For those who are following the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case, you might be interested in knowing that in addition to the investigation and charges conducted by the Florida state prosecutor, we are advised that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting their own investigation to see if Zimmerman (GZ) violated the Shepard/ Byrd Federal Hate Crime Acts which provides:
Sec. 249. Hate Crime Acts
``(a) In General.— ``
(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person— ``
(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and ``
(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if— ``(i) death results from the offense; or ``(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
It appears that no matter what the outcome of the state court action, the federal prosecutors may initiate their own criminal action against GZ under the the Shepard/ Byrd Federal Hate Crimes Act or any other federal statute applicable. I also believe that the state prosecutor was very careful to word the charging document and information so as to make clear they were not applying federal law in prosecuting GZ and relying exclusively upon state law. If GZ is convicted, acquitted, or found not guilty, the federal prosecutors may still step up and initiate their own prosecution - although I doubt that will happen - but that depends upon what the outcome is and public response/pressure. The premises is:
“Every citizen of a State owes a double allegiance; he enjoys the protection and participates in the government of both the State and the United States.” Houston v. Moore 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 33 (1820).
Different sovereigns successively may prosecute for the same criminal activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has resolved the issue in the context of U.S. federalism by developing the dual sovereignty doctrine. The doctrine “is founded on the . . . conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government.” Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 88 (1985).
It holds that “[w]hen a defendant in a single act violates the (peace and dignity) of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct ‘offences.’” Id. (citing United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922)). [Emphasis added.]
No violation of the prohibition on double jeopardy results from successive prosecutions by different sovereigns, according to the Court, because “by one act [the defendant] has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable.” Id. (quoting Moore v. Illinois, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 13, 20 (1852)).
The defendant, in other words, is not being prosecuted twice for the same “offence” if another sovereign successively prosecutes for the same act—even if the second sovereign prosecutes using a law identical to that used in the first prosecution. U.S. CONST. amend. V.; See Heath, 474 U.S. at 87–88.
Controversial high-profile examples of re-prosecution include the Los Angeles police officers accused of using excessive force against Rodney King.
History of the dual sovereignty exception to the double-jeopardy protections:
In Houston, Justice Johnson addressed a main counterargument to concurrent federal and state jurisdiction; namely “if the States can at all legislate or adjudicate on the subject” of federal regulation, “they may . . . embarrass the progress of the general government.” That is, if state jurisdiction overlaps with federal jurisdiction, the states could thwart the federal government’s ability to carry out federal lawmaking and enforcement functions. One obvious way for the states to do this, of course, would be to acquit an individual in state court so as to insulate him from prosecution in federal court for the same act. Or, as Johnson put it, “[i]t is true, if we could admit that an acquittal in the State Courts could be pleaded in bar to a prosecution in the Courts of the United States, the evil might occur.” Yet such a reading of double jeopardy doctrine, in Johnson’s view, would be wrong:
"But this is a doctrine [prior acquittal as a bar to double jeopardy]
which can only be maintained on the ground that an offence against
the laws of the one government, is an offence against the other
government; and can surely never be successfully asserted in any
instances but those in which jurisdiction is vested in the State
Courts by statutory provisions of the United States. . . . [C]rimes
against a government are only cognizable in its own Courts, or in
those which derive their right of holding jurisdiction from the
offended government."
Because the state government and the federal government—as distinct lawgivers—enjoy distinct jurisdictions to make and apply distinct laws, distinct prosecutions would be permissible. Indeed, the only circumstance in which double jeopardy protection against a successive federal prosecution could arise, according to Johnson, would be where state courts acted on behalf of the federal government in applying federal law, i.e., where “jurisdiction is vested in the State Courts by statutory provisions of the United States.” Houston v. Moore 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 35 (1820).
Later, Moore v. Illinois 55 U.S. 13 (1852) solidified the jurisdictional foundation laid by Houston. Moore involved a challenge to a state court conviction under an Illinois law outlawing harboring fugitive slaves. In response to the double jeopardy concern, the Court announced the dual sovereignty doctrine:
"An offence, in its legal signification, means the transgression of a
law. . . . Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State
or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns,
and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of
either. The same act may be an offence or transgression of the laws
of both. . . . That either or both may (if they see fit) punish such an
offender, cannot be doubted. Yet it cannot be truly averred that the
offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that
by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is
justly punishable. He could not plead the punishment by one in bar
to a conviction by the other." Id. at 19–20.
The Court would go on to use the dual sovereignty doctrine to uphold successive federal court prosecutions following state court convictions for the same acts in Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959); successive state court prosecutions (and convictions) following acquittal of the same acts in federal court in Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959); successive federal court prosecutions following conviction for the same acts in Indian Tribal Courts in United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978); United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2003) and successive prosecutions in different state courts for the same act where the defendant pleaded guilty in the first case to avoid the death penalty but was sentenced to death in the second in Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985).
I believe the federal investigation was only commenced as a result of the strong public pressure it was receiving over Sanford PD's lack of action or claims of corruption. I suspect now that the state has charged Zimmerman, they will take a back seat with a "wait and see" attitude. The whole purpose of the hate-crime laws has been to beef up charges in a criminal case motivated by hate of a specific group, etc. Since the criminal penalty for murder is already the most severe regardless of motivation, it would make sense from a federal prosecutor's perspective to let the state prosecutor handle the case. Under the dual-sovereignty exception - that double-jeopardy protections do not apply to separate sovereign governments, if the federal prosecutors are dissatisfied with the outcome of the state's case, they are not precluded from initiating their own action.
I would venture to say that it may be accurate to call hate crimes the most emotionally-charged criminal issue in the nation today. And when a case like this causes a public uproar– even on the brink of hysteria -- and you realize that federal prosecutors will have the opportunity to get a second bite at the apple if they don't like the outcome of the state case, or they sense an opportunity to make headlines, it does make one take pause. Although I tend to lean to the prosecutor's side because of the nature of my work, I have not lost sight of the fact that U.S. Attorneys and other DOJ officials are office holders, many of whom often aspire to higher office. They may be looking for votes–so they can become state legislators, State Attorneys General, members of the House of Representatives, Governors, etc. I am not saying these are bad people; the vast majority are good people. But the desire to please the crowd is part of their make-up. Can anyone seriously argue that thousands of sign carrying protesters will have no effect on their judgment? That said, I don't know whose face I would enjoying watching more, GZ's or Daddy Z's, when O'Mara explains this to them.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Dave Croston Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29GNZmYPpiM
Since Dave's video was up and down and back up, I wanted to post the link again for those that might have missed it.
Dave Croston, guitarist/recording artist
Song: "Release"
From the CD: "More Sugar, More Salt"
Since Dave's video was up and down and back up, I wanted to post the link again for those that might have missed it.
Dave Croston, guitarist/recording artist
Song: "Release"
From the CD: "More Sugar, More Salt"
Thursday, April 26, 2012
WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?
George Zimmerman's attorney appeared on the Anderson Cooper show today and announced that his client has acquired $204,000.00 in donations through his web site in support of his defense. The web site was set up by Zimmerman 14 days ago and included a PayPal button where supporters could donate towards his defense and living expenses while awaiting trial. O'Mara is back peddling and claiming to know nothing about the funds until today. If you have been following the case, O'Mara represented to the Court at Zimmerman's bail hearing through testimony of Zimmerman's mother, father and wife, that Zimmerman was indigent and could not afford a high bail. When questioned about the website account at the hearing, it seems the only one with information was Zimmerman's brother, who was conveniently not present and O'Mara claimed to be ignorant as well. I ask you - when has an attorney ever forgot to inquire about a little thing such as MONEY?
How is the Martin family going to feel about this? Moreover, the elephant in the room is how is the black community going to look at this? How can anyone possibly look the black community in the eye and convince them that this isn't about racism and expect them to believe that?
A teenage boy is shot down while walking home for nothing more than looking suspicious to a wanna-be-cop and the citizens of the US donate $200k in 14 days during the worst economic times since the depression in order to defend the creep that pulled the trigger? This is an outrage. Something is wrong with our country. I don't care if these donators through ignorance think that by defending GZ they are somehow going to protect their gun rights or save the SYG law -- That's not what it looks like to the black community. If anything, this donation of funds to defend a murderer will set the civil rights movement back 30 years. The best thing GZ could do is donate the money to the civil rights movement because when and if he is ever set free, he will never be able to walk the streets again. But that is the least of my concerns, I feel for the Martins and the black community as a whole on how this looks. In fact, I am disgusted.
How is the Martin family going to feel about this? Moreover, the elephant in the room is how is the black community going to look at this? How can anyone possibly look the black community in the eye and convince them that this isn't about racism and expect them to believe that?
A teenage boy is shot down while walking home for nothing more than looking suspicious to a wanna-be-cop and the citizens of the US donate $200k in 14 days during the worst economic times since the depression in order to defend the creep that pulled the trigger? This is an outrage. Something is wrong with our country. I don't care if these donators through ignorance think that by defending GZ they are somehow going to protect their gun rights or save the SYG law -- That's not what it looks like to the black community. If anything, this donation of funds to defend a murderer will set the civil rights movement back 30 years. The best thing GZ could do is donate the money to the civil rights movement because when and if he is ever set free, he will never be able to walk the streets again. But that is the least of my concerns, I feel for the Martins and the black community as a whole on how this looks. In fact, I am disgusted.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Woosh! Gone, one gasbag.....
