Ahmaud Part 6: The Recreation

The NYT has an interesting video recreation of the crime scene(s) which has a point that I was unaware of. You can watch it here: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007142853/ahmaud-arbery-video-911-georgia.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Of particular interest to me is the following:

The shooter's home is 230. That is well up the block from the trespass scene which is 220. It has 3 houses between it and the construction site and apparently has a huge amount of trees on the side of the house facing the direction of the construction scene. This means that the shooters could not have witnessed the trespass unless they were outside at the time and at the very front of their property.

So here is where the state can establish motive, or the defense provide reasonable doubt. Since the shooter is unlikely to have himself witnessed the trespass then why did he hop in the truck?

1)"The Black Man Running Down The Street" theory: This would be the theory that is currently favored by those seeking to prosecute the shooter. The shooter saw a black man running down the street, assumed he had done something wrong and pursued him. That's a plausible theory given the fact that the shooter could not have witnessed the trespass.

2)"I got a call from a/the neighbor": In this theory, the shooter was notified by the neighbor or a neighbor or otherwise was apprised of what was going on down the street from him. When Ahmaud ran past his property, the shooter decided to give chase to the suspect they had been told about in order to effect a capture.

3) The shooter was listening to the police scanner and knew something happened. Then the same set of actions occurred per theory 2.

4) The shooter was given access to the security cameras by the property owner and therefore knew what was going on at the time. If that is the case then the shooter thought he witnessed a crime and pursued the suspect per theory 2 Theory 1 is the only one that if proven gets the state it's guilty verdict. Theories 2 and 3 and 4 would provide reasonable doubt.

This recreation also goes to my "part 5" post. The video shows the two other incidences of trespassing. Since we know that the shooter could not have witnessed either of these two events given the distance between his house and the construction site as well as the set of trees that would also block the view to the construction site, it is not possible for the state to argue that the shooter had "allowed" other people to "get away" with trespassing (unless theory 4 is correct).

The recreation points out that Ahmaud had not taken anything (per the property owner's statements). I will repeat my position that it doesn't matter since Ahmaud is not the one on trial. Certainly had he been arrested and charged, this fact would weigh greatly in his favor but Ahmaud is not on trial. Also what I find confusing about the "nothing was stolen" is the claim that there had been thefts in the area. If there were thefts in the area than the residents would be in their right mind to be suspicious of persons entering private property. Which again would go to reasonable doubt.

Ahmaud Part 5: The Other Trespassing Videos

So there are two videos by S. Lee Merrit that he is using to make his case against the shooter:

NEW VIDEO shows there were frequent visitors on the construction site where Ahmaud was seen leaving on the day he was killed both day & night. Ahmaud Arbery seems to be the only one who was presumed to be a criminal and ultimately the only one murdered based on that presumption. pic.twitter.com/8tTwKPsck0

— S. Lee Merritt, Esq. (@MeritLaw) May 15, 2020

And

More alleged “trespassers” entering the construction site where Ahmaud Arbery was last seen before his murder. These children were not implicated in any crimes due to their presence at this location.

No white person ever was. pic.twitter.com/ezLfDwXB39

— S. Lee Merritt, Esq. (@MeritLaw) May 15, 2020

I think that the use of these clips by the state will probably backfire. Here's why:

The use of these clips would be to show that the shooter specifically targeted Ahmaud because he was a black trespasser rather than a white one. The problem would be that the state would be engaging in mind reading. If the state cannot show evidence of that such as a phone call or other direct witnesses who say something to the effect of "we gonna wait till this nigger comes back", it's going to be extremely hard to make that case.

The defense however would likely do the following:

1) The would object immediately on grounds of relevance. Arguing that these individuals are not the victim, related to the victim or on the premises with the victim at that time.

The state's mistake would be to say that it IS relevant to show pattern of behavior under similar circumstances. Therefore putting such an argument into play.

Let's assume the objection is overruled, now comes the questioning:

2) For each video are you certain that my client actually observed these events? Are you certain that my clients were even home at the time of these events?

If the answer to either of these questions is "no" then there cannot be any "proof" that the shooter acted differently (and with malice) towards Ahmaud than to any other suspected trespasser because Ahmaud was the only one seen by the shooter on the scene.

In other words, that other people have been traipsing through the property and lived to tell about it, doesn't mean the one who gets caught gets a pass. That would be like getting caught stealing something from a store (not saying Ahmaud was a thief) and arguing that since other people did it and nothing happened, you should get away with it too.

Which brings me to a point that I forgot to cover before. There is a report in possesion of the police that Ahmaud had been seen on the property before and that he was run off by the shooter and another neighbor with a Spanish surname. This is actually an important point. If Ahmaud was run off the property (or ran off when he saw the neighbors coming) then the claim that he had not criminally trespassed is null and void. This is simply because once you've been run off a piece of property, you know that future "visits" are not permitted and doing so is in fact criminal trespass.

So when this neighbor is called to testify, if he does testify to this effect, the suspicion of criminal trespass is going to be supported and grounds for reasonable doubt.

And to remind the reader: Reasonable doubt IS the threshold the state must cross. Reasonable doubt is NOT "more likely than not"(51%) as seen in civil cases. 90% of the case can make a defendant look guilty. If that 10% is reasonable, then the defendant walks.

Bigamy Decriminalized In Utah

As seen on the Independent

The state of Utah no longer treats bigamy as a crime after downgrading the practice to an infraction – the same level as a parking ticket.

The change in the law, under which “unlawful cohabitation” has been a crime since 1935, is intended to ensure that people living in families and communities that practice so-called “plural marriage” no longer live in fear of the law, which some say has left victims of abuse too afraid of the authorities to seek help and allowed abusers to keep their activities hidden.

