black Man In His Mother’s Driveway With the usual excuse: Sheriff: Deputies said man 'lunged' from car before he was shot in his yard

Deputies Jeremiah Meeks and Matthew White responded to a 911 call on Saturday of a possible burglary and found Roy Middleton, 60, rummaging through a car in the 200 block of Shadow Lawn Lane in Warrington, Morgan said. Middleton was searching for a loose cigarette in his mother’s car.

Morgan said the deputies reported that, after they'd made multiple commands to Middleton to show his hands, he eventually lunged out of the car and spun toward them, causing them to "fear for their safety."

"As much as we are trained and as much as officers -- which have Type A personalities -- like to say we are in control, we are not," Morgan said at the conference.

During an afternoon press conference, Morgan played the 911 call made by a neighbor along with the corresponding radio traffic from officers on the scene.

Middleton has said he was in his mother's car, searching for a cigarette. When he backed out of the vehicle, he had his car keys in his hand with a metal flashlight attached, he told his mother. The deputies opened fire.

So to review: This man was in his own vehicle on property that he had every right to be on. He was looking for something in his car and a neighbor called the police to report something suspicious and a 60 year old man (60 year olds don't commit many crimes)was shot.

I wonder if the neighbor, being all concerned and all, bothered to call the owner of the residence that he thought was being burglarized. I suppose not. They aren't THAT neighborly.

But this underscores one of the reasons why people in certain communities do not call the police (or cooperate with them). It is a well known fact that police are more likely to shoot a black person (usually male) due to a claim of "feared for their lives" regardless of whether there was a fear of anything. In some situations the police themselves create a situation in which conflict can occur. I'll use myself as an example.

A few years back I was doing my 6 month oil change. I had music playing and my top down. Someone in the complex I live in did not "appreciate" the music I was playing (not loud, but with the top down, audible). They decided it was a good idea to call the police. I was going in and out of my residence with tools and towels and stuff when I saw unmarked police cruisers go by at a high rate of speed. I thought to myself that something must be going on somewhere and went about my business.

So I was leaning into my vehicle with a chrome tool for something or other when lo and behold I found that I was the police business. Two officers, one of which was gripping his sidearm came at me with some "turn that down". Now imagine that these officers saw the flash of chrome from the tool in my hand and "feared for their safety"? Luckily for me it was daylight. Night time could have ended a lot differently. All because some neighbor didn't have the courtesy to lean out a window and say "Excuse me, I'm trying to sleep."

That's not much different than what happened here except that the suspected offense was more than noise complaint.

And lest some idiot says "well he was rummaging in a car late at night." Let me reming you that anyone can drop anything of value in their car at any time, including late at night and be found looking between and under seats.

Compare And Contrast

Over the past few months we heard about Trayvon Martins "weed" use that "proved" that he was a thug. In NY black men are stopped on the street and harassed by the police for having marijuana on their person. In fact a man was shot by NYPD for having lit his splif in mid-town. Wherever we look we are told that weed is bad....except...

The 'Marijuana Moms of Beverly Hills' who say taking drugs makes them better parents - See more at: http://www.miaminewsday.com/national/10751-the-marijuana-moms-of-beverly-hills-who-say-taking-drugs-makes-them-better-parents.html#sthash.FOuANe2W.dpuf

So not a thug.

Can you just imagine an article featuring black folks peaceably smoking some herb?

Juror B37 Quotes Virginia Black Codes

"He hit him first"

"1669. Act I. If a slave resist his master and by the extremity of the correction, chance to die, his death shall not be a felony, since it cannot be presumed that malice (which alone makes murder a felony) would induce a man to destroy his own estate.

" "Did not appear to have a purpose" "George didn't recognize who he was"

no Negro or slave may...go from his owner’s plantation without a certificate and then only on necessary occasions; the punishment twenty lashes on the bare back, well laid on...And, further, if any Negro lift up his hand against any Christian he shall receive thirty lashes, and if he absent himself or lie out from his master’s service and resist lawful apprehension, he may be killed and this law shall be published every six months. "

A slave shall not go from where he lives without a license of letter showing he has authority from his master.