...................................................................................................................................
New music video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbPEieDiO8A
My good friend and music partner, Dave Croston
My good friend and music partner, Dave Croston
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
One down, how many to go?
................................................................
Why Jon Huntsman is leaving the GOP (not because they’re Communists)
By Jeff Greenfield, April 24, 2012
It’s an exhilarating, if somewhat mystifying, experience to find yourself a supporting player in a modern media maelstrom. It’s even more instructive to learn that a dust-up over a few words can obscure a much more significant message.
“My first thought was, this is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script.”
Those words were spoken Sunday night by Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and Republican presidential candidate, in a public interview with me at New York’s 92nd Street Y. Huntsman was describing how his comments about the potential appeal of a third party got him disinvited to speak at a Republican National Committee event in Florida.
Before dawn, websites were reporting the quote under headlines like “Huntsman compares GOP to Communist Party of China.” By sunrise, Huntsman was on “Morning Joe,” scoffing that “bottom-feeder” blogs had taken his comments out of context. By midday, Buzzfeed--the target of Huntsman’s critique--had posted a lengthy video excerpt from my interview to argue that no, he had not been taken out of context.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Huntsman was painting with a brush so broad as to compare the Republican Party with Communist China. For one thing, Huntsman is not yet under house arrest with his Internet access forbidden.
But here’s what the dust-up missed. If you take all of what he said to me over some 90 minutes, it is all but certain that John Huntsman is not going to be a Republican much longer.
Yes, he has endorsed Mitt Romney for president, though his expression when he does so has all the spontaneous pleasure of the star of a hostage tape. He cites President Barack Obama’s failure to work the levers of power to accomplish change--intriguingly, he contrasts Obama not with a Republican president, but with Bill Clinton--and Romney’s understanding of the free market and job creation. (Huntsman was animated in scorning Republican candidates who called for a hard line on China or protective tariffs--notions that Romney has enthusiastically embraced.)
The real message he is carrying is that both parties--the “duopoly,” as he calls it--are paralyzed by polarization and inertia, and that the Republican Party in particular is pursuing an “unsustainable” course.
Why, I asked him, shouldn’t Republicans learn from their 2010 midterm victory that an unswerving opposition to Obama is politically profitable?
Because, he replied, “It’s unsustainable. It can’t last more than a cycle or two. ... With the political center hollowed out, the American people are going to say, who’s going to populate the center where you’ll get things done.”
His distance from the party whose nomination he sought goes beyond tactics. When he recalled his first appearance on a debate stage with his rivals, he said he remembers thinking two thoughts. First: “The barriers to entry are very low.” Second: “In a nation of 315 million people ... is this the best we can do?”
If he was including himself, this is a remarkable example of self-deprecation. If he was talking about his rivals, it is an extraordinary indictment, because it includes the man he is supporting for president.
There was more to what Huntsman said than party politics. Listening to him describe his concerns over the emerging generation of Chinese leaders--because they were shaped not by the disasters of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but by enormous economic growth, they‘re likely to be more nationalistic and “hubristic,” he said--you realize you’re listening to a political figure who served as an ambassador to three Asian nations (Singapore and Indonesia as well as China). His understanding of the Asian-Pacific region surpasses that of any presidential candidate in history.
When he talks of his three urgent priorities for change—term limits, campaign finance reform, and congressional redistricting--you can detect a touch of naiveté. Term limits have been a reality for years in California, where they have fed, not halted, a dysfunctional government. Campaign finance reform is beyond the reach of any political leader unless and until the Supreme Court stops thinking of money as speech, leading it to strike down such laws on First Amendment grounds.
You can also hear in his critique of his party the voice of a candidate who tasted enormous popularity--he won re-election as governor of Utah with 77 percent of the vote--and who may have been wounded by the peremptory dismissal of his presidential prospects. (My belief is that his campaign was doomed as soon as he became President Obama’s ambassador to China. In this political climate, no Republican who served under Obama was going to win the GOP presidential nomination.) The charge of “sour grapes” or “sore loser” will not be far from the lips of many Republicans.
Why does this add up to a conviction on my part that Huntsman has one foot out the door of the Republican Party, and is likely placing a bet on his belief that a third party will be increasingly attractive to the electorate, perhaps not this year, but by 2016?
One reason is how he contrasted Republicans from Teddy Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower to Richard Nixon with the current party orthodoxy. Could Ronald Reagan be nominated today? I asked. “Likely, no,” he said.
And here’s what he said when a member of the audience posed this question to him: “Given the present direction and positions the party has taken ... is there room for people like you?”
Well, he answered, “I’m sitting here as a Republican.” But after he talked with great enthusiasm about the rise of the unaffiliated voter and the challenge to the political duopoly, I posed one more question.
“Why do I get the feeling,” I asked him, “that if we have this conversation a couple of years from now, you will not be sitting here as a Republican?”
“Because,” he said with a smile, “you’re a good journalist.”
Flattery aside, the answer couldn’t have been clearer.
................................................................
Why Jon Huntsman is leaving the GOP (not because they’re Communists)
By Jeff Greenfield, April 24, 2012
It’s an exhilarating, if somewhat mystifying, experience to find yourself a supporting player in a modern media maelstrom. It’s even more instructive to learn that a dust-up over a few words can obscure a much more significant message.
“My first thought was, this is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script.”
Those words were spoken Sunday night by Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and Republican presidential candidate, in a public interview with me at New York’s 92nd Street Y. Huntsman was describing how his comments about the potential appeal of a third party got him disinvited to speak at a Republican National Committee event in Florida.
Before dawn, websites were reporting the quote under headlines like “Huntsman compares GOP to Communist Party of China.” By sunrise, Huntsman was on “Morning Joe,” scoffing that “bottom-feeder” blogs had taken his comments out of context. By midday, Buzzfeed--the target of Huntsman’s critique--had posted a lengthy video excerpt from my interview to argue that no, he had not been taken out of context.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Huntsman was painting with a brush so broad as to compare the Republican Party with Communist China. For one thing, Huntsman is not yet under house arrest with his Internet access forbidden.
But here’s what the dust-up missed. If you take all of what he said to me over some 90 minutes, it is all but certain that John Huntsman is not going to be a Republican much longer.
Yes, he has endorsed Mitt Romney for president, though his expression when he does so has all the spontaneous pleasure of the star of a hostage tape. He cites President Barack Obama’s failure to work the levers of power to accomplish change--intriguingly, he contrasts Obama not with a Republican president, but with Bill Clinton--and Romney’s understanding of the free market and job creation. (Huntsman was animated in scorning Republican candidates who called for a hard line on China or protective tariffs--notions that Romney has enthusiastically embraced.)
The real message he is carrying is that both parties--the “duopoly,” as he calls it--are paralyzed by polarization and inertia, and that the Republican Party in particular is pursuing an “unsustainable” course.
Why, I asked him, shouldn’t Republicans learn from their 2010 midterm victory that an unswerving opposition to Obama is politically profitable?
Because, he replied, “It’s unsustainable. It can’t last more than a cycle or two. ... With the political center hollowed out, the American people are going to say, who’s going to populate the center where you’ll get things done.”
His distance from the party whose nomination he sought goes beyond tactics. When he recalled his first appearance on a debate stage with his rivals, he said he remembers thinking two thoughts. First: “The barriers to entry are very low.” Second: “In a nation of 315 million people ... is this the best we can do?”
If he was including himself, this is a remarkable example of self-deprecation. If he was talking about his rivals, it is an extraordinary indictment, because it includes the man he is supporting for president.
There was more to what Huntsman said than party politics. Listening to him describe his concerns over the emerging generation of Chinese leaders--because they were shaped not by the disasters of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but by enormous economic growth, they‘re likely to be more nationalistic and “hubristic,” he said--you realize you’re listening to a political figure who served as an ambassador to three Asian nations (Singapore and Indonesia as well as China). His understanding of the Asian-Pacific region surpasses that of any presidential candidate in history.
When he talks of his three urgent priorities for change—term limits, campaign finance reform, and congressional redistricting--you can detect a touch of naiveté. Term limits have been a reality for years in California, where they have fed, not halted, a dysfunctional government. Campaign finance reform is beyond the reach of any political leader unless and until the Supreme Court stops thinking of money as speech, leading it to strike down such laws on First Amendment grounds.
You can also hear in his critique of his party the voice of a candidate who tasted enormous popularity--he won re-election as governor of Utah with 77 percent of the vote--and who may have been wounded by the peremptory dismissal of his presidential prospects. (My belief is that his campaign was doomed as soon as he became President Obama’s ambassador to China. In this political climate, no Republican who served under Obama was going to win the GOP presidential nomination.) The charge of “sour grapes” or “sore loser” will not be far from the lips of many Republicans.
Why does this add up to a conviction on my part that Huntsman has one foot out the door of the Republican Party, and is likely placing a bet on his belief that a third party will be increasingly attractive to the electorate, perhaps not this year, but by 2016?