Uh huh. Me back in 2008:

I think the constitutional issues coming out of this will be huge. Utah was admitted into the union on the basis of it banning polygamy. Seeing that the argument about 'state interest' has been shot down in two states, for maintaining marriage as between one man and one woman, I think the LDS church will soon be in a position to sue not only the state of Utah but the Federal Government over this issue. Since "family" is being defined in terms of who loves who and who can raise children (as opposed to producing them), there is no legal standing to ban polygamy.

12 years ago.

Ahmaud Part 4: Clearing Up Misconceptions

So a lot of people are watching the various security camera footage and declaring that Ahmaud wasn't trespassing and therefore everything after is a crime committed by the shooter. Let's clear this up.

Whether Ahmaud actually committed trespassing as stated under GA law is not relevant. Why? Ahmaud is not on trial. Say that Ahmaud survived the shooting and was charged with trespassing on the word of the shooter. Once he got to court, the defense would argue that since there was no "no trespassing" signage and that Ahmaud was never explicitly told not to enter the property, he could not have committed trespass as described in GA law. If I were on that jury, I'd likely accept that argument as grounds for reasonable doubt. That's under the law. In common practice it is not acceptable to wander up into someone's property whether there is construction going on or a door open or not. Most of us know this and there are currently a lot of liars out there claiming they do so on a regular basis.

So since Ahmaud is not the one on trial. It doesn't matter whether he actually trespassed. What actually matters is the state of mind of the shooter. I will again go back to the Sean Bell and Trayvon Martin cases. Zimmerman stated that he thought Martin was up to no good. I have repeatedly called BS on that claim since there is nothing Trayvon did prior to Zimmerman confronting him that could remotely be considered criminal or criminal pre-indicators. Zimmerman got away with shooting Trayvon because his legal team established that Zimmerman thought Trayvon was a threat to him.

Similarly in the Sean Bell case, the officer who shot 2 clips worth of bullets again was able to convince a judge that he feared for his life and had no criminal intent when he confronted Bell. I thought that was bullshit, but that's how it works. What is the mental state of the accused not the mental state of the dead.

So we go back to Ga. The defense will show that the shooter had been aware that someone was trespassing on the property in question. He had reason to believe it was trespassing. This may be due to [currently not reported] conversations with this property owner or of other property owners. That those owners never made police reports doesn't mean that no thefts or broken items had been done before. In either case, the shooter can and will establish that he believed a criminal trespass was occurring and since he claims to have recognized Ahmaud from previous incidents, which are also confirmed.

When confronted, Ahmaud didn't simply say "oh sorry" and move on. He broke out and ran down the street as fast as he could. This is a universally accepted sign of guilt (not proof of guilt). So the defense will argue that the totality of the circumstances can lead to a reasonable suspicion that Ahmaud was in the process of committing a crime.

Once that is established, then we fall into the citizen's arrest. The defense will argue that having reasonably established that a crime was likely to have occurred in their presence,the citizens acting under Ga law had every legal right to try to detain Ahmaud for the authorities.

The defense will argue that under Ga law, the shooter was within his rights to have a open loaded weapon while attempting to detain Ahmaud.

The defense will argue that in the struggle with Ahmaud, the gun was discharged three times.

The defense will argue that the felony murder charge requires that some other crime was being committed at the time that resulted in the homicide. What was the crime? Pursuing someone they thought committed a crime? Even if they were mistaken in the understanding of what constitutes trespassing, such a mistake does not constitute criminal intent.

What about the assault charge? Again, felony assault in Ga requires intent to kill. The shooter had plenty of opportunities to kill Ahmaud By his own account, they had caught up to him 2 times prior. They could have shot him or run him over at those points if the intent was simply to kill.

So all that to point out that all the talk about whether Ahmaud actually trespassed or burglarized is not relevant. It's whether the shooter had reasonably thought they witnessed a crime. The simple fact that anyone is even debating whether or not Ahmaud was trespassing or not is exactly why reasonable doubt has already been established.

Ahmaud Part 3: And Just Like That, Case Is Closed

Video from the AJC shows a man fitting the description of Ahmaud entering the property as the arrested men claimed.

You see the suspect walk up to the house. Stand in front of the house. Enter the house. Exit the house and then run through what appears to be the yard.

Realize that once this video evidence is shown to the jury, assuming it even gets that far at this point, because this is exculpatory evidence, that the defense has rock solid reasonable doubt in regards to the felony murder charge. Not only that, but they have an affirmative defense in the forms of citizens arrest since they had witnessed what they could reasonably think was an attempted robbery (the garage seems to be open so it is not breaking and entering). And since they were pursuing someone who could reasonably be suspected of committing a crime, that since the suspect is seen on video attacking them that they also had an affirmative defense under the GA stand your ground laws.

Realize that if this goes the way that the current evidence shows, not only will the prosecutors in this case be liable for malicious prosecution because they had already seen this video, but anyone publicly involved in trying to make them out to be guilty may be liable for defamation and/or libel. Also there is a strong civil rights violation. Which would be ironic to say the least.

I cannot understate how much this video undercuts the state's case.

Ahmaud Part 2: A Set Up?

Late yesterday, the father and son duo were arrested and charged with murder and aggravated assault. I assume those charges came from the grand jury. I'm not sure either one of those charges will prevail in court. Let me explain why.

Yesterday I went to lengths to explain why murder charges are highly unlikely to stick in this situation because of the requirement that the state prove criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Simply showing that someone was shot does not prove criminal intent (this is a common statement I've been seeing in critique of yesterday's post). If simply shooting a person, armed or not, was enough to satisfy criminal intent then the police officer that shot Sean Bell would be in jail today. The Sean Bell case is instructive here.