All meetings of slaves at any meeting house or any other place in the night shall be considered an unlawful assembly, and any justice may issue his warrant to enter the place where the assembly may be for apprehending or dispersing the slaves, and to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders at the discretion of the justice, not exceeding twenty lashes.

1748. Chapter XXXVIII. Section 22. An accidental homicide during correction of a slave still does not make one liable for prosecution or punishment, unless the slave is killed willfully; on a manslaughter verdict, there is no forfeiture or punishment.

I knew that....person's commentary sounded familiar.

Two Points On Juror B37

1) Juror B37 said "It was pouring." YouTube Link of CNN Interview I don't know if the prosecution entered the weather report for that evening into evidence, but I covered that in Trayvon Watch Part 8:

At the time of the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon, ~7:09 PM, Feb 26, 2012, it was slightly raining. What we would call a "light drizzle".

6:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 7.0 mi NE 6.9 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain 7:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 10.0 mi East 5.8 mph - 0.03in Overcast

It wasn't pouring. It wasn't sleeting, snowing. Nor was there a hurricane blowing through the town. It was lightly raining which means if you're covered you're unlikely to be running (which probably would have made Zimmerman suspicious as well), or in any particular rush to get home (particularly if you're talking to a female on the phone before you get back under parental supervision).

So this juror went on facts that were possibly not in evidence but was incorrect. It was NOT pouring. 2) Juror assumed Trayvon was a criminal:

CNN Interview

Trayvon was suspicious because:

1) "He was cutting through the back" Translation: Niggers can't take short cuts. Niggers must walk in designated pathways only.

2)"It was raining." Translation: Niggers ought not walk in the rain. Niggers can only walk in the rain with a permit.

3) "He was looking in houses": Let me stop here for a minute. I went for my run yesterday evening just after dark. I walked the last quarter mile. I looked into windows of houses and apartments. According to this....person...I should have been considered "suspicious". A test for anyone reading this: Walk down the street in a residential neighborhood and see how long it takes for you to look in the direction of a house.

Anyway. Translation: Niggers must not look anywhere but down at their feet or straight ahead.

4) "Did not appear to have a purpose": Translation: Niggers can't just take a stroll. If niggers don't have a reason for being out and about, then they should expect to be accosted and shot.

5) "George didn't recognize who he was": Translation: Nigger didn't have his ownership papers on hand.

Juror B37

"That Boy"

"Those people"

I told you all that the stated completely FAILED to cast Trayvon as the victim.

No one who thinks of Trayvon as "That boy" is going to grant him the humanity to defend himself against a man that was stalking him.

That Juror B37 completely identified with George Zimmerman about "getting those punks" when not only was there NO crime being committed and no "punks" to go after or apprehend underscores the complete incompetence of the state's attorney's office.

Juror B37 has essentially admitted that she believes that any black male walking in a neighborhood is one of "those people" who rob and therefore should be subject to random white citizens stalking and random questioning.

And as to her commentary about Jeantel. Get a clue miss: The biggest liars on the planet can read and write cursive AND speak English very well. But I suppose so long as those persons are not one of "those people" they can remain "credible".

Not racial my ass. How dare "that boy" raise his hand to a good white citizen? Used to be: How dare "that nigger" raise his hand to a good white citizen!

Trayvon Martin Watch: Sean Bell Verdict II

I learned a very hard lesson when I followed the Sean Bell trial: Understand the law.

It seemed obvious to me at the time that Sean Bell was murdered by the police officer. After all how else could you explain two full clips being unloaded into a car of unarmed passengers? One full clip discharged. A reload and then another full clip discharged. It had to be murder. The problem was that I, along with many people did not understand how the law handles a homicide. You see a dead body represents a homicide. That homicide could be justified or unjustified. It all depended on the circumstances.

Murder is a circumstance. It requires that the state prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator has intended to kill his or her target and had malice, hatred or something along those lines. The key point being "prove beyond reasonable doubt."

The police get the benefit of the doubt when they shoot at someone. They get it from the justice department and they get it from the public. The idea being that police do not shoot unless they have to. When they have shot someone it is because the suspect did something to "deserve it". It was only late into the trial that I realized that the entire thing had been, in my opinion a publicity stunt.

