JustOneMinute

Send Better Witnesses

CNN pretends to reprise the witnesses to the Trayvon Martin shooting and aftermath.  They paint a picture of a 'fair and balanced' effort but omit 'John', the most important eyewitness to the scuffle that preceded the shooting.  John says Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten and calling for help; odd that CNN missed that.  Thay also omit the 13 year old dog-walker, who saw a scuffle and has waffled as to who was on top.

CNN opens with Mary Cutcher, who is often mentioned as an important pushback witness for the Martin side (my emphasis):

Mary Cutcher was in her kitchen making coffee that night with her roommate, Selma Mora Lamilla. The window was open, she said.

"We heard a whining. Not like a crying, boohoo, but like a whining, someone in distress, and then the gunshot," she said.

They looked out the window but saw nothing. It was dark.

They ran out the sliding glass door, and within seconds, they saw Zimmerman.

"Zimmerman was standing over the body with -- basically straddling the body with his hands on Trayvon's back," Cutcher said. "And it didn't seem to me that he was trying to help him in any way. I didn't hear any struggle prior to the gunshot.

"And I feel like it was Trayvon Martin that was crying out, because the minute that the gunshot went off, the whining stopped."

The two women said they could not see whether Zimmerman was bruised or hurt. It was too dark.

"Selma asked him three times, 'what's going on over there?' " Cutcher said. "He looks back and doesn't say anything. She asks him again, 'everything OK? What's going on?' Same thing: looked at us, looked back. Finally, the third time, he said, 'just call the police.' "

Extended versions of her story are available; CNN included enough for their purposes, but let's toss this in from the roommate, speaking to NBC Dateline:

Lamilla said that after the shot was fired Zimmerman appeared to be pacing.

“He started walking back and forth like three times with his hand on the head and kind of, he was walking like kind of confused,” she said.

Lamilla said he was touching his head like “he was in shock.”

Dazed, touching his head and acting in shock as if (just thinking out loud here) wounded - the defense will want her on the stand.  CNN can go to an extended commercial during her testimony.

As to Ms. Cutcher, she saw nothing, did not hear a struggle witnessed by others and "feel[s] like" it was Martin shouting because the shouting stopped with the gunshot.

Not to be too obvious here, but if Zimmerman was calling for assistance and then finally solved his problem with a gunshot, is it unreasonable to think he might stop shouting for help?

I don't see her feelings helping the prosecutor much.

CNN aired an Anderson Cooper interview with an anonymous witness.  Anyone autotuning that should include "Getting dark, too dark to see; feel like someone's knocking on heaven's door".

I'll include a snippet of the CNN highlights:

The witness recalled seeing two men on the grass, one on top of the other.

"And at that point, not looking out the window, I heard the yell for help, one yell for help, and then I heard another ... excruciating type of yell," the witness said. "It didn't almost sound like 'help.' It just sounded so painful. But I wasn't watching out the window during that. And then the next time I looked out the window, there's the same thing: two men on the grass, one on top of each other. I couldn't see a lot of movement. It was very dark, but I felt like they were scuffling. And then I heard the gunshots, which, to me, were more like pops than they were like a bang."

The witness recalled hearing more than one shot. "It definitely was more than one pop noise, so I don't know if it was an echo or anything else. But it definitely made more than one pop."

Then one of the men, who appeared to be Hispanic, started walking toward the witness' vantage point, the witness said. Zimmerman is Hispanic.

"He didn't appear hurt or anything else," the witness said.

As other people have said, any fight fan has seen boxers walk out of the ring shortly after a knockout, so who knows.  I do like the detail that Zimmerman looked Hispanic - don't tell NPR.  Otherwise, this utterly inconclusive testimony *might* help the prosecutor if other medical evidence pooh-poohs Zimmerman's wounds.

Martin's girlfriend

Benjamin Crump, the Martin family lawyer, says Martin's girlfriend's account of what happened connects the dots and destroys Zimmerman's claims of self-defense.