In that case, the officer emptied his clip into Bell's car,reloaded and emptied a second clip. When I saw that evidence I was certain that cop was going down for murder. Nope. One claim ended the murder rap: He thought he was in danger.

Once a person thinks that he is acting to either protect himself or others while doing something lawful (a point I'll return to) it is nigh impossible to convict of murder. This is specifically why I mentioned negligent homicide.

Were the father-son duo acting lawfully? A petit jury will determine this but the evidence that has been made pubic so far provides a rather substantial reasonable doubt argument.

Lets look at GA law in regards to murder:

O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 (2010)
16-5-1. Murder; felony murder

(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.

(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.

As I've repeatedly said in these cases, you MUST prove intent. In the case of felony murder (item c) there must be another ongoing felony. If the state is going to try that, what felony are they going to charge the father and son with? Did you see a kidnap charge? You think the aggravated assault charge will be it? I'll address that later. Lets look at what the defense will likely argue in terms of defeating an intent argument:

First we have a call to police about seeing someone on property and a possible burglary. Secondly we have police reports that someone "fitting the description" being caught on security cams. Thirdly, in those police calls we have the shooter saying that the person they saw was running or at least leaving the scene. Why is this important?

GA aggravated assault law This may be used to establish the mindset that the shooter thought he was intervening in an attempted felony or suspected felon. This is a requirement of the GA citizen's arrest law. That he and his father brought their guns is inconsequential since they are legally entitled to do so.

So in order for the state to get a conviction on murder it will have to convince the jury that these pieces of evidence shows criminal intent. Good luck with that. And do address another critique, this isn't me "siding with a lynch mob". This is explaining what is required under US law to prosecute a person in a court of law. I'm done being disappointed in legal outcomes because I failed to understand the process. If YOU want to be left wailing and gnashing your teeth when the "not guilty" verdicts come down due to incorrect charging and/or incompetent prosecution, you do that. I'm off that boat.

Back to the murder charge. If the murder charge is going to be based on the shooting at the time of the struggle, then again, the proof of criminal intent has to be made. If the shooter testifies that he believed his assailant had already committed a crime and was willing to do whatever to "get away with it" then he has a strong 'self-defense argument" under Ga law. In addition his defense attorney may argue that if the intent was to kill Ahmaud why didn't they shoot at him the two other times they encountered him prior to the last fatal time?

Why didn't the father, who was in the bed of the truck not take a shot at him when Ahmaud circled the truck? There was ample opportunity to kill Ahmaud if that was their intent.

The defense attorney will argue that if in fact the shooter intended to kill Ahmaud, why didn't he shoot at him as soon as he appeared after rounding the truck? Any competent gun self-defender knows not to let his target close distance on him. He had a clear dead on shot. Why didn't he take it then? Why did he wait until the struggle with the gun to fire? Hell can anyone in the jury be absolutely sure that the two shots weren't accidental trigger pulls caused by the struggle? If they are then there is no basis for mens-rea and therefore no basis for a murder conviction.

These are all questions that are going to get put before the jury. If even one of them has reasonable doubt, the murder charge is done with. And for those who don't understand, reasonable doubt isn't the 51% from civil cases. No. Reasonable doubt can be that 1% edge case that make absolute sense and is supported by evidence or logic. This is why someone who is framed, and everything looks "right" can be found not guilty.

What about the aggravated assault charge? Here's GA's aggravated assault law:

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:

(1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;

(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;

(3) With any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in strangulation; or

(4) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.

My thinking is that the state is using the aggravated assault charge as an additional charge, given the "with intent to murder" language. If the state wants to use this charge to justify a "type c" murder charge then they would be using a circular argument. The assault charge requires intent to murder but we can't prove the murder without the assault charge which requires intent to murder...and on and on.

Now here's GA involuntary manslaughter law:

O.C.G.A. 16-5-3 (2010)
16-5-3. Involuntary manslaughter

(a) A person commits the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act when he causes the death of another human being without any intention to do so by the commission of an unlawful act other than a felony. A person who commits the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years.

(b) A person commits the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner when he causes the death of another human being without any intention to do so, by the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm. A person who commits the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.

The evidence we know of right now clearly supports a conviction on part B above. There is no intent requirement. The state can even stipulate that the defendants were committing a lawful act (citizens arrest) while still arguing that they did so in an unlawful manner. I think part a may be satisfied by what we know today, but it is a harder argument because it would require showing that the defendants actions were unlawful. What part was unlawful? The chase? The getting out the car? The brandishing of weapons?

And if part A is hard(er) to argue then you should see why murder is an even harder task.

Remember, I'm not a lawyer and I can see the arguments that will be made. Actual lawyers who do this all day every day will have an argument 10x stronger than mine, with precedent cases to use. If you think that this is a slam dunk murder conviction based on what we know now, you are deluding yourself. Going back to Sean Bell, a cop emptied 2 clips into Bell's car and walked away because he thought he was in danger. If that can happen, you better believe that a defense lawyer can make an argument where 2 shots were fired during a struggle for a gun.

Ahmoud Arbery

Like most people I was unaware of this case prior to this week. I didn't comment on it for a while due to a number of things:

1) I know about as much about this case as most people: not much. And so any comment I would have would be woefully uninformed.

2) It's election season and there are people out there with an interest in inflaming the emotions of black people for political gain. Hence when black people die in say Chicago at 50 a clip on days in the summer, there's not much more than "that's what niggas do", but if some random white man does something, it's a return to Jim Crow.