If you read all the counts you'll note that there is NO second degree manslaughter charge against Isnora or Oliver for shooting at Guzman. This is significant because first degree manslaughter charges requires the proof of intent. I said back in march of 2007 that intent would not be provable. Second degree manslaughter requires no intent. Once it was shown in court, by both Isnora and Oliver that the target of their weapons fire was Guzman, it didn't matter what happened to Bell (case wise) Bell becomes collateral damage from the assault on Guzman. So the question that needs to be asked is why was there no second degree manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter if such a charge exists) leveled at Isnora and Oliver? If the prosecutor did not ask for such an indictment, was he or his office acting in concert with the police department to assure that the officers would be acquitted?

If you've followed all my Trayvon Watch posts you'll understand why I am focusing on the state's case rather than the "evidence". I believe the Florida prosecutors made the same mistake that the was made in NY. I cannot say that the "fix was in" but I can certainly say that the state's attorney's office fucked up. Let me explain how I think they fucked up royally on this case:

1) Wrong charges

While I was on Twitter and Facebook I repeatedly told people that murder 2 was not a proper charge and that it was a mistake to bring that charge. I said that the state would be unable to prove intent, much less malice on the part of Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt. The reason is simple, Just as the NYPD was given the benefit of the doubt, this "neighborhood watch" person would also get the benefit of the doubt from any jury. The person in charge should have chucked any suggestion of murder II in the trash.

There is a second reason why Murder II should have never been on the table: It put the jury's focus on Zimmerman as potential victim> rather than as the actual perp. Since most of the fact in the case were not in dispute the prosecution essentially joined with the defense by having the jury spend two weeks deciding whether Zimmerman was scared for his life or not. Of course he was. The prosecution by waving around "intent" in order to convict on murder II, allowed the jury to contemplate Zimmerman as victim. This played directly into the jury instructions which had a clear exception for murder and manslaughter: How did Zimmerman feel? Of course both the prosecution and the defense had been making the jury think about that for two weeks. Which brings us to point number two

2) Wrong focus:

What essentially happened here, and as evidenced in my previous postings on the trial, everything was focused on Zimmerman. Mostly because of the wrong charges. It was wrong from the very beginning.

"Fucking Punks."

While that may have been "shocking" for an opening statement. The focus was entirely wrong. The prosecution should have spent the entire opening session on what Trayvon was (or might have been) thinking and doing. The opening line should have been:

"I'm being followed."

They should have lead with the forthcoming statement from Jeantel as to Trayvon noticing he was being followed.

They should have told the story of the events of that night through the eyes of the victim. Had the prosecution not had to try to prove malicious intent on the part of Zimmerman, they could have focused on Trayvon's story of walking to the store. Buying his skittles and iced tea. Of taking (or placing) the call to his lady friend. Of innocent banter on the walk home with his hood up to protect against the light rain. How he's a long way from home and it's night time and the lights are on in the apartments and people are doing the evening thing and he's looking around. Then the change in his conversation when he notices he's being followed by someone in a car. How he knows that a car should have passed him by now but is staying behind him. How he feels that he is in danger from a person who is clearly stalking him. Then the decision to run. Because the car "can't" come up on the curb between the buildings, but now the strange guy is on foot. What to do?

What to do?

Do I go home and bring the danger to my house?

Do I run?

Do I hide?

What does this strange man want?

Why are you following me?

The guy's got a GUN!!!

fight or flight

Trayvon is acting in self defense!!!

This is what the prosecution should have been for the entire two weeks: Martin. All day every day. What did Martin think was going on?

The prosecution should have hammered away at the very concept That Zimmerman was acting in self defense. Object every single time there is the slightest reference to defense by anyone other than Trayvon.

Of COURSE Trayvon fought him. He was fighting for HIS life!!!

Of course he smashed Zimmerman' head against the concrete! He was fighting for his life against an armed stalker. What the fuck would you DO?

And yes, I'd say "What the fuck would you do?" in open court and take the fine or contempt charge. It is THAT important to make it clear what the victim thought.

3) The Right Charges:

In order to make their manslaughter case stick the state should have brought up 2 additional charges:

A )Aggravated Assault and Aggravated Stalking.

From my previous posting aggravated stalking has the following:

“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.