One reason is how he contrasted Republicans from Teddy Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower to Richard Nixon with the current party orthodoxy. Could Ronald Reagan be nominated today? I asked. “Likely, no,” he said.
And here’s what he said when a member of the audience posed this question to him: “Given the present direction and positions the party has taken ... is there room for people like you?”
Well, he answered, “I’m sitting here as a Republican.” But after he talked with great enthusiasm about the rise of the unaffiliated voter and the challenge to the political duopoly, I posed one more question.
“Why do I get the feeling,” I asked him, “that if we have this conversation a couple of years from now, you will not be sitting here as a Republican?”
“Because,” he said with a smile, “you’re a good journalist.”
Flattery aside, the answer couldn’t have been clearer.
................................................................
Monday, April 23, 2012
REASONABLE PEOPLE WILL FIND ZIMMERMAN GUILTY OF 2ND DEGREE MURDER
With all of the talking heads and media attorneys lambasting the Prosecutor for charging George Zimmerman (GZ) with 2nd degree murder for the killing of Trayvon Martin, I want to explain why I believe it was the correct charge. Let me say that I simply do not believe the charge was political posturing or a pumped up charge in order to force a plea as some have speculated.
Florida's jury instructions (which are based on the Florida statute) spell out three elements that prosecutors must prove to establish 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt:
•The victim is deceased,
•The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act, and
•There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."
The last element -- an "imminently dangerous" act that shows a "depraved mind" -- is further defined by Florida's jury instructions. Three elements must be present:
•A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
•The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
•The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."
Note that Florida's jury instructions state prosecutors do not have to prove the defendant intended to cause death.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/0 ... urder.html
Many criminal laws are based on the concept of the reasonable person and what he or she would do in any given situation. Standards of conduct are created based on this reasonable person and impose civil or criminal liability and consequences on people who intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently violate those standards.
Whenever you see the word “reasonable” in a law, it means an objective, as opposed to a subjective standard. In other words, reasonableness is not based on the perception of any specific identified person, which is a subjective standard. It’s based on the actual facts and circumstances of a given situation and what a hypothetical reasonable person would do in that situation. Place yourself as a juror on the case, and decide whether 2nd degree murder will prevail.
Florida’s SYG law is not a license to kill. A person can stand their ground. They have no duty to retreat. They can use force, including deadly force in self-defense, but only if a reasonable person in the same situation (i.e., the objective reality out “there,” as opposed to a particular person’s perception of it) would do so, but they cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent being assaulted. A person can use deadly force in self-defense only if the objective facts and circumstances of the situation they are actually in, as opposed to their perception of it, are such that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.
The undisputed objective facts are:
√ Trayvon was not armed.
√ GZ was armed with a gun and following Trayvon.
√ The two had a physical confrontation.
One of the two started the fight. That is another objective fact, but we do not know for certain who did. The identity of that person is a disputed fact. I believe GZ did because he followed Trayvon against the police dispatcher’s request. He thought Trayvon was a burglar casing the neighborhood and he was frustrated because he thought Trayvon was going to get away before the cops arrived. We know that is what he was thinking (his subjective state of mind) because he said so. His specific words were, “These assholes always get away.”
He also got out of his vehicle and started following Trayvon and, after being questioned by the dispatcher to provide a location where the police officer could meet him, he told the dispatcher to tell the officer to call his cell phone when he arrived in the neighborhood, instead of agreeing to meet the officer at the mailboxes as he had previously suggested. The problem with meeting the officer at the mailboxes was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and he did not want him to get away. His conversation with dispatch ended at this point.
The objective reality was that Trayvon was staying in the neighborhood and walking home after purchasing Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea at a nearby 711. Thus, GZ's belief that Trayvon was a burglar casing the neighborhood was incorrect.
Would a reasonable person have made that mistake? Would you have made that mistake?
Having made that mistake, what, if anything, would you have done?
And what about that loaded 9 mm KelTek semiautomatic in your holster? What, if anything, would you have done with it?
Was GZ a reasonable person that night?
Keep in mind that you have attended a Neighborhood Crime Watch lecture and know that the program's manual specifically states that members shall not carry weapons, pursue, or confront suspicious persons.
A casual read of the 47 pages of GZ's calls to the SPD to report suspicious activity strongly suggests that he was anything but a reasonable person. Those 47 pages are a damning indictment of a deeply paranoid person IMHO. I dare you to read each and every entry and then provide me with an argument that he was not a ticking time bomb waiting for the perfect storm to set him off. It was only a matter of time.
Ask yourself, why did GZ call the police that night? Because he saw a teenage male wearing a hoodie type sweatshirt, walking around in the rain looking around at houses. Why call the cops? Why not simply ask the teen if he needs help or directions? GZ is the "captain" of his neighborhood watch, why not just announce this fact to the teen and offer assistance? If nothing else, it would have given the "suspicious" teen notice that he was being watched if he were in fact casing the joint.
What was a police officer going to be able to do more than that? A police officer cannot detain someone to investigate a possible crime, unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. A suspicion or hunch is not enough. There must be sufficient objective facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that the person was committing a crime. I do not see that in this case and I see no reason for GZ to have summoned the police to investigate.
GZ most likely knew all about the "reasonable suspicion test" since he is a student in a criminal justice program. That is one of the key concepts that's taught in these programs.
In GZ's mind, he was certain Trayvon was "up to no good" because this is exactly what he told the dispatch. Knowing his state of mind when he ignored the dispatcher’s advice and he set off in search of Trayvon, what do you believe he was prepared to do when he found Trayvon and Trayvon was not cooperative? What would a reasonable person have done? Would a reasonable person have taken the dispatcher's advice and waited for the officer or would a reasonable person taken off behind the townhouses into the dark to find a suspicious teen who you did not know whether or not was armed?
What would a reasonable person have done in Trayvon’s situation? Trayvon knew he was being followed since that is what he told his girlfriend. We know he was afraid because he said he was going to put up his hoodie and "walk fast" to get away from GZ.
Even if GZ did not start the physical confrontation, which I believe he did, he still could not use deadly force in self-defense unless the objective facts and circumstances were such that a reasonable person in that situation would have used deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.
I do not see a reasonable person doing anything GZ did that night.
These are the questions that a jury will have to decide. Meanwhile, we can wonder and we can conduct a "reasonable man" test by asking ourselves what would they, as a reasonable person, have done?
1. He could have called out to Trayvon and asked to talk with him for a minute.
2. He could have abided by the crime watch training - watch, observe and report WITHOUT pursuing, confronting and especially not possessing a weapon.
3. He could have listened to the 911 dispatcher, and stayed in his vehicle.
4. He could have told Trayvon who he was, why he was there, why he was following him.
5. He could have let Trayvon alone.
6. He could have fired his gun into the air to scare Trayvon into not trying to get away until cops arrived.
7. He could have shot Trayvon in a nonlethal area of the body.
9. Lastly, he could have told the truth to the police about what happened that evening.
The distinction between manslaughter and 2nd degree murder is that the 2nd degree murder charge requires a finding that GZ killed Trayvon while engaging in an act “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” Take that element away, and you still have the lesser included offense of manslaughter, so both charges are still theoretically on the table. But what constitutes a depraved mind regardless of human life?
The case of State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73,76 (Fla. 1973) holds that an accidental shooting when coupled with malice toward the victim constitutes second-degree murder. Thus, the intentional and forceful striking of the deceased in anger with a loaded pistol
which accidentally discharged killing him constitutes an act "imminently dangerous to another" and "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life." 287 So.2d at 76.
GZ's discharge of his gun was not accidental, he readily admits pulling the trigger.
The state apparently believes from the circumstances surrounding Trayvon’s death they can prove GZ was acting dangerously, unreasonably, and with no regard for human life. The affidavit of probable cause supports this theory, in that every allegation that has been added in to meet the depraved mind element is based only on facts of the case that have been widely reported in the media, i.e., GZ perceived a threat where the objectively was none, as it was just a kid walking home from the 7/11; GZ’s state of mind was that he was enraged about “those assholes” and “those fucking punks"; GZ then disobeyed police dispatch instructions not to pursue Trayvon, presumably due to his apparently deep-felt desire to make sure this particular asshole didn’t get away. So, it’s possible that the prosecution thinks this alone would be enough to convict GZ for a depraved mind killing.
The fact that Florida is charging GZ with murder and not manslaughter is a strong indication that the prosecutor thinks there is some pretty compelling evidence out there in the state’s favor. In addition, the public outcry would tend to demonstrate that there are sufficient reasonable persons (on the jury) who would agree that GZ's actions were “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” Such compelling evidence could be:
1. The autopsy of Trayvon Martin contradicts GZ’s version of events. It is possible that the autopsy revealed evidence that does not support GZ's story. We know that Trayvon was shot at “close range,” but perhaps the coroner’s report was somehow able to confirm that Trayvon was shot from a distance or angle that is hard to reconcile with GZ's sequence of events.