3) It is in fact notable that a black man was shot and killed by a white man insofar as it is a rare event when compared to the other way around. Black people in America kill far more white people than the other way around. Sometimes with clear racial animus. Not much gets said about it. Why? Generally there's an attitude that white folks get what karma is coming to them so it's not a thing. I don't know about you but I don't think that various racial groups enacting revenge or lynch fantasies against other groups over past misdeeds is a good thing in the long run. But that's me. But let's get to the subject at hand.

When the story hit my radar the story was that Ahmaud was taking his regular run through a neighborhood I assume he either lived in or close to when he was set upon by two white men who thought he was a burglar. They then shot him for no reason and that was murder.

I learned an extremely hard lesson when I was covering the Sean Bell shooting in NYC. It's not what you think you know. It's what you can prove in a court of law. If you want to charge someone with murder then you have to prove criminal intent, referred to an mens rea. If you cannot prove criminal intent then you cannot get a murder conviction. The Sean Bell case should have been one of negligent homicide. Same for Zimmerman. In a negligent homicide case you only need to show that the person acted negligently, That is they should have realized that their actions could reasonably lead to a death of a person and acted anyway. In my opinion, based on what I've seen thus far the case involving Ahmaud can only proceed as a negligence case rather than murder. Of course new evidence [or old] may change things.

This article has the video. And here is the Tweet with it: https://twitter.com/i/status/1257740136168722434 Now a few comments on what I see.

1) As a runner I know it is common and safe practice to run on the side of the road opposed to traffic so you can see what's happening ahead in case a car veers in your direction. We see Ahmaud on the left side of the road. What we don't see are any water bottles or the like. This is important because most people can go about an hour without needing to carry water or liquids before getting dehydrated. For a lot of people that translates to between 6 and 8 miles. So this means that Ahmaud must have been close to his point of origins.

Why is this important? Well if Ahmaud is a regular runner with a regular route then the people along his route would be familiar with his face. Even if they don't know him personally, they would know the black guy who runs through the neighborhood every so and so time. As a runner the people in my neighborhood know I run. The people in neighborhoods I run through "know" me as well. Some wave. Some cross the street (I know the deal). Southern people are generally more social than northerners so I suspect that in Ga. such mannerisms would be more prevalent than where I am located. The reason I bring this up is that it would undercut the shooter's story if Ahmaud was known to run through the neighborhood. On the flip side if Ahmaud was a new face, then the idea that he was "out of place" supports the shooter's story. I don't know which is the case, I only know that this will be a factor in the "beyond reasonable doubt" argument the state will have to provide to a jury.

In the video we see Ahmaud go from the far left of the road to the far right of the road and around the truck that was driven by the shooter. I thought that to be very odd. First, we don't know when or why Ahmaud made that decision as the cameraman lost sight of the situation. In Ahmaud's defense we could presume that the shooter was out of his vehicle and pointing a gun at Ahmaud. Ahmaud seeing the gun tried to use the truck as cover.

The problem with this scenario is the man at the back of the truck. The report says that he is also armed. Did Ahmaud not see him? Clearly if two armed men have locked on you, evading one by going closer to the other doesn't make sense.

Perhaps this was a case of very poor defensive decision making a-la Trayvon Martin. To summarize, Trayvon's fatal mistake when he took on Zimmerman was that he failed to control Zimmerman's hands. This allowed Zimmerman to get to his weapon and shoot it. In any conflict with an armed attacker, IF you are going to take on the armed attacker while empty handed you MUST control the hand and arm with the weapon. Or if the weapon has not been drawn, you must prevent the weapon from being drawn by pinning it or otherwise keeping it out of reach.

It is entirely possible that in the portion of the video that we do not see, the shooter is menacing Ahmaud with his long gun and Ahmaud panicked and tried to put an object (the truck) between him and the gun man. However; what happens next is where we get the difference between murder, negligent homicide and self-defense.

When Ahmaud re-appears from in front of the truck we can see him grabbing at the gun. People, DO NOT DO THIS. Once someone has a gun on you, you comply and wait your turn. While its always a bad idea to allow yourself to be taken to a secondary crime scene, how you resist that is important. That said, without any doubt in my mind, the lawyer(s) for the shooter is going to say that Ahmaud was the one doing the threatening here. I know this is going to be hard for some to understand but that video can be seen by a competent jury as Ahmaud going after the shooter and the shooter taking the two shots in self-defense to an attack that is clearly on video.

How?

Georgia law allows for citizen arrests:

O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

By raising the 'recent burglaries" the shooter makes a claim of citizen's arrest. I think this claim is weak under the law since like Zimmerman's claim, there was no immediate evidence of law breaking. There is no claim or evidence that Ahmaud had committed a crime right there and then. So that part is not in effect. What does "within his immediate knowledge" mean? Does it mean, I saw a suspect two days ago and I see him again so I can arrest him? I don't know. If it does then the law is in the shooter's favor if not it is in Ahmaud's favour.

There is a twist here as well. In this Washington Post article we find:

McMichael, 64, called his son, Travis McMichael, 34, and they armed themselves with a handgun and shotgun, respectively, Gregory McMichael told police. They chased Arbery in a truck, according to the report, and Gregory McMichael told police that he shouted to Arbery, “Stop, stop, we want to talk to you,” before, according to their statements, they pulled up beside him in their truck. The report suggests a third person may also have been involved in the pursuit.

This quote is misleading because the police report has the following:

If it is the case that the shooter had thrice attempted to block Ahmaud prior to speaking to him, then that changes the situation dramatically. It is one thing for someone to simply pull up next to someone and ask a question. It is an entirely different matter when one attempts to cut off a runner. Three times no less.