I say the defense will feast on the fact that her testimony is tainted by exposure to the 911 calls. The girl was only "found", or at least, brought forward, after the 911 tapes were made public three weeks after the shooting.  During those three weeks, the Martin family had overlooked that Martin had a girlfriend and was on the phone with her or his other friends from dawn to dusk. According to Mr. Crump.

Still, that is a bad job by the Sanford PD if they really did not find her and talk to her.

CNN includes this among the highlights:

The case becomes more complicated as details emerge.

Hmm, explaining how the prosecutor can establish probable cause for an arrest becomes harder unless more facts are suppressed.  "John" spoke to Fox Orlando 35 the day after the shooting, for heaven's sake, and has yet to be contradicted by a useful eyewitness.  The Martin side has a grainy video from ABC News (offset by charges of doctoring, the police report, and 'John') and a positive winning attitude.

ECHO CHAMBER: The Booman Tribune links uncritically to the CNN story:

Of course we know from the testimony of several witnesses that an altercation took place. It just doesn't seem like it lasted very long or that either of them was able to do much damage to the other.

What's become even more clear is that the story being told from the Zimmerman camp, and even to a certain degree the police department, doesn't look plausible because it doesn't match up with any of the disinterested evidence in the case.

...Considering how tight the timeline is here, it appears that this is what happened. Trayvon interrupted his conversation with his girlfriend to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman was verbally aggressive in return. They approached each other and started pushing. Loud words were exchanged. The fight went to the ground. Zimmerman wound up on top. Martin cried out for help. Then Zimmerman pulled his gun on him, causing Martin to make a frightened desperate plea. And then he was executed.

The BooMan either doesn't know about 'John' or wants to forget (Google is not resolving this for me).  To befair, an early commenter brings a mixed dose of reality to the Reality-Based Community:

I am also starting to believe that the witness "John" is a fake. John is the one who the Orlando Sentinel reported the next day, who said that Trayvon was on top of Z, beating him. He says he heard Z crying for help, and said he was going to call 911. Yet there's no 911 call from John. So he called the newspaper but not 911?

I don't know how I would prove it, but Adam Weinstein of Mother Jones has all the 911 calls.  His "Holy Shit, the guy's dead out here... Oh, my God" caller seems to fill the role of John perfectly.

Reality is interrupted for a brief non-awareness moment from the commenter:

Meanwhile, other witnesses, such as Mary Cutcher and Selma Lamilla, as well as the mother of the 13 yo boy who was out walking his dog, have come forward with their full names in public... And John, the only witness who supports Z's story, remains anonymous.

Ahh, Spike Lee is trying to tweet the address of George Zimmerman, protestors are marching through Sanford, Florida is hot and getting hotter - who among us would want to self-identify as the most important witness for Zimmerman's defense? 

An Interesting Point About A Weird Discussion

In ruminating about just who is anti-science, Kevin Drum notes that it is American conservatives, not European ones, who seem to be mindlessly bucking the global; warming consensus.  His question, reasonable in its context, is how one can arge about "conservative" and "liberal" minds without noting this seeming discrepancy across the water.

But he links to a summary article by Chris Mooney, the author of the book, and I am hopelessly stalled.  The lead paragraphs explain - at length! - that Conservapedia, the right-wing counterpart to Wikipedia, is anti-science and doubts Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Well, I have no reason not to take his word for it, but so what?  I have never heard of Conservapedia, I don't believe I have ever linked to it, I don't believe I have ever clicked through on a link that took me to it, and I don't think I have ever heard it cited by anyone, anywhere, for any reason [not quite true - see UPDATE].  Who are these Conservopedia people, who cares, and why does anyone think they represent "the right" on anything?

As to the larger question, I understand that it is great fun for the left to imagine that the right is anti-science; this is of a piece with the semi-annual articles we get where yet a another lefty demostrates yet again that liberals are superior walkers, talkers, ballroom dancers, and just generally better examples of humanity.