2. The prosecution has evidence that thoroughly discredits GZ. Perhaps either through a combination of small but significant inconsistencies, e.g., if the evidence doesn’t support his version of how the encounter occurred, or through a major, so far unreleased discrepancy — some piece of evidence that has been withheld so far, with blows GZ’s story out of the water — the prosecution believes it has enough evidence to suggest that GZ knows that the killing was not actually in self-defense, and GZ has deliberately crafted a false, alternative version of events to support his self-defense claim. GZ is the only person alive who saw how the fight started — if the only evidence he has to support a claim of self-defense is his own testimony, and if his own testimony is shown to be false and misleading, then he has no self-defense claim to proceed on. As I have stated all along, I truly believe that GZ had his gun unholstered at the time he confronted Trayvon. I also believe that GZ turned Trayvon over after the shooting him to check for weapons and this is why he was on his stomach.
3.The prosecution is confident that it can prove that the voice yelling “help” was Trayvon; or, failing that, they can prove it was not GZ. It would be crucially important for the prosecution for several reasons, and would go a long way to helping the state make its case. If it can be proven to be someone other than GZ yelling for help, then (a) it strongly suggests that at the time of the killing, Trayvon's screams for help were of someone who was in fear for their life and wants to end the altercation, not screams of someone who is trying to murder someone else; (b) supports that GZ subjectivey knew, even during the fight, that Trayvon's yells were not the yells of an someone equally participating; (b) GZ is shown to have had the presence of mind to tell an untruthful cover story, suggesting a depraved state of mind.
The use of deadly force only becomes justified when “[h]e or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” No matter how subjectively real the belief is, an unreasonable belief does not provide any right of self-defense. The fear of imminent death must be based on objective facts “such as would induce a reasonably prudent or cautious man to believe that the danger was actual and the necessity for taking life real.” Ammons v. State, 88 Fla. 444, 454, 102 So. 642, 645 (1924).
If GZ was not actually getting his head deliberately bashed into concrete — which, from the investigator's testimony at the bail hearing leads one to surmise that prosecutors do not believe occurred as GZ claims -- then GZ was not justified in using force against Trayvon, no matter what his actual beliefs were. GZ may have had the adrenaline rushing through his veins, may have perceived his opponent as a murderous gang-member rather than a skinny teenager because of the presence of a hoody; it’s possible GZ really did think that a wrestling match on the grass with a skinny teenager somehow put his life in mortal danger. But his hyperactive threat perception system does not excuse him.
An individual’s right to life is not contingent upon maintaining a constant impression of harmless frailty, “men do not hold their lives at the mercy of excessive caution or unreasoning fear of others.” Ammons, 88 Fla. 444 (1924).
Even if GZ truly believed he was somehow in danger for his life, he was not thereby granted permission to kill Trayvon if his fears were the product of an unreasonable mind. And there is plenty to suggest GZ was in fact acting out of excessive caution and unreasoning fear that night. His hyperactive vigilance, his willingness to see a boy returning home from a candy run to the store as a grave threat to his neighborhood, his professed fear for his life due to a tussle with an unarmed boy that he outweighed — if the jury finds from GZ’s behavior that his fears were unreasonable, and that his fear for his life due to a couple bumps on the head was not practical, then the killing is not justifiable as self-defense.
The SYG law imposes a duty to retreat in instances where the defendant has caused the fight, even if he later finds himself on the losing end of it:
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 776.041. Use of force by aggressor.—
The justification described is not available to a person who… [i]nitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless [s]uch 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[.] (emphasis added)
If GZ instigated the encounter, then, even assuming he could somehow prove that Trayvon was in fact trying to wrestle GZ’s gun away from him, this still won’t necessarily provide an absolute defense to the killing. GZ was the one who chose to arm himself while pursuing a teenager who was rightfully in the neighborhood and doing nothing wrong; GZ was the one who chose to exit his vehicle looking for the teen, even when he was told not to do so by police dispatch; GZ was the one who created a situation where, if a shoving match occurred between him and Trayvon, he could then argue that the fact he was armed made an unarmed teen a potentially lethal threat that put GZ in fear of his life, because GZ knew he had a gun that the boy could theoretically steal. “A killing is not justifiable or excusable if the defendant brought about the necessity therefor through his own wrongful act or without being reasonably free from fault in provoking the difficulty in which the killing occurred.” Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 11 So. 550, 17 L. R. A. 705; Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865; Padgett v. State, 40 Fla. 451, 24 So. 145.
Even if Trayvon threw the first punch, the moment GZ pulled his gun, he became the aggressor. Regardless of who threw the first punch, GZ provoked the confrontation by, while armed with a gun, recklessly hunting down an innocent teen who was a guest in the neighborhood. GZ could have easily avoided any confrontation with Trayvon. GZ himself admits that the kid ran away from him when he first saw GZ, trying to escape. GZ did not have to go for a kill shot. Most importantly, if GZ had not pursued Trayvon, and if GZ had not brought a gun, thereby inserting the possibility of deadly force into the equation where previously there had been none, then Trayvon would be alive today, regardless of who shoved who first:
“A defendant may, as a reasonable man, have believed that he was in danger of losing his life, or of incurring great bodily harm, and yet the killing may not, under some circumstances, be justifiable or excusable. One instance is where he has brought about the necessity without being reasonably free from fault. Again, the circumstances of a case may at least make it a question for the jury whether a killing was not in pursuance of a previously formed design to kill, instead of having been the result of a mere purpose of self-defense, although at the time of the altercation the first overt act may have come from the person slain.” Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865.
In my opinion, and given that we have seen very little evidence, the State appears to have already met all the elements necessary to convict him of manslaughter, and they have a good shot, IMHO, at proving 2nd degree murder. If GZ does claim self-defense, I believe he will have to take the witness stand to do so. In which case, I suspect the prosecution is confident that they can impeach his testimony by pointing out the discrepancies in his statements, which it appears will not be too difficult given that GZ cannot even recall identifying Trayvon as a teen in his discussions with the dispatcher.
Florida's jury instructions (which are based on the Florida statute) spell out three elements that prosecutors must prove to establish 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt:
•The victim is deceased,
•The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act, and
•There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."
The last element -- an "imminently dangerous" act that shows a "depraved mind" -- is further defined by Florida's jury instructions. Three elements must be present:
•A "person of ordinary judgment" would know the act, or series of acts, "is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another";
•The act is "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent"; and
•The act is "of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life."
Note that Florida's jury instructions state prosecutors do not have to prove the defendant intended to cause death.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/0 ... urder.html
Many criminal laws are based on the concept of the reasonable person and what he or she would do in any given situation. Standards of conduct are created based on this reasonable person and impose civil or criminal liability and consequences on people who intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently violate those standards.
Whenever you see the word “reasonable” in a law, it means an objective, as opposed to a subjective standard. In other words, reasonableness is not based on the perception of any specific identified person, which is a subjective standard. It’s based on the actual facts and circumstances of a given situation and what a hypothetical reasonable person would do in that situation. Place yourself as a juror on the case, and decide whether 2nd degree murder will prevail.
Florida’s SYG law is not a license to kill. A person can stand their ground. They have no duty to retreat. They can use force, including deadly force in self-defense, but only if a reasonable person in the same situation (i.e., the objective reality out “there,” as opposed to a particular person’s perception of it) would do so, but they cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to prevent being assaulted. A person can use deadly force in self-defense only if the objective facts and circumstances of the situation they are actually in, as opposed to their perception of it, are such that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe it necessary to use deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.
The undisputed objective facts are:
√ Trayvon was not armed.
√ GZ was armed with a gun and following Trayvon.
√ The two had a physical confrontation.
One of the two started the fight. That is another objective fact, but we do not know for certain who did. The identity of that person is a disputed fact. I believe GZ did because he followed Trayvon against the police dispatcher’s request. He thought Trayvon was a burglar casing the neighborhood and he was frustrated because he thought Trayvon was going to get away before the cops arrived. We know that is what he was thinking (his subjective state of mind) because he said so. His specific words were, “These assholes always get away.”
He also got out of his vehicle and started following Trayvon and, after being questioned by the dispatcher to provide a location where the police officer could meet him, he told the dispatcher to tell the officer to call his cell phone when he arrived in the neighborhood, instead of agreeing to meet the officer at the mailboxes as he had previously suggested. The problem with meeting the officer at the mailboxes was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and he did not want him to get away. His conversation with dispatch ended at this point.
The objective reality was that Trayvon was staying in the neighborhood and walking home after purchasing Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea at a nearby 711. Thus, GZ's belief that Trayvon was a burglar casing the neighborhood was incorrect.
Would a reasonable person have made that mistake? Would you have made that mistake?
Having made that mistake, what, if anything, would you have done?
And what about that loaded 9 mm KelTek semiautomatic in your holster? What, if anything, would you have done with it?
Was GZ a reasonable person that night?
Keep in mind that you have attended a Neighborhood Crime Watch lecture and know that the program's manual specifically states that members shall not carry weapons, pursue, or confront suspicious persons.
A casual read of the 47 pages of GZ's calls to the SPD to report suspicious activity strongly suggests that he was anything but a reasonable person. Those 47 pages are a damning indictment of a deeply paranoid person IMHO. I dare you to read each and every entry and then provide me with an argument that he was not a ticking time bomb waiting for the perfect storm to set him off. It was only a matter of time.