There is absolutely no reasonable doubt that Zimmerman stalked Trayvon. Zimmerman told on himself to that effect. Since Trayvon was not in the process of committing a crime nor was he "caught" exiting a building with "goods in hand" or anything like that, there was no reason to follow Trayvon, especially on foot.

Notice that the requirement here is that the victim have a reasonable fear for their safety. Clearly Trayvon was in fear of his safety due to the pattern of behavior that Zimmerman exhibited. Secondly, it doesn't matter WHAT Zimmerman thought he was doing (ie: protecting his neighborhood); his actions meet the definition of stalking.

Once you get the Jury to convict on the stalking charge, Manslaughter is easy to get to because you've established criminal activity on the part of Zimmerman and after that all that "I thought I was going to die" from the Zimmerman camp doesn't matter. When in the commission of a crime one kills someone you don't get covered by self-defense.

B) Manslaughter

Per the instructions given to the jury, manslaughter exceptions are:

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances: 1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or 2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or 3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

As we go through these items we would have concluded:

1) Once we put aggravated stalking on the table, Zimmerman fails item 1. 2) Zimmerman did not shoot Martin "by accident" so he doesn't get covered under item 2. 3) The "sudden combat" exception does not apply if one is committing a crime. Try shooting a police officer who has taken you down after trying to arrest you for a crime you committed. You're not going to be able to argue "sudden combat".

Because the prosecution failed to establish criminal activity on the part of Zimmerman they could not get a conviction on the charges they filed. Because they wasted their effort on trying to prove the unprovable (legally). The prosecution allowed Zimmerman to be cast as the victim rather than the dead Trayvon.

4) Zimmerman had choices:

I haven't seen all the testimony but I haven't heard one piece of reporting that suggested that Zimmerman had choices. Zimmerman could have announced himself to Trayvon as a "friendly neighbor" who was "offering help to someone who looked lost".

Zimmerman could have driven right up to Trayvon and rolled down his window and said something to the effect: "hey there, you look kinda lost, I live here can I help you find a location?" If Zimmerman wanted to be more forceful, he could have rolled up on Trayvon and announced himself as neighborhood watch and ask if Trayvon needed help.

But Zimmerman said he thought the skittles was a gun. Oh, so Zimmerman left his vehicle expecting to get into a gun fight? Really?

Side issues:

5) Not a single black juror? I'm not saying that a black juror could not have come to the same conclusion as the rest of the jury but I believe it would have been harder to get a black juror to not see Trayvon as a victim because he or she would have to consider that they could have easily been Trayvon walking down the street minding his own business. Understand that jurors are expected to use their judgement and experiences when evaluating the credibility of witnesses and their statements.

6) I didn't see it mentioned but if it wasn't I think that the fact that the Zimmerman sitting in the courtroom was not the Zimmerman of 18 months ago would have been important. Zimmerman blew up and grew hair while he was awaiting trial.

7) Was there a black prosecutor in this office who could have made opening/closing statements? No disrespect to the prosecutors but I don't think they really understood exactly how offensive the idea of an innocent black male being stalked and killed is. I don't think they truly understood what was at stake here. Their focus on Zimmerman and how he was a "wanna be cop", played directly in the narrative of the defense. That Zimmerman was a good guy trying to do right and got himself into a bad spot. He wanted to get the "fucking punks". Well who doesn't want to get the fucking punks? How is that supposed to get a jury to see Trayvon as a stalking victim?

A good black attorney. Heck, even a non attorney would have instead focused on Trayvon. The closing argument as I see it would have been a clear narrative from Trayvon's point of view.

It would have been all about the fact that I'm walking in the drizzle to the store. I'm not in a rush 'cause I have no appointments. I'm talking to my lady friend.

I would have been right up in the jury's faces, particularly the mothers. I would have had them on the phone with their son walking home from the store. I would have let the hear the panic in my voice as I realize that someone is following me. I want them to hear me running away from this stalker. I want them to feel the panic as they realize the stalker is now on foot and is face to face with their son.

Their child is face to face with a potential killer and there is nothing they can do all they can do is hope he survives. Drop the phone in front of the jury. See which ones look to pick it up. You've won.

This was not a case that is won trying to get into the mind of Zimmerman. It was a case to get into the shoes of Trayvon Martin. I believe a black attorney would have understood that.