Another problem I have here is that unless Ahmuad thought he could outrun a motor vehicle, what was the point of simply changing directions? No one outruns a vehicle. He had to know that. I do understand running into the woods. I do understand running between houses. I do not understand running up or down an empty street. Next we deal with another legal issue, Stand your ground. Below is a screenshot of the relevant law:

If the shooter thought he was clear under citizen's arrest laws to pursue someone he thought had committed a felony (with due consideration of whether that felony had to have happened "right then and there") and his initial contact was non-hostile, then the GA stand your ground law probably takes effect.

If the shooter believes he has a suspect of a felony and goes after him, asks to speak with him and during that conflict a struggle ensues that was not initiated by the shooter and the shooter kills Ahmaud, who he believes to be a felon attempting to get away, then it's going to be next to impossible to convict on a murder charge.

However; if it is shown that the shooter had for example brandished his gun when asking to speak wot Ahmaud" then the defense argument wings into Ahmaud's favor. In that scenario Ahmaud believes he's being threatened with deadly force and possible kidnap to a secondary crime scene. The brandishing of the weapon becomes a deadly threat under law to which Ahmaud would have been totally within his rights to defend against, including deadly force and the shooter in indeed criminally liable for the homicide as negligent homicide at the minimum

All of the intricacies of how citizen arrests and stand your ground laws work are going to be in play and they will not be an easy thing to untangle for a jury (petit no grand).

Lastly I want to discuss the situation from a strictly self-defense position. I'm not blaming the victim here but there are things to be learned from this encounter:

1) If a person gets the drop on you with a firearm you wait your turn. Gun disarms on TV rarely go that well in real life. Most people do not have the empty handed skills to effectively defend against an armed attacker. Compliance can buy you time and time buys you options.

2) De-escalate the situation. Don't let your ego write a check for a bullet to the chest. If someone asks to speak to you while you're on your run. Slow down, pause the music and say "hey how may I help you?" Keep your distance so you can't be grabbed up easily but being friendly can pay large dividends.

Say these guys come out of pocket on some "There have been some robberies and we've seen you running around here". Yeah, that's offensive. This is when you start dialing 911 and recording video. You know what's coming next. The 911 call establishes your innocence. The video establishes evidence. If you are killed, these two things convict your killer rather than hoping some camera footage shows up later.

CDC Narratives

Again to show that we are often fed narratives in order to get us to do things. Here's an article on the flu.

The 25,000 to 69,000 numbers that Trump cited do not represent counted flu deaths per year; they are estimates that the CDC produces by multiplying the number of flu death counts reported by various coefficients produced through complicated algorithms. These coefficients are based on assumptions of how many cases, hospitalizations, and deaths they believe went unreported. In the last six flu seasons, the CDC’s reported number of actual confirmed flu deaths—that is, counting flu deaths the way we are currently counting deaths from the coronavirus—has ranged from 3,448 to 15,620, which far lower than the numbers commonly repeated by public officials and even public health experts.

So, Trump is wrong because the CDC presented incorrect information. Say who should we hold responsible for that? Anyway...

There is some logic behind the CDC’s methods. There are, of course, some flu deaths that are missed, because not everyone who contracts the flu gets a flu test. But there are little data to support the CDC’s assumption that the number of people who die of flu each year is on average six times greater than the number of flu deaths that are actually confirmed. In fact, in the fine print, the CDC’s flu numbers also include pneumonia deaths.

Oh so the CDC has been "misrepresenting" the data for some time now. Ok then.

The CDC should immediately change how it reports flu deaths. While in the past it was justifiable to err on the side of substantially overestimating flu deaths, in order to encourage vaccination and good hygiene, at this point the CDC’s reporting about flu deaths is dangerously misleading the public and even public officials about the comparison between these two viruses. If we incorrectly conclude that COVID-19 is “just another flu,” we may retreat from strategies that appear to be working in minimizing the speed of spread of the virus. [My underlines]

Wait, wait and wait. So this guy here is admitting that the CDC used these inflated total to essentially scare the public into getting yearly flu shots when they knew full well that the flu wasn't anywhere near the threat the public was made to believe?

For real though.

So, why should I believe that these same agencies and agents have been telling us the truth right now?

For real though.

This guy basically said that since the lie got people to do something "for their own good" [you know], it as A-OK. But now that there is some new shit out we need to discard with the old lie, tell the truth about it, and [perhaps] start in on a new one?

How about let's not misinform the public, period?

The article ends with:

We now know that Trump was disastrously wrong about the threat that the coronavirus posed to the United States. But his take that the cited numbers of flu deaths were incredible? On that, he was spot-on.

If the only conclusion this guy can come up with after flat out telling us we've been lied to for years [decades] by the CDC is that Trump "was disastrously wrong", I think this guy has a huge "mote in his eye".

Misinformation In One Chart

So the following image was posted online in order, I suppose, to shame those who are not wearing masks in public.

Now for the record, I approve of mask usage in enclosed areas with lots of people. I also will abide by rules set by owners of private businesses because it's their business and they can decide the terms of service. But the problem in this chart is very glaring when you think of the science and purpose behind the mask.

The mask, worn properly, that is, covering your mouth AND nose, is supposed to be very effective (+90%) in reducing the amount of airborne virus in droplets expelled by the wearer. Similarly it blocks the entrance of said aerosolized viruses from entering the mouth or nose of the wearer. If the CDC et-al are not lying about the effectiveness of a mask then line one on the chart is a bold faced lie.

If a asymptomatic Wuhan virus infected person is not wearing a mask and you ARE wearing a mask, your infection risk is very low. The only time your infection risk is high is if both you AND the infected person are sharing space and neither of you are wearing a mask.