Ask yourself, why did GZ call the police that night? Because he saw a teenage male wearing a hoodie type sweatshirt, walking around in the rain looking around at houses. Why call the cops? Why not simply ask the teen if he needs help or directions? GZ is the "captain" of his neighborhood watch, why not just announce this fact to the teen and offer assistance? If nothing else, it would have given the "suspicious" teen notice that he was being watched if he were in fact casing the joint.
What was a police officer going to be able to do more than that? A police officer cannot detain someone to investigate a possible crime, unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. A suspicion or hunch is not enough. There must be sufficient objective facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that the person was committing a crime. I do not see that in this case and I see no reason for GZ to have summoned the police to investigate.
GZ most likely knew all about the "reasonable suspicion test" since he is a student in a criminal justice program. That is one of the key concepts that's taught in these programs.
In GZ's mind, he was certain Trayvon was "up to no good" because this is exactly what he told the dispatch. Knowing his state of mind when he ignored the dispatcher’s advice and he set off in search of Trayvon, what do you believe he was prepared to do when he found Trayvon and Trayvon was not cooperative? What would a reasonable person have done? Would a reasonable person have taken the dispatcher's advice and waited for the officer or would a reasonable person taken off behind the townhouses into the dark to find a suspicious teen who you did not know whether or not was armed?
What would a reasonable person have done in Trayvon’s situation? Trayvon knew he was being followed since that is what he told his girlfriend. We know he was afraid because he said he was going to put up his hoodie and "walk fast" to get away from GZ.
Even if GZ did not start the physical confrontation, which I believe he did, he still could not use deadly force in self-defense unless the objective facts and circumstances were such that a reasonable person in that situation would have used deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.
I do not see a reasonable person doing anything GZ did that night.
These are the questions that a jury will have to decide. Meanwhile, we can wonder and we can conduct a "reasonable man" test by asking ourselves what would they, as a reasonable person, have done?
1. He could have called out to Trayvon and asked to talk with him for a minute.
2. He could have abided by the crime watch training - watch, observe and report WITHOUT pursuing, confronting and especially not possessing a weapon.
3. He could have listened to the 911 dispatcher, and stayed in his vehicle.
4. He could have told Trayvon who he was, why he was there, why he was following him.
5. He could have let Trayvon alone.
6. He could have fired his gun into the air to scare Trayvon into not trying to get away until cops arrived.
7. He could have shot Trayvon in a nonlethal area of the body.
9. Lastly, he could have told the truth to the police about what happened that evening.
The distinction between manslaughter and 2nd degree murder is that the 2nd degree murder charge requires a finding that GZ killed Trayvon while engaging in an act “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” Take that element away, and you still have the lesser included offense of manslaughter, so both charges are still theoretically on the table. But what constitutes a depraved mind regardless of human life?
The case of State v. Bryan, 287 So.2d 73,76 (Fla. 1973) holds that an accidental shooting when coupled with malice toward the victim constitutes second-degree murder. Thus, the intentional and forceful striking of the deceased in anger with a loaded pistol
which accidentally discharged killing him constitutes an act "imminently dangerous to another" and "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life." 287 So.2d at 76.
GZ's discharge of his gun was not accidental, he readily admits pulling the trigger.
The state apparently believes from the circumstances surrounding Trayvon’s death they can prove GZ was acting dangerously, unreasonably, and with no regard for human life. The affidavit of probable cause supports this theory, in that every allegation that has been added in to meet the depraved mind element is based only on facts of the case that have been widely reported in the media, i.e., GZ perceived a threat where the objectively was none, as it was just a kid walking home from the 7/11; GZ’s state of mind was that he was enraged about “those assholes” and “those fucking punks"; GZ then disobeyed police dispatch instructions not to pursue Trayvon, presumably due to his apparently deep-felt desire to make sure this particular asshole didn’t get away. So, it’s possible that the prosecution thinks this alone would be enough to convict GZ for a depraved mind killing.
The fact that Florida is charging GZ with murder and not manslaughter is a strong indication that the prosecutor thinks there is some pretty compelling evidence out there in the state’s favor. In addition, the public outcry would tend to demonstrate that there are sufficient reasonable persons (on the jury) who would agree that GZ's actions were “imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” Such compelling evidence could be:
1. The autopsy of Trayvon Martin contradicts GZ’s version of events. It is possible that the autopsy revealed evidence that does not support GZ's story. We know that Trayvon was shot at “close range,” but perhaps the coroner’s report was somehow able to confirm that Trayvon was shot from a distance or angle that is hard to reconcile with GZ's sequence of events.
2. The prosecution has evidence that thoroughly discredits GZ. Perhaps either through a combination of small but significant inconsistencies, e.g., if the evidence doesn’t support his version of how the encounter occurred, or through a major, so far unreleased discrepancy — some piece of evidence that has been withheld so far, with blows GZ’s story out of the water — the prosecution believes it has enough evidence to suggest that GZ knows that the killing was not actually in self-defense, and GZ has deliberately crafted a false, alternative version of events to support his self-defense claim. GZ is the only person alive who saw how the fight started — if the only evidence he has to support a claim of self-defense is his own testimony, and if his own testimony is shown to be false and misleading, then he has no self-defense claim to proceed on. As I have stated all along, I truly believe that GZ had his gun unholstered at the time he confronted Trayvon. I also believe that GZ turned Trayvon over after the shooting him to check for weapons and this is why he was on his stomach.
3.The prosecution is confident that it can prove that the voice yelling “help” was Trayvon; or, failing that, they can prove it was not GZ. It would be crucially important for the prosecution for several reasons, and would go a long way to helping the state make its case. If it can be proven to be someone other than GZ yelling for help, then (a) it strongly suggests that at the time of the killing, Trayvon's screams for help were of someone who was in fear for their life and wants to end the altercation, not screams of someone who is trying to murder someone else; (b) supports that GZ subjectivey knew, even during the fight, that Trayvon's yells were not the yells of an someone equally participating; (b) GZ is shown to have had the presence of mind to tell an untruthful cover story, suggesting a depraved state of mind.
The use of deadly force only becomes justified when “[h]e or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” No matter how subjectively real the belief is, an unreasonable belief does not provide any right of self-defense. The fear of imminent death must be based on objective facts “such as would induce a reasonably prudent or cautious man to believe that the danger was actual and the necessity for taking life real.” Ammons v. State, 88 Fla. 444, 454, 102 So. 642, 645 (1924).
If GZ was not actually getting his head deliberately bashed into concrete — which, from the investigator's testimony at the bail hearing leads one to surmise that prosecutors do not believe occurred as GZ claims -- then GZ was not justified in using force against Trayvon, no matter what his actual beliefs were. GZ may have had the adrenaline rushing through his veins, may have perceived his opponent as a murderous gang-member rather than a skinny teenager because of the presence of a hoody; it’s possible GZ really did think that a wrestling match on the grass with a skinny teenager somehow put his life in mortal danger. But his hyperactive threat perception system does not excuse him.
An individual’s right to life is not contingent upon maintaining a constant impression of harmless frailty, “men do not hold their lives at the mercy of excessive caution or unreasoning fear of others.” Ammons, 88 Fla. 444 (1924).
Even if GZ truly believed he was somehow in danger for his life, he was not thereby granted permission to kill Trayvon if his fears were the product of an unreasonable mind. And there is plenty to suggest GZ was in fact acting out of excessive caution and unreasoning fear that night. His hyperactive vigilance, his willingness to see a boy returning home from a candy run to the store as a grave threat to his neighborhood, his professed fear for his life due to a tussle with an unarmed boy that he outweighed — if the jury finds from GZ’s behavior that his fears were unreasonable, and that his fear for his life due to a couple bumps on the head was not practical, then the killing is not justifiable as self-defense.
The SYG law imposes a duty to retreat in instances where the defendant has caused the fight, even if he later finds himself on the losing end of it:
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 776.041. Use of force by aggressor.—
The justification described is not available to a person who… [i]nitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless [s]uch 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[.] (emphasis added)
If GZ instigated the encounter, then, even assuming he could somehow prove that Trayvon was in fact trying to wrestle GZ’s gun away from him, this still won’t necessarily provide an absolute defense to the killing. GZ was the one who chose to arm himself while pursuing a teenager who was rightfully in the neighborhood and doing nothing wrong; GZ was the one who chose to exit his vehicle looking for the teen, even when he was told not to do so by police dispatch; GZ was the one who created a situation where, if a shoving match occurred between him and Trayvon, he could then argue that the fact he was armed made an unarmed teen a potentially lethal threat that put GZ in fear of his life, because GZ knew he had a gun that the boy could theoretically steal. “A killing is not justifiable or excusable if the defendant brought about the necessity therefor through his own wrongful act or without being reasonably free from fault in provoking the difficulty in which the killing occurred.” Lovett v. State, 30 Fla. 142, 11 So. 550, 17 L. R. A. 705; Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865; Padgett v. State, 40 Fla. 451, 24 So. 145.