This concludes the Trayvon Watch series.

Trayvon Watch Part 11: Jury Instructions

http://documents.latimes.com/zimmerman-final-jury-instructions/

Trayvon Watch Part 10: Until Proven Otherwise

So for the past couple of months I've been watching and reading the commentary on various, shall we say, Pro-White, websites as it regards the Trayvon Martin case. Today, one of them, VDare decided to run a piece by Ann Coulter (the one allegedly involved with JJ from Good Times), in which she defends Zimmerman. Before I get into her piece I'm going to re-iterate my oft stated position that the state did not prove murder 2, nor do I think that Zimmerman is in fact guilty of murder 2. This does not mean I don't think Zimemrman is not responsible for the killing, nor that he shouldn't have been charged with something, but that it was IMO a mistake to charge Zimmerman with murder 2. Now onto Ann.

One of the things you will note with many "pro-white" websites is a focus on black crime. I'm not going to get into a debate about black crime. Relative to other US populations black crime, particularly assault and homicide (usually but not always linked) are ridiculously high. Yes, in certain locations practically all assaults on the books have a black face, usually male. Discussing the reasons for this phenomenon is beyond the scope of this post. What is within the scope of this post is that even with the way out of proportion levels of crime committed by black men, it still represents a small minority of the overall black male population.

Using NYC as an example, there were maybe 300 murders in the city last year. I'm rounding, probably up. Most of which were committed by black males. There are 8 million people in NY. A good 2 million or so are black. If we assume, wrongly, that both the victim and the perpetrator of these crimes were criminals it still wouldn't even be 1% of the total black population. If we were to throw in burglaries and other forms of violent crime, you STILL wouldn't hit 1%. As a matter of fact, the majority of records that black males have are for non-violent offenses, number one being drug possession (with or without intent to sell).

Furthermore, when we look at cross racial crimes, they are but a fraction of the amounts of intra-racial crimes. That is, for a white person to proxy their chances of being a victim of a black criminal by the number of crimes blacks commit against each other, they would need to drop that chance to 10% (usually). Not to say it cannot happen. We know it can and does, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority black people you see on the street isn't paying you any attention. Just like Trayvon was doing when he was minding his business walking from the store.

Which brings us to Ann:

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.

Lets take that point at face value. There are about 17,000 black persons in Sanford Fl. According to Ann around 8 of them committed burglaries.

Eight.

Ocho.

So according to Ann, if 8 persons who look a certain way have committed crimes in a given location, it is OK to stalk everyone else who "fits the description" on the chance that they too 'might" be number 9?

ust six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child.

Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house—one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window.

An interesting rundown of prior events. Here's the kicker though, these were actual crimes. Had Zimmerman (or anyone else) ran into the two men (one was actually a minor) in the act Zimmerman could have blasted them to kingdom come and be sitting on his porch with a beer and no one would have said a thing.

Had Zimmerman caught the kid who stole his property from off his property and put a bullet in his head, I'd have nothing to say. Nothing at all. I wouldn't even care if the bike thief was unarmed. You steal you take the chance on having things go very wrong. Oh well.

In the case of the roofers they saw the same men who had committed a crime and followed them. Two points here:

1) As I've pointed out in many writings, it is often a small group of people who are responsible for numerous crimes, rather than a one to one to one relationship between a crime and a new perp.

2) The roofers followed the perpetrators of an actual crime. Had they gotten into an altercation they would have the legal upper hand in anything that happened because a crime had already been committed.

The last point is the point missed by all of the "pro-white" writings I have seen. Not a single one of them, in the months that I have read their commentary has once said:

"Trayvon was committing no crime." "Walking down the street is not a crime." For all their talk, I seriously wonder what these "pro-white" commentators would do if they had been stalked by a strange man (cracker or not) in a car, who then exited said car and perhaps showed a gun. Would they lead him to their house? I mean really, if you are in a neighborhood that is "rife" with burglaries, would you allow a strange man to follow you to the "safety of your home" knowing full well that if he really wants to kill you, he now knows where you lay your head to rest?

Really?

Ann goes on to make a comparison with John White who shot a kid who was menacing his family and threatening to kill his son. Let's make quick minced meat of this laughable comparison.