The clue as to the bold lie of line one is in line 2. Why would the infection risk of a non-masked person be "low" if the asymptomatic person was wearing a mask but not the other way around? Do masks suddenly NOT work when a person is NOT infected?

Recognize when you are being fed a narrative rather than information.

Planet Of The Humans

Exposes the "Green Industrial Complex" for what it is.

I don't always agree with Mr. Moore but I cannot argue with much of what is presented here. It's a long watch but worth it. One thing I'll point out is that when near the end they talk about the issue of population, you 'll note that there is no discussion of open borders of the US that increases consumption of the very things he warns about.

DNC Goes Into Cracker Mode

The term "cracker" is generally used in the black community as a reference to white people in general. Historically the term is alleged to have arisen from the improper pronunciation of the name Caulker and/or a reference to those overseers who "cracked the whip" to keep enslaved Africans in line. In this blog post I'll be using the term in the last form.

Last week Vernon Jones, a representative out of Georgia endorsed Donald Trump's bid for re-election. It is a pretty historical thing to occur. First, generally speaking it is pretty much unheard of for a black Democrat to endorse any Republican for national office. Secondly; given the widespread hate of Trump among Democrats, this public endorsement (believe me, there are a lot of non-public support for Trump among African-Americans, particularly AA men) also stood out as a particularly bold, if not career terminating, move.

Vernon explained that his support was due to the material benefits that Trump brought to his community. Record employment levels, support for HBCUs, were two items he pointed to. It is the job of a representative to not only be the voice of his constituents, but also to make sure that his constituents are looked after (aka: get benefits). Clearly Vernon was in between a rock and hard place. If he simply represented his constituents, he could not deliver benefits. Conversely he could deliver benefits but not represent the voices of his community. Bad spot.

Personally I have had the political opinion that Black people in America should not wed themselves to any political party at all. That they should support any candidate of any party who advances their [valid] political interests. I inserted valid, because there are of course invalid political interests. In this way black people would force all political parties to not only court their votes but also to deliver the goods when in office. Of course, the actual practice here is that Black people are "on the Democratic plantation" and have no desire to leave, even when the policies on that plantation are not doing them any good.

Since the Democrats need to keep a coalition of non-whites, non-straights and non-Christians together in order to keep and expand power, black people who do not stay in line, get cracked on. Vernon therefore got cracked on. I thought it wrong for him to have resigned but then he turned around and stayed in office. That is better, let his opponent (who will be wellllllllll funded) explain why high employment numbers (pre-Wuhan) is a bad thing for Black people. Let them explain how open borders and increased labor competition helps Black people.

In the end it's likely Vernon will be voted out of office. Similar to what happened with Cynthia McKinney who also refused to toe the DNC line.

The DNC crackering continued when they planned to censure Detroit State Rep. Karen Whitsett who had contracted the Wuhan virus and was having a tough time. She remembered that Hydroxychlorquine was mentioned by Trump and requested the treatment. It apparently worked and she recovered. Whitsett publicly thanked Trump for having mentioned the treatment.

State Rep. Karen Whitsett, D-Detroit, broke protocol by meeting with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence during an April 14 meeting of COVID-19 survivors, during which she credited hydroxychloroquine for saving her life, a Democratic district leader said.

“Thank you for everything that you have done,” Whitsett told Trump at the meeting. “I did not know that saying thank you had a political line. … I’m telling my story and my truth, and this how I feel and these are my words.”

And this gem:

“At the end of the day, we have political systems,” said Jonathan Kinloch, chairman of the organization. “We have political parties, and political parties exist for a reason. “They do not belong to themselves,” Kinloch said of endorsed candidates and elected officials. “They belong to the members and precinct delegates of the Democratic Party.”

Yo have to a special kind of low down [multiple cuss words] to talk about your political party in reference to someone who survived a likely brush with death. But that's what the DNC has become over the years.

Like Vernon, Whitsett has vowed to keep acting in the best interests of her constituents:

Whitsett, meanwhile, said she plans to continue working for the district, adding she has been delivering food and cleaning products to those in need throughout the pandemic.

"I will continue to fight for the city of Detroit and the people in Detroit who need it the most, and that is the black community," Whitsett said. "We’re the voiceless, and I don’t care who I got to go up against to do that.

"I’m a Democrat, and I plan on continuing to be a Democrat, but they will change their ways. I have my First Amendment right, and no one will take that away from me.”

While I'm not going to bash on her or others for continuing to be Democrats, sooner or later large swaths of the AA community are going to realize that the Democratic party is not what they think it is or what it once was. When a party is censuring people for saying thank you to someone who gave them life saving advice, that party is broken.

Clarence Thomas' Revenge

Back on October 11, 1991, Joe Biden unleashed Anita Hill on Clarence Thomas during his supreme court hearings. The charge was that Thomas had sexually harassed Hill by way of making lewd remarks in reference to porn, commenting on her body and repeatedly asking her out. Though no formal complaints were ever filed even though they had occurred ten years prior.

The FBI was tasked with investigating the matter and came up with no substantive evidence against Thomas.

Thomas warned that such political lynchings would become a regular feature in politics. And he was to be proven correct. He went on to become a supreme court judge and the butt of jokes among the African-American community.

Later this same smear tactic was directed at now justice Kavanaugh . In that hearing we saw numerous Democratic government officials whom we are to believe took an oath to uphold the constitution, in which is found the principle of innocent until proven guilty [ beyond reasonable doubt in the case of criminal behaviour]. These various senators acted as if the reverse was true and that if at any time a woman claimed to have been assaulted, she is to be automatically believed and the burden of proof would be on the accused.