Even if Trayvon threw the first punch, the moment GZ pulled his gun, he became the aggressor. Regardless of who threw the first punch, GZ provoked the confrontation by, while armed with a gun, recklessly hunting down an innocent teen who was a guest in the neighborhood. GZ could have easily avoided any confrontation with Trayvon. GZ himself admits that the kid ran away from him when he first saw GZ, trying to escape. GZ did not have to go for a kill shot. Most importantly, if GZ had not pursued Trayvon, and if GZ had not brought a gun, thereby inserting the possibility of deadly force into the equation where previously there had been none, then Trayvon would be alive today, regardless of who shoved who first:
“A defendant may, as a reasonable man, have believed that he was in danger of losing his life, or of incurring great bodily harm, and yet the killing may not, under some circumstances, be justifiable or excusable. One instance is where he has brought about the necessity without being reasonably free from fault. Again, the circumstances of a case may at least make it a question for the jury whether a killing was not in pursuance of a previously formed design to kill, instead of having been the result of a mere purpose of self-defense, although at the time of the altercation the first overt act may have come from the person slain.” Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865.
In my opinion, and given that we have seen very little evidence, the State appears to have already met all the elements necessary to convict him of manslaughter, and they have a good shot, IMHO, at proving 2nd degree murder. If GZ does claim self-defense, I believe he will have to take the witness stand to do so. In which case, I suspect the prosecution is confident that they can impeach his testimony by pointing out the discrepancies in his statements, which it appears will not be too difficult given that GZ cannot even recall identifying Trayvon as a teen in his discussions with the dispatcher.
From the frying pan into the fire
............................................................
New openly gay Romney aide deletes tweets that took aim at women in politics
By
.............................................................
New openly gay Romney aide deletes tweets that took aim at women in politics
By
Mitt Romney's decision to appoint an openly gay man as his foreign policy spokesman has angered social conservatives, not surprisingly — but the Republican front-runner's new employee has also caused him trouble with another demographic he's trying to woo: women.
Richard Grenell's Twitter feed was recently rife with snide remarks about various female political figures, from Michelle Obama to Hillary Clinton and Callista Gingrich.
He's reportedly scrubbed more than 800 tweets in recent days, but they live on after being unearthed and archived by news outlets shortly after Romney announced his appointment.
"Hillary is starting to look like Madeleine Albright," Grenell tweeted recently about Secretary of State Clinton, comparing her to the first woman to hold the job after being appointed by Bill Clinton in the 1980s.
Other tweets took aim at the third wife of Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich.
"Callista stands there like she is wife #1," Grenell wrote. Another tweet read: "Do you think Callista's hair snaps on?"
In a jab at the first lady, a fitness devotee, Grenell claimed Obama was "sweating on the East Room carpet" after working out. He also ridiculed her grammar after she made a speech in North Carolina.
Female celebrities were not immune from his barbs.
Rachel Maddow, a talk show host on MSNBC, is a "dead ringer for Justin Bieber," Grenell tweeted, and should "take a breath and wear a necklace."
As he watched the Golden Globes in January, Grenell had some indirect advice for unnamed older actresses: "Note to children: when your mom is a grandmother DO NOT let her wear backless dresses."
Grenell, a former spokesman for the U.S. at the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration, has apologized for his remarks, saying they were meant to be humorous but acknowledged they could be interpreted as hurtful.
Maddow, for one, was having none of it.
On her show on Friday, she asked if the Romney campaign understood "that a long string of really nasty, sexist tweets about Callista Gingrich's appearance might be alienating to people who might otherwise consider voting for Mr. Romney."
It's an unexpected headache for Romney, who's trying to close the so-called gender gap with Barack Obama — recent polls suggested women favoured the president over the former Massachusetts governor by as many as 20 percentage points. Women make up almost 53 per cent of the American electorate.
Romney was already facing heat about Grenell from social conservatives. A top Republican anti-gay figure assailed Romney last week for hiring Grenell, who once lamented to a gay publication that he could not legally marry his partner.
Bryan Fischer of the Mississippi-based American Family Association described Grenell as an "out and loud gay," adding that Romney's appointment of him was a "message to the pro-family community" to "drop dead."
Fischer was still at it on Monday, tweeting that the Secret Service prostitution scandal proves Grenell poses a risk to Romney, apparently equating gay men with johns.
"Romney's gay hire would serve in his administration in national security," he tweeted. "You want to tell me there's no Secret Service-type risk here?"
Romney, however, stood firm against Fischer last fall in a speech at the so-called Values Voter Summit before the anti-gay crusader was himself set to take the stage.
"Our values ennoble the citizen and strengthen the nation. We should remember that decency and civility are values too," Romney told the conservative event in the U.S. capital.
"One of the speakers who will follow me today has crossed that line, I think. Poisonous language doesn't advance our cause. It's never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind."
There was no comment Monday from the Romney campaign on Grenell's scrubbed tweets.
.............................................................
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Romney, lead in the Theater of the Absurd
....................................................................
Olbermann: Dog-Gate Exponentially Raises 'Absurdity' of Campaign
By George Stephanopoulos, April 22, 2012
....................................................................
Olbermann: Dog-Gate Exponentially Raises 'Absurdity' of Campaign
By George Stephanopoulos, April 22, 2012
After a week of dog-eat-dog politicking between President Obama and Mitt Romney's respective campaigns, Keith Olbermann said today that the " dog-gate" controversies have gotten out of hand.
Politicos, pundits and the presidential-campaign watching public spent the past week pondering which is worse, a presidential candidate who put his dog in a kennel strapped to the roof of his carfor a 12-hour drive or a president who ate dog meat as a child living in Indonesia.
"It raises the level of absurdity to something exponential," Olbermann said on "This Week" about the Romney campaign criticizing Obama for consuming dog meat when he was 6 years old.
"With so many valuable questions going on, we're wasting most of the time dealing with the dogs," the former MSNBC and CurrentTV host said.
But ABC's George Will said neither the candidates nor their campaigns are responsible for the recent dominance of dogs in the presidential race. Instead, he said, the media is to blame.
"The horse race is over, and the sugar rush that the media got from that is gone, and therefore they're looking for something to keep their mind off, I guess, big questions," Will said during the "This Week" roundtable.
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan argued that with the breakneck speed of the campaign this year, dogs may be the topic of the week, but they are not here to stay.
"There are literally thousands of people in the United States now who are employed to cover these campaigns minute by minute and they need something to say," Noonan said. "And so it's dogs today. It'll be cats tomorrow."
As long as the dog story persists, ABC News contributor Donna Brazile said Romney should be worried. The presumptive GOP nominee has been thus far unable to shake free from the story of putting his dog Seamus in a kennel strapped to the roof of his car during a 12-hour drive from Boston to Ontario, Canada for a family vacation in 1983.
"This is a narrative, and for Mitt Romney, he has to be concerned about the Seamus scandal because it might fit into this narrative that perhaps he's not like us," Brazile said.
....................................................................
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Cookie-gate-- another Romney gaffe
..................................................................
Romney’s ‘Cookie-Gate’ Frosts Baker
BY LISA LERER | APRIL 19, 2012
Romney’s ‘Cookie-Gate’ Frosts Baker
BY LISA LERER | APRIL 19, 2012
When Mitt Romney joined some Bethel Park,Pennsylvania, residents around a picnic table on April 17, the conversation was supposed to be focus on rising gasoline prices, falling home value, and other economic anxieties that make up the central theme of his presidential campaign.
But after sitting down at a table covered with cookies, chip, and lemonade, Romney focused on the snacks.
“I’m not sure about these cookies,” he said, referring to a brightly colored plate of five dozen lady locks, thumbprints and other delicacies made by a beloved local bakery.
“They don’t look like you made them,” the candidate said. “No, no. They came from the local 7-11, bakery, or whatever.”
Locals took the remark as tasteless, quickly dubbing the slight as “Co0kie-gate.”
“When I heard it, I thought, ‘Oh, my goodness. This guy has no idea how beloved this institution is that provided these cookies,’” bakery owner and president John Walsh told local ABC station WTAE. “We wanted him to be welcomed with the best in the burgh, and he had no idea.”
The shop quickly capitalized on the episode, offering a “CookieGate Special!” – a free half-dozen cookies with the purchase of a dozen cookies.
Democrats found the whole thing delicious. They crafted a new hashtag — #cookiegate, naturally — to tweet and retweet the remarks. And, of course, they quickly placed an order. The local Pennsylvania office of the Obama campaign bought a platter of five dozen cookies.
Romney, too, is getting his just desserts. Although he never tried the Bethel Bakery sweets, 7-Eleven plans to mail some cookies to his Boston campaign headquarters, in hopes of showing the Republican what he’s missing.
...................................................................Friday, April 20, 2012
Need any more proof?
..........................................................................
Five Reasons Why The Very Rich Have NOT Earned Their Money
By Paul Buchheit, April 17, 2012
The wealthiest Americans believe they’ve earned their money through hard work and innovation, and that they’re the most productive members of society. For the most part they’re wrong. As the facts below will show, they’re not nearly as productive as middle-class workers. Yet they’ve taken almost all the new income over the past 30 years.
Any one of these five reasons should reinforce the belief that the rich should be paying a LOT more in taxes.