Whatever.  I am highly confident that most of America, regardless of political persuasion, lacks the expertise to evaluate the claims made in the global warming debate.  So let's ponder a different question - do American conservatives tend to trust Al Gore, the New York Times and the United Nations?

I don't suppose puzzling over that is quite as much fun as dumpster diving at Conservapedia, but it might be a better guide to the real answer.

KEEPING THEIR HEADS HIGH:  Interesting that Kevin is wondering about those daffy conservatives in the same week that the liberal cocoon on the ObamaCare mandate collapsed.  Obviously, one topic is law and the other is science, but still, the notion of an echo chamber of liberal pundits, policymakers and scientists reinforcing their views and la-la-la'ing the opposition might be something for a humble liberal to consider.

UPDATE:  Checking Google, the first page of cites of Conservopedia include 'Ha ha - those daffy conservative!' blasts from TPMuckraker, NPR and Boing Boing.  Righty links?  None I recognize.

This carefully researched article at Wired includes a few laughers from 2007:

An alternative Wikipedia written by conservative Christians has become a major target of mockery on the web.

Conservapedia, a wiki-based encyclopedia that offers the historical record from a conservative perspective, is attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers.

Conservapedia "is a gold mine of unintentional hilarity," wrote Mark Frauenfelder on Boing Boing last Monday.

The Wonkette political blog encouraged its readers to contribute to "this fast-growing, Jeebus-and-America-friendly online resource." So did the ScienceBlogs network, which said, "There's much fun to be had."

Even conservative commentators like Andrew Sullivan are bemused.

...After it launched, the site quickly found itself picked apart by bloggers of all stripes. Conservapedia was lampooned by conservative blogger Jon Swift for its brash denial of scientific facts in favor of biblical rhetoric.

Sully and Swift are conservatives?  Really?  If the "Swift" name was an insufficient clue, maybe the blog header can help:

I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues.

So Conservapedia is Chris Mooney's launching point.  I can't say I am resolute in pressing on with his article, but if anyone does, feel free to give us the highlights.

 

Brain-Locked Social Science

The WaPo wrings its hands about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law; they recycle some brain-locked social science that has been circulating for a while (and was cited by the New York City Council in their resolution supporting Trayvon Martin):

According to the Tampa Bay Times [link], Florida experienced an average of 34 “justifiable homicides” before 2005; two years after the Stand Your Ground law was enacted, the number jumped to more than 100. Similarly disturbing spikes have been found in other states with similar laws. According to an analysis of FBI data done by the office of New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) [link], who co-chairs the 650-strong Mayors Against Illegal Guns [link], states that passed Stand Your Ground laws experienced a 53.5 percent increase in “justifiable homicides” in the three years following enactment; states without such laws saw a 4.2 percent increase.

The obvious response - if the law expands the definition of justifiable homicide, then one might reasonably expect the number of cases newly classified as justifiable homicide to go up whether human behavior changes or not. (If we formerly defined a tall person as “over six feet” and change that to “over 5’ 8″, the number of ‘tall’ people goes up.  Later I will explain how to boil water...)

The question (not addressed by the WaPo, but perhaps in the study) is whether there is an offsetting drop in cases previously classed as negligent homicide (or something else, such as voluntary manslaughter).

In other words, has behavior changed, leading to more total gun deaths, or has behavior remained unchanged while the classification scheme has changed? If gray-area, coulda gone either way killings are about the same, that would seem to make a difference in determining whether this new law has led to some sort of crisis.

A possibly fruitful avenue for an eager social scientist would be this: look at some plausible sampling of Florida homicides from 2004 (pre-revision) that were either treated as justifiable or negligent (for simplicity, I will assume those are the only two possibilities; voluntary manslaughter may be the term I am looking for to describe a self-defense killing).  Then enlist some legal talent to guess how many of the negligent homicides would have been reclassified as justifiable under the new law.  The result would be a baseline projection in the impact of the new law if behavior does not change.  (Obviously, data collection may be an issue - a case that was open and shut negligence under the old law may have not left enough of a paper trail to guess its disposition under the new law.)