I was extremely troubled at seeing actual government officials taking such a line. It's one thing when Joe on the street wants to believe Sheila's claims. It's an entirely different matter when government officials with the ability to create law start doing the same.

Now there is strong evidence that Joe Biden himself has committed sexual assault. Not only is there an accusation, there is corroborating evidence.

CNN, which has already drawn fire for its reluctance to cover a claim of sexual assault against Joe Biden, failed to uncover its own archive footage in which his accuser's mother called into Larry King's old show in what some critics are calling "journalistic misconduct".

The Intercept reported earlier that Tara Reade said her late mother once called into CNN’s “Larry King Live” to discuss her daughter’s “experience on Capitol Hill,” where the alleged encounter with Biden took place. Reade didn’t recall other information, such as the date or even year and The Intercept managed to dig up a transcript of the call, but not the video...

The resurfaced CNN clip from 1993 appeared to show Reade’s mother alluding to “problems” her daughter faced while working as a staffer for the then-Delaware senator. Reade later told Fox News it was indeed the voice of her mother on the clip. Biden's presidential campaign has adamantly denied Reade's allegations but the video could be cited as evidence supporting Reade’s allegation – even though her late mother, in the clip, does not specifically refer to a sexual assault claim.

I will say at the outset that given that the mother is deceased, it would be hard[er] to verify this claim via adversarial interviewing. That said, it is far stronger evidence than anything sent Kavanaugh's way.

So now these claims are about a month old. Any person who not a total hypocrite has to be asking the question: Since we got wall to wall coverage of Kavanaugh and Thomas, why haven't we had it for this? You cannot come away without coming to the honest conclusion that the left wing media is protecting Joe Biden.

I don't understand how Democrats allowed themselves to put Joe Biden up as their candidate in the first place. It is clear that he has early stage dementia. Amy Klobuchar was [and still is] a far better opponent to Donald Trump. At this point a vote for Joe Biden is NOT a vote for Joe Biden but a vote for whomever he picks as VP. But I digress.

If Joe Biden were to be held to the same [wrong] standard that Senators used during the Kavanaugh hearings, he would no longer be on the DNC ticket AND Democrats across the country would be demanding he step aside. Democrats need to remember that most Americans are not tied to a party. In the general election, this issue can and will alienate a lot of moderate voters. The only question is whether the issue is stronger than whatever situation the US is in under Trump on or around election day.

But wouldn't it be ironic that Biden is taken down by the same tactic he wielded against Thomas?

Wouldn't it be ironic...

"Bringing Light Inside the Body"

Trump yesterday:

Trump, who has used his daily White House briefings to float unproven treatment options in the past, at one point suggested the government should study bringing "light inside the body" as a possible treatment, which he asserted might be done "either through the skin or in some other way." The president also appeared to question whether disinfectant could be used to treat coronavirus patients.

Hmmm.....

AP Today:

Led by Mark Pimentel, MD, the research team of the Medically Associated Science and Technology (MAST) Program at Cedars-Sinai has been developing the patent-pending Healight platform since 2016 and has produced a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating pre-clinical safety and effectiveness of the technology as an antiviral and antibacterial treatment. The Healight technology employs proprietary methods of administering intermittent ultraviolet (UV) A light via a novel endotracheal medical device. Pre-clinical findings indicate the technology’s significant impact on eradicating a wide range of viruses and bacteria, inclusive of coronavirus...

“Our team has shown that administering a specific spectrum of UV-A light can eradicate viruses in infected human cells (including coronavirus) and bacteria in the area while preserving healthy cells,” stated Dr. Pimentel of Cedars-Sinai. Ali Rezaie, MD, one of the inventors of this technology states, “Our lab at Cedars-Sinai has extensively studied the effects of this unique technology on bacteria and viruses. Based on our findings we believe this therapeutic approach has the potential to significantly impact the high morbidity and mortality of coronavirus-infected patients and patients infected with other respiratory pathogens. We are looking forward to partnering with Aytu BioScience to move this technology forward for the benefit of patients all over the world.”

Oh.

In case the AP disappears the text:

Also, original press release

More Data on Comorbidities

Took a break from all the updates but wanted to underscore the comorbidities. A recent report in JAMA shows the following chart of general characteristics of patients:

Please note that the number in parenthesis is a percent of total. Not that "general" obesity leads morbid obesity as a general characteristic of patience. Are the morbidly obese dying at home and therefore not able to *be* patients?

Diabetes comes in high and is closely related to obesity.

You'll notice the never smoked as a very high percent. I believe this is why there were reports of smoking being a "benefit". I disagree. I think that the fact that non-smokers are currently the majority of the population accounts for the high representation.

On the cardiovascular point we have:

So it looks like if you had heart failure not due to high blood pressure or diabetes then your risk is not as high as simply being obese. It's still relatively high compared to healthy population. Hypertension is unsurprising given that obesity puts a lot of strain on the CV system. If you've ever seen an obese person get winded by simply walking, you know what I'm talking about. If your HBP is due to diet, you'll probably want to rethink it. If your HBP is due to [avoidable] life stresses. Perhaps it's time to evaluate staying in those environments. I don't think depending on drugs, long term, is good for anyone.

Oh and don't go drinking "disinfectants". Leave the chemotherapy (which is, at it's core, a "disinfectant" against cancer which takes out a LOT of healthy cells along the way, to the cancer patients.

Wuhan Virus As Opportunistic Infection?

There is a PDF out from NYC in regards to Wuhan virus deaths. Note the following:

By this data, if you don't have an underlying condition the chances of dying from Wuhan are extremely thin. As in .5% nd that's if you assume the total cases represents the total number of infected. And it's not.