1. They’ve Taken All the Middle Class Wage Increases
[snipped]
2. They’ve Mismanaged Key American Industries
[snipped]
3. They’ve Benefited from 50 Years of Public Research
[snipped]
4. They’ve Increased Their Incomes By Not Paying Taxes
[snipped]
5. They’ve Contributed Little to Society
[snipped]
Studies show that increased wealth is correlated with a lesser degree of empathy for others. Despite their dependency on society for everything else, the super-rich have apparently earned the right to live in their own privileged world.
..........................................................................
Five Reasons Why The Very Rich Have NOT Earned Their Money
By Paul Buchheit, April 17, 2012
The wealthiest Americans believe they’ve earned their money through hard work and innovation, and that they’re the most productive members of society. For the most part they’re wrong. As the facts below will show, they’re not nearly as productive as middle-class workers. Yet they’ve taken almost all the new income over the past 30 years.
Any one of these five reasons should reinforce the belief that the rich should be paying a LOT more in taxes.
1. They’ve Taken All the Middle Class Wage Increases
[snipped]
2. They’ve Mismanaged Key American Industries
[snipped]
3. They’ve Benefited from 50 Years of Public Research
[snipped]
4. They’ve Increased Their Incomes By Not Paying Taxes
[snipped]
5. They’ve Contributed Little to Society
[snipped]
Studies show that increased wealth is correlated with a lesser degree of empathy for others. Despite their dependency on society for everything else, the super-rich have apparently earned the right to live in their own privileged world.
..........................................................................
When the subject changes....
from gay marriage and birth control to.....the budget:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed the concerns of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in an interview with Fox News on Thursday, after the powerful advocacy group criticized his budget for “failing to meet [the] moral criteria,” of protecting human dignity, prioritizing the needs of the hungry and homeless and promoting the common good. He also suggested that the criticism itself might not represent the Bishops’ consensus view — an insinuation the group directly rejects.
“These are not all the Catholic bishops, and we respectfully disagree,” Ryan said.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed the concerns of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in an interview with Fox News on Thursday, after the powerful advocacy group criticized his budget for “failing to meet [the] moral criteria,” of protecting human dignity, prioritizing the needs of the hungry and homeless and promoting the common good. He also suggested that the criticism itself might not represent the Bishops’ consensus view — an insinuation the group directly rejects.
“These are not all the Catholic bishops, and we respectfully disagree,” Ryan said.
Always keepin' it classy
Sarah Palin, professional media whore never lets an opportunity slip by. Commenting on the Secret Service agent who said he was 'checking her out' -
"Palin noted, “It’s a symptom of government run amok.” The president, she said, is the CEO, basically, and needs to start cracking down on these agencies." She further argued that Obama has poor management skills.
Uh, Sarah....that was in 2008. Bush was President.
Her best comment, though was "check this out, body guard - you're fired".
We can always depend on Sarah to say the things that Michelle Obama wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole.
"Palin noted, “It’s a symptom of government run amok.” The president, she said, is the CEO, basically, and needs to start cracking down on these agencies." She further argued that Obama has poor management skills.
Uh, Sarah....that was in 2008. Bush was President.
Her best comment, though was "check this out, body guard - you're fired".
We can always depend on Sarah to say the things that Michelle Obama wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Negative Romney-- so what's new?
.........................................................................
Daniels tells newspaper Romney is too negative
By Sarah Huisenga, April 19, 2012
One day after endorsing Republican Mitt Romney for president, popular Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels gave an interview to one of the state's top political reporters in which he complained that Romney's campaign is too negative and offered him some armchair pointers for becoming a better candidate.
Daniels' comments got the attention of David Axelrod, President Obama's political strategist, who tweeted late Thursday: "Even Mitt's friends are warning him. Grinding negativism has its limits."
In an interview with Indianapolis Star columnist Matthew Tully, Daniels, discussing the Romney campaign, said, "You have to campaign to govern, not just to win.... Spend the precious time and dollars explaining what's at stake and a constructive program to make life better. And as I say, look at everything through the lens of folks who have yet to achieve."
After a pause, Tully reported in his blog, Daniels added with disappointment, "Romney doesn't talk that way."
"You don't change one thing about the policies you advocate or your principles," Daniels told Tully, adding that Romney's message to donors shouldn't be about how his policies affect the well-heeled but how they would help Americans trying to get on the ladder of success.
"It's not complicated," said Daniels, who last year declined to get into the presidential contest despite encouragement from within the GOP. "But for some reason sometimes candidates just miss that."
..........................................................................
Daniels tells newspaper Romney is too negative
By Sarah Huisenga, April 19, 2012
One day after endorsing Republican Mitt Romney for president, popular Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels gave an interview to one of the state's top political reporters in which he complained that Romney's campaign is too negative and offered him some armchair pointers for becoming a better candidate.
Daniels' comments got the attention of David Axelrod, President Obama's political strategist, who tweeted late Thursday: "Even Mitt's friends are warning him. Grinding negativism has its limits."
In an interview with Indianapolis Star columnist Matthew Tully, Daniels, discussing the Romney campaign, said, "You have to campaign to govern, not just to win.... Spend the precious time and dollars explaining what's at stake and a constructive program to make life better. And as I say, look at everything through the lens of folks who have yet to achieve."
After a pause, Tully reported in his blog, Daniels added with disappointment, "Romney doesn't talk that way."
"You don't change one thing about the policies you advocate or your principles," Daniels told Tully, adding that Romney's message to donors shouldn't be about how his policies affect the well-heeled but how they would help Americans trying to get on the ladder of success.
"It's not complicated," said Daniels, who last year declined to get into the presidential contest despite encouragement from within the GOP. "But for some reason sometimes candidates just miss that."
..........................................................................
One for Depends
Since we know a regular reader is a Master in Scatology -
Part of channel(s): Afghanistan (current event)
Ted Nugent - Vietnam War Draft Dodger - defecated/urinated in pants 10 days - "I did not want to get my ass blown off in Vietnam"
Part of channel(s): Afghanistan (current event)(See original document pictured.) "Since we've been discussing Ted Nugent lately, this seemed a good time to bring up Nugent's draft dodging. It's well known that Nugent claims to have gone to great lengths to flunk his Draft Board physical. What's not so well-known is that he got a student deferment at the same time he was touring with his rock band, putting in an average of 300 shows a year. How was he going to school and touring that much at the same time?
One of our readers sent me a copy of an extract of Nugent's Selective Service records, obtained via a FOIA request (copy below). As you can see, Nugent received student deferments in 1967 (1-S) and 1968 (2-S). But according to the Internet Movie Data Base website, Nugent has been "performing professionally since 1958, non-stop yearly touring since 1967, averaging more than 300 shows per year '67-73." Hmm, that would include the two years he was supposedly too wrapped up in his studies to be serving his country.
But that hasn't stopped Nugent from insisting that if he HAD served, he would have been one big mofo soldier. As the Rutland Herald reported, Here's what Nugent said he would have done if he went to Vietnam:
"... if I would have gone over there, I'd have been killed, or I'd have killed, or I'd kill all the hippies in the foxholes ... I would have killed everybody," he told the Detroit Free Press in an interview published July 15, 1990."
The Herald also noted that Nugent's efforts to avoid the draft make President Bush look like a war hero.
(Nugent claims) that 30 days before his Draft Board Physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and a week before his physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether, virtually living inside his pants caked with excrement and urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment.
Sean Hannity went to ridiculous lengths Friday night (8/24/07) to defend Nugent's threatening rants against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. FOX & Friends whitewashed Nugent's comments the next day. Apparently, this "patriot" can do no wrong on the "We like America" network."
(News Hounds, Aug.26, 2007)
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/08/26/proof_ted_nugent_is_a_draft_dodger_will_hannity_keep_defending_him.php
http://tinyurl.com/yrefcc
One of our readers sent me a copy of an extract of Nugent's Selective Service records, obtained via a FOIA request (copy below). As you can see, Nugent received student deferments in 1967 (1-S) and 1968 (2-S). But according to the Internet Movie Data Base website, Nugent has been "performing professionally since 1958, non-stop yearly touring since 1967, averaging more than 300 shows per year '67-73." Hmm, that would include the two years he was supposedly too wrapped up in his studies to be serving his country.
But that hasn't stopped Nugent from insisting that if he HAD served, he would have been one big mofo soldier. As the Rutland Herald reported, Here's what Nugent said he would have done if he went to Vietnam:
"... if I would have gone over there, I'd have been killed, or I'd have killed, or I'd kill all the hippies in the foxholes ... I would have killed everybody," he told the Detroit Free Press in an interview published July 15, 1990."
The Herald also noted that Nugent's efforts to avoid the draft make President Bush look like a war hero.
(Nugent claims) that 30 days before his Draft Board Physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and a week before his physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether, virtually living inside his pants caked with excrement and urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment.
Sean Hannity went to ridiculous lengths Friday night (8/24/07) to defend Nugent's threatening rants against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. FOX & Friends whitewashed Nugent's comments the next day. Apparently, this "patriot" can do no wrong on the "We like America" network."
(News Hounds, Aug.26, 2007)
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/08/26/proof_ted_nugent_is_a_draft_dodger_will_hannity_keep_defending_him.php
http://tinyurl.com/yrefcc
A "completely unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound"
.........................................................................