John White was sleeping in his house. Zimmerman was driving along a "public" street.

John White's son had been threatened by the teenager(s) in question. Zimmerman had no prior contact with Trayvon.

The teenagers came to John White's property and were on his property. Zimmerman was not on his property. Trayvon was not on Zimmerman's property.

The teenagers threatened John White, His family and his property. Zimmerman posed a threat to Trayvon and confronted him.

John White showed his weapon and warned the teenagers. Zimmerman claims that he made no confrontation nor did he warn Trayvon that he was armed (by his own testimony).

John White discharged his weapon. Zimmerman discharged his weapon. This is the only thing they have in common. Clearly though the "long story" explains why John White was fully within his rights, while Zimmerman was clearly reckless in his behavior.

What it boils down to with these folk is that since black men commit so much crime then every black male is to be seen as a criminal until proven otherwise. That Trayvon, by dint of being black, must have had criminal intent against Zimmerman "The Cracker" and was simply waiting to beat up on Zimmerman (supposedly with his free hand while talking to his lady friend, cause you know how athletic and coordinated black men are).What they hope is that the jurors in this case will agree with such a sentiment. The state in levying a charge they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, may have provided the means to confirm such an idea. Hopefully they are bright enough to include lesser charges for consideration and the jury rejects this ideology.

Trayvon Watch Part 9: The Armed Stalker is Not The Victim

So the Defense has rested. As expected Zimmerman did not testify in person. Why should he have? I wouldn't have. Zimmerman told his story a couple of times and it is on tape. His story has been "confirmed" by a number of credible witnesses. What was his story?

He stalked Trayvon while in his car because Trayvon was "not walking fast enough in the rain" and "looking at his surroundings".

Zimmerman then left the safety of his vehicle from this "clear threat" of a man "walking too slowly in the rain" and "looking at his surroundings" with his loaded gun and followed this person.

Zimmerman found himself in an altercation with this unarmed man who had been "walking too slowly in the rain" and "looking at his surroundings" and in the ensuring fight killed the unarmed man who had been "walking too slowly in the rain" and "looking at his surroundings".

Zimmerman's defense team would like for the jury to disregard the fact that Trayvon was "walking in the rain" and "minding his own business" when he realized he was being stalked by a man he did not know or recognize.

Zimmerman's defense would like the jury to disregard the fact that there was only one person in this entire situation who had an ongoing and credible fear for his life from a man he discovered was not only stalking him but had a loaded firearm.

Zimmerman's defense team would like the jury to disregard all of that and act as if Zimmerman was just another guy, walking in his complex with his loaded gun when he just happened to be jumped by Trayvon for no other reason that being a "creepy cracker."

I do not know what charges the jury will be told they can convict on. What I do know is that as I predicted, the state has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that a murder II has occurred. The reason for this is that they did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was "malice" and intent. It would seem to me that the state in this case has done the same mistake that the state of NY did with the Sean Bell killing trial.

If the state has failed to add any charge that is something akin to "criminally negligent homicide", then Zimmerman walks. Zimmerman should have known that by leaving his vehicle has was creating a situation in which he was a danger not only to himself but to anyone else he encountered. His decision to escalate the situation lead directly to the shooting. He never considered that to Trayvon, HE was the one who was about to commit a crime. Zimmerman did not consider that by following Trayvon in his car, that HE came across as a person who was stalking a would be victim and that Trayvon had decided he would not be a victim.

This last point is why I haven't even commented on the latter part of the trial. I expect that Trayvon took matters to deal with someone who by any objective standard was stalking him. This is where I refer the reader back to the long story - short story theory. The prosecution in it's closing argument will have to stress that this was a created situation by Zimmerman against a person who was minding his own business. That if Zimmerman had not acted negligently he would not be on trial now and Trayvon would be alive. That the injuries that Zimmerman sustained were his own fault. Yes, his own fault. You do not stalk and confront someone and then when they act to defend themselves shoot them and call it self-defense and walk away clean as if it was an innocent accident.