One has to wonder then whether this virus is an opportunistic infection that is "normally" not able to make someone sick but is able to when conditions allow.

A Few Words For The Fat Acceptance Crowd

All you folks who lied to women, in particular about how they're not fat but "thick". All you companies that put up obese women as aspirational figures so you could make a buck off them. All you folks who made black women believe it was a choice between "thin" and "obese". All you folks who promoted unhealthy eating habits. All you folks who provided excuses like "genetics" and "gut bacteria" and the like to people who needed to be told to get up, put on some sneakers and take a walk. Yeah all y'all:

How does it feel to know that you enabled and encouraged behavior that has probably caused a number of deaths?

"Wuhan Pack" Being used in Brazil

Translated from the Portuguese.

Health care provider Prevent Senior conducts research into the use of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of coronavirus for patients in the early stages of the disease. The study has been a topic of discussion, since the indication of the Ministry of Health is for the use of the drug in patients in serious condition. The survey has not yet been published. But the company says that so far, 500 patients have received treatment at an early stage of the disease. Of these, 300 were hospitalized and have already been discharged.

Recall that I have been very concerned about the fact that recoveries seem to be lagging quite significantly in the case reports. It has been long enough where we should be seeing a large number of recoveries. Notice that in this study 3/5 of the patients have been discharged (which I assume to mean recovered). Meanwhile worldwide numbers keep showing less than 2/5 recovered.

Can you explain the study you are doing with chloroquine in the treatment of covid-19?

Today a Fiocruz study came out that we think is fantastic and corroborates the results we are finding here. They made an assessment of the use of chloroquine in critically ill patients and found that the efficiency in these cases is low. I already knew that. The Fiocruz study identifies the observation we made two weeks ago, that the introduction for critically ill patients has very little effect. We then created a scientific study methodology for patients before reaching a serious condition. In this treatment, we use hydroxychloroquine, which is less toxic. It is important to note that this medication is not new, it is used to treat lupus, arthritis.

Again. In my proposal I said that The Wuhan Pack should be at the reader for early intervention. This backs this idea up.

The goal of early medication is to prevent viral replication and not let the body enter an acute inflammatory process. We have robust evidence that early introduction is extremely effective in treating patients with covid-19, the results of scientific work will be able to confirm this and give encouragement to everyone who will need treatment due to the infection.

Again, this supports my proposal that "Wuhan Packs" be at the ready along with testing so that as soon as someone is found to be infected they can get on the regimen.

When the patient accepts this treatment, what is the procedure? We delivered the medication to his house, since it is not found on the network.

Wuhan Packs at the ready.

Do you believe that with the use of early hydroxychloroquine it is possible to give up social isolation? No way. Quarantine is essential for structuring the whole of society and protecting fragile patients. As long as there is no scientific answer, there is a need to protect the population. With scientific evidence, all governments will then be able to take the most appropriate measures to respond to their economies.

I disagree with the doctor but he's entitled to his opinion, particularly since the research isn't complete and he's under different moral and ethical constraints.

Let's get this going. Get the Wuhan Packs ready. Lets get Apple to donate a shitload of Apple Watches to people who may have heart issues and lets get America and the world back to "normal".

The Logic Behind Not Using Hydroxychloroquine

"Doctor": I would not prescribe hydroxychloroquine to any of my patients suffering from symptoms of COVID-19.

Me: Why not?

"Doctor": Because hydroxychloroquine has side effects that could kill you.

Me: I see. Do you prescribe hydroxychloroquine to your Lupus patients.

"Doctor": Why yes.

Me: Why?

"Doctor": Because it helps them.

Me: What about the side effects you spoke of earlier?

'Doctor":*blank stare*

Dying; To Spite Trump?

So lemmie get this straight. Instead of doing journalism and looking into many reports of the efficacy of Plaquenil along with Zinc and an anti-viral (The Wuhan Pack), the media is spending it's time informing us about how much Trump may profit from the company that sells a version of the drug.

As if this is important.

So if I'm understanding this new epic level of conspiracy theory, Trump is promoting medicine that apparently works in the vast majority of cases so he can make a buck. Also, since there are side effects with long term use, he's trying to kill people by promoting the use of the drug. Also. He allowed the disease to spread so that he could make a buck off of the drugs.

This is what they're going with eh? Lemmie as you a question: You find out you have Wuhan virus. If you get sent to the ICU there's a large chance you're not going home alive. Doctor says: We have a drug regimen that works at least 80% of the time BUT Trump gets a few cents in stock appreciation if you use it. Do you say "No thanks" 'cause Trump owns what apparently amounts to $400 in stocks?

It's [Past] Time To Turn Off CNN

Folks. CNN will literally get you killed.

This is literally fake news. This headline isn't misleading. It is dead wrong. There is no excuse for this.

Right now there are doctors across the US and around the Globe using hydroxychloroquine along with other drugs (The Wuhan Packet) to treat patients. Is it 100% effective? No. It's so far between 70 and 90 percent effective. Do some people have side effects? Yes. No one who is rational and sane is disputing that. Are there consequences for long term use? Yes. That's why the treatment is NOT given long term.

Lastly, the drugs being tried are already FDA approved and doctors regularly prescribe medicines for off label use.

CNN has been off the rails for years now. I don't watch it. I have strongly encouraged people to turn it off due to it's disinformation but now CNN is literally trying to get people killed during a pandemic. If you don't realize what CNN is from this, I don't know what to tell you. [updated]

Graph from Science Direct

The green line represents 2 or 3 ingredients of my proposed "Wuhan Pack".

? CNN says "researchers say there is no evidence".

CNN is literally a propaganda outlet that will get you killed.