Reporter Megan Carpentier undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound to frame abortion debate
By Dylan Stableford, April 18, 2012
Plenty of pundits on both sides of the ideological aisle have weighed in on the country's ongoing abortion debate and the transvaginal ultrasound mandates passed by several states—what some people argue is part of the GOP's so-called "war on women." But few have actually gone through the procedure—which is why Megan Carpentier, executive editor of the progressive news site Raw Story, decided to have a "completely unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound" and document the experience for readers.
"It was vigorously uncomfortable," Carpentier wrote, partly "because the technician has to press the wand directly against the areas she wants to get an image of—your uterus, Fallopian tubes and ovaries—so there's more movement and more direct contact with pressure-sensitive areas of your body."
Carpentier continued:
She concluded: "It's not a choice to be made at a distance by elected officials with an ideological axe to grind, little medical knowledge and a belief that it's acceptable to require doctors to put unnecessary instruments inside women's bodies in an effort to achieve in practice what they can't constitutionally pass into law: an end to abortion."
.........................................................................
Reporter Megan Carpentier undergoes ‘unnecessary’ transvaginal ultrasound to frame abortion debate
By Dylan Stableford, April 18, 2012
Plenty of pundits on both sides of the ideological aisle have weighed in on the country's ongoing abortion debate and the transvaginal ultrasound mandates passed by several states—what some people argue is part of the GOP's so-called "war on women." But few have actually gone through the procedure—which is why Megan Carpentier, executive editor of the progressive news site Raw Story, decided to have a "completely unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound" and document the experience for readers.
"It was vigorously uncomfortable," Carpentier wrote, partly "because the technician has to press the wand directly against the areas she wants to get an image of—your uterus, Fallopian tubes and ovaries—so there's more movement and more direct contact with pressure-sensitive areas of your body."
Carpentier continued:
You're also not lying flat on your back to facilitate access to the upper reaches of your vagina; and you're being penetrated with a longer, rigid object than is used in a regular pelvic exam. In my case, as the technician explained after, my uterus is "high," or tilted toward my abdomen, so she had to tilt the wand accordingly—and because it was so uncomfortable, she halted the exam before fully exploring my Fallopian tubes or ovaries. If I had been pregnant (which I knew I was not), the exam might have lasted longer as she looked to rule out an ectopic pregnancy and locate the miniscule gestational sac.
It was not, however, like being raped, despite all the furor-generating headlines and "Doonesbury" cartoons that were printed. It was uncomfortable to the point of being painful, emotionally triggering (and undoubtedly is moreso for victims of rape or incest or any woman in the midst of an already-emotional experience) and something that no government should force its citizens to undergo to make a political point. But it wasn't like being raped—and using language like that not only minimizes rape for its survivors but makes them and other women more frightened of the procedure, which has significant and important medical uses.Carpentier even shot a video of the procedure and uploaded it to YouTube.
She concluded: "It's not a choice to be made at a distance by elected officials with an ideological axe to grind, little medical knowledge and a belief that it's acceptable to require doctors to put unnecessary instruments inside women's bodies in an effort to achieve in practice what they can't constitutionally pass into law: an end to abortion."
.........................................................................
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Mitt's double standard
............................................................
Mitt Romney and the Cult of True Womanhood
By Sara Mead, April 15, 2012
Mitt Romney and the Cult of True Womanhood
By Sara Mead, April 15, 2012
Kudos to the Up With Chris Hayes team for unearthing this video of Mitt Romney, at a New Hampshire rally in January, lauding his record of requiring mothers of children as young as 2 to experience the “dignity of work” as a condition of receiving public benefits. So, apparently, raising children is only work if you look like Ann Romney.
But this type of double standard is nothing new. Our political and public discourse around the family—to our great detriment—often behaves as though history began in the 1950s. But the idea that there are two types of women—White, married, virtuous, affluent “true women” and then pretty much everyone else—is an old one, dating back at least to the Victorian Era Cult of Domesticity. While “true women,” by confining themselves to the domestic sphere and womanly arts of childbearing, rearing, and making a harmonious family home, both required and deserved men’s protection from the slights of the harsh world, it was tough cookies for the majority of women who didn’t fit that model (from white working class women, to widows and single mothers, to women of color, like Sojourner Truth in her famous speech)—not to mention their kids.
And that’s pretty much exactly the attitude on display here, as well. Interestingly, the Cult of Domesticity, by placing the creation of a harmonious and virtuous home environment as a true woman’s primary objective in life, and the protection of that environment as her husband’s, actually provided a justification for huge inequalities of wealth and income and abuses of workers by these same virtuous husbands during the Victorian and Gilded Eras—and we may be seeing something of a similar dynamic today in conservative positions on economic inequality and the labor market.
............................................................
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Looks like the Tea Party has gone after the wrong guy!
...................................................................
“I Despise These People"
By Ed Kilgore
“I Despise These People"
By Ed Kilgore
Some of you may recall that two years ago Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah was unceremoniously dumped at a state GOP convention, not even qualifying for his party’s primary. This was in many respects the high point of Tea Party Fever in 2010, though it didn’t draw as much attention as, say, Christine O’Donnell’s primary win over Mike Castle in Delaware, because it didn’t cost Republicans a Senate seat.
Heading into this year, some of the same people who took out Bennett were plotting a similar fate for veteran conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch, who has offended many wingnuts with such outrages as his occasional cooperation with Democrats (Bennett’s key sin as well). Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks wasespecially active in undermining support for Hatch in the early stages of Utah’s byzantine system of state party delegate selection, spending a reported $650,000 as part of an overall $900,000 anti-Hatch effort in the state.
But Hatch has fought back with some shrewd positioning to the hard right, with the kind of money that the ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee can raise, and with vocal backing from Mitt Romney, who may be considered a boring, flip-flopping corporate suit in other places but is a rock star in Utah. Hatch seems to have done very well in the local delegate elections leading up to the state convention, which will be held on April 21, and the only real question is whether he’ll win outright or will still face a primary (where he would be heavily favored).
And in contrast to many GOP warhorses who are half-apologetic about fighting the Tea Folk, Hatch appears determined not only to beat his opponent, former state senator Dan Liljenquist, but to humiliate the guy’s backers. Here’s what he told NPR (I happened to hear this on the car radio yesterday, and nearly ran a stop sign):
“These people are not conservatives. They’re not Republicans,” Hatch angrily responds. “They’re radical libertarians and I’m doggone offended by it.”
Then Hatch, a former boxer, turns combative. “I despise these people, and I’m not the guy you come in and dump on without getting punched in the mouth.”
Whoa!
I’m old enough to remember when Hatch was first elected, in 1976, and was generally considered the most right-wing member of the Senate other than Jesse Helms. It seems surreal that he’s being called a RINO. Looks like he feels the same way.
...................................................................
Friday, April 13, 2012
“Cold War Against Women”?
..................................................................
Did “Hilaryrosengate” End the “War on Women?”
By Ed Kilgore, April 13, 2012
Did “Hilaryrosengate” End the “War on Women?”
By Ed Kilgore, April 13, 2012
I’m a big fan of Slate’s political reporter/blogger Dave Weigel, and not only because the guy somehow manages to publish about eighty Tweets a day without letting it interfere with his day job. But his column providing a time-line of the Democratic “war on women” meme and declaring its demise in the flames of Hilaryrosengate, while useful, is just a bit too pat.
In Weigel’s accounting, the “war on women” was born back in early 2011 in the Beltway furor over a House bill cutting off funding for abortion providers; gained traction through its regular usage by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz; hit its stride thanks to occasional GOP outrages like the Mississippi Personhood Amendment; made its bones by serving as a counter-punch to the conservative “war on religion” meme surrounding the contraception coverage mandate; and then expired when Hilary Rosen’s infelicitous words allowed the GOP to create its own “war on moms.”
Game over, says Weigel.
But as DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told him in comments he published today, we’re dealing with something a bit bigger than a talking point:
The truth of the matter is that Republicans want to use a discussion about whether the language is appropriate to hide from a discussion of the issues,” said Woodhouse. “There’s a reason they’re 18-23 points down with women. It’s the issues…. When the dust settles on these dust-ups, they’re stuck with the policies.”
It’s not like any of the raw material Democrats used in talking about a “war on women” has been trashed; new examples are popping up almost daily. Arizona just became the seventh state to enact an abortion ban directly challenging Roe v. Wade, and Georgia will soon become the eighth. The Catholic Bishops just announced a summer campaign to make its attacks on the contraception coverage mandate a matter of existential importance. Mitt Romney is going to have to very conspicuously bend his knee to the Christian Right, with its anti-choice and anti-feminist preoccupations, in choosing a running-mate. The present and perhaps imminent behavior of the Supreme Court could make judicial appointments—and the tenuous nature of reproductive rights—a bigger issue than it’s ever been in a presidential election. And suffusing it all is the inescapable reality that today’s GOP embraces a worldview on culture, economics and the role of government that has traditionally left a sizable majority of women very cold.
So maybe a “Cold War Against Women” is a more accurate term. But beating up on Hilary Rosen is hardly going to obliterate Mitt Romney’s or his party’s problems with women.
..................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)