The prosecution does not need to find "disrepancies" in Zimmerman's story. It does not matter if the gun was pressed to Trayvon's chest or only on the shirt. It does not matter if Trayvon was found face up or face down. It does not matter if Trayvon was on top or on the bottom. The fact of the matter is that Trayvon was walking down the street minding his own business, talking to his friend and observing his surroundings when he noticed he was being followed by a vehicle with a strange man in it. That he tried to get away from the "creepy ass cracker" who was following him and that the man exited his car, with a loaded gun, and continued to follow Trayvon on foot even after, by his own testimony he had been spotted by Trayvon.

The prosecution must repeatedly bang on the point that the armed stalker is NOT the victim.

The armed stalker is not the victim.

Lolo Jones Mocks Rachel Jeantel On Twitter: ‘Madea Goes To Court’ [OPINION]

Hey Lolo;

Followed your track career. Watched the NBC bio right before the Olympics. Felt bad for you when you lost your race.

Next time. I'll be changing the channel or rooting for someone else.

That is all.

The Ghost.

Is Silicon Valley's immigration agenda gutting the tech industry's middle class?

The kicker:

Callahan says that there may be a surplus of American IT workers looking for employment, but that’s because their skills don’t match up with today’s marketplace. "A lot of folks looking for work are older professionals. As the infrastructure of tech companies increasingly moves to the cloud, these positions have dried up. You don’t need a big IT staff to get a company to global scale anymore."

I can attest to this personally. Due to the way software and updates are distributed these days, the days of needing a lot of "on the ground" tech staff are numbered. One person with a comprehensive system in place can do what used to be done by 4 or 5 people.

Remember I've been talking about the future of [un]employment for a while now. And recently. Lastly:

How can both of these things be true at the same time? The answer reflects a larger trend in the American labor market: an increasing gap between the top earners and everyone else. In Silicon Valley, elite programmers are in high demand, fought over by employers who pay six- and seven-figure salaries on top of generous stock grants. It's understandable that these companies would spend money lobbying Washington for more access to premier talent.


But in the broader IT market, the environment is more like manufacturing, with less-skilled Americans being replaced by cheaper foreign labor. The largest employers of H1-B workers aren’t firms like Facebook and Microsoft, they are actually outsourcing companies like Infosys, Tata, and Wipro. These companies account for around half of the annual H-1B workers, and the majority of their employees are overseas, according to a recent report from Computerworld. The study found that less than three percent of H-1B workers apply for permanent residency. Most learn the job, then leave to continue the job from their home country.

Trayvon Watch Part 8: Mind How You Walk....Niggas.

Today the jury got to listen to the unedited tapes of Zimmerman's statement to the police after he shot Trayvon. In the interview he stated why Trayvon caught his attention:

In the recording, Mr. Zimmerman waived his right to a lawyer and said that his concern was piqued that night by the sight of Mr. Martin walking in the rain. Burglaries had been rampant in the neighborhood, he said, prompting him to start a Neighborhood Watch. “These guys always get away,” he told Officer Singleton, a statement that prosecutors would later seize upon. “It was raining out, and he was leisurely walking, taking his time, looking at all the houses. When I drove by he stopped and looked at me.”

Not that Trayvon was trying car doors, house doors or maybe using a flashlight to see if any home was empty.

Trayvon was suspicious because he was leisurely walking. Shit I see people in my neighborhood do every day.

At the time of the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon, ~7:09 PM, Feb 26, 2012, it was slightly raining. What we would call a "light drizzle".

6:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 7.0 mi NE 6.9 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain 7:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 10.0 mi East 5.8 mph - 0.03in Overcast

It wasn't pouring. It wasn't sleeting, snowing. Nor was there a hurricane blowing through the town. It was lightly raining which means if you're covered you're unlikely to be running (which probably would have made Zimmerman suspicious as well), or in any particular rush to get home (particularly if you're talking to a female on the phone before you get back under parental supervision).

So basically Zimmerman's opinion was that Trayvon was suspicious because he was walking to leisurely [for a negro].

Zimmerman is letting us know that in his opinion, black males aren't supposed to be walking "leisurely" in weather HE thinks warrants non-leisurely walking.

Straight face.

So now you know my fellow Negroes: If it's raining outside, you make damn sure you don't walk to "leisurely" lest you arouse the suspicions of some random "creepy ass cracker" with a gun.

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.