Or, one could look at actual cases: Politfact sorta-kinda did that and found that in Florida justifiable homicides roughly tripled.  They leave unremarked that justifiable homicides by police officers (presumably not covered by the new law) also tripled.  Weird.  They don't make the obvious point about any drop in reclassified negligent homicides, or put this in perspective with total gun deaths or total murders in Florida.  FWIW, I see 987 murders in 2010 versus 40 justifiable homicides by civilians; if I were threatened by a stampede of mice and elephants...

For a different look, let's get some help from the NY Times; writing in August 2006, Adam Liptak advises us that:

In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Well, here are the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for justifiable homicides by civilians, nationwide, 2000 to 2010.  I am posting pages from the 2006 and 2010 reports, which collectively cover 2002 to 2010.  Don't ask me why the numbers differ for 2006 between the reports; They are close, and I assume revisions.

and

Out national crisis - from 233 justifiable homicides in 2002 to a low of 196 in 2005, followed by an increase to 278 in 2010.  And where handguns were employed?  From 158 down to 123 in 2005 and back to 170.  That is against total homicides of 12,996 in 2010, which is down from roughly 16,000 in 2002 (I am looking at the 2004 report with numbers for 2003; the earlier reports are in a different computer format).  Let me add:

The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

Negligent homicides reports, anyone?  Obviously, with automobiles and weapons separated.

NOT WHAT I HAD IN MIND, BUT INTERESTING:

From the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 2007:

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter

According to the UCR Program, murder and non-negligent manslaughter are defined as the willful killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. Not included under this classification are deaths caused by accident, suicide, negligence, or justifiable homicides. 2

According to figures compiled by the UCR program, 61% of all murders committed in Florida, from 1996 through 2007, involved a firearm (see Figure 4). During this time period, there were 11,658 murders committed in Florida. As illustrated in Figure 4, the patterning of firearm-related murders is parallel to that of all murders. Figure 5 displays non-negligent manslaughter firearm trend. From 1996-2007, 1,505 non-negligent manslaughters were reported in Florida. Approximately nine percent of those reported involved a gun. Although the reported number of non-negligent manslaughters has annually increased since 2002, the number of incidents that were firearm-related has remained relatively stable; no more than 20 incidents have been reported during this time frame.

Reportedly the lead investigator in the Zimmerman case wanted a charge:

A Sanford Police incident report shows the case was categorized as “homicide/negligent manslaughter.”

That would be rare in Florida, if I understand the FDLE report.

Combining the FDLE report with the Politifact numbers, we are getting roughly 10-20 negligent homicides per year in Florida from 1996-2007, versus about 12 justifiable homicides annually before 2005 and 35 annually afterwards.  I think I am still missing manslaughter cases, which would be how some self-defense cases should have been resolved.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2718130/sanford-cops-wanted-to-charge.html#storylink=cpy

Justified

An invented part of the controversy over the killing of Trayvon Martin revolves around whether George Zimmerman had some legal obligation to obey the suggestion by the 911 dispatcher that he not pursue Trayvon Martin (there is also some dispute over whether Zimmerman obeyed that instruction and was overtaken by Martin while returning to his car, but let's press on).

In the FAQ portion of their explanatory letter the City of Sanford claims this is a non-issue since a 911 dispathcer does not speak with the full weight of the law:

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this investigation?

Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon.

Time will tell.  But in the course of poking around, I ran across this jaw-dropping illustration of the impotence and irrelevance of the 911 dispatcher:

On November 14, 2007, at about 2:00 p.m. a Pasadena, Texas man named Joe Horn was working at his computer inside his own residence in the 4900 block of Timberline when he heard the sound of breaking glass. He looked out the window of his home and saw two Hispanic men, Miguel Antonio DeJesus and Diego Ortiz, breaking into his neighbor’s house – a neighbor that Horn did not know very well. The 61-year-old Horn retrieved his 12-gauge shotgun from his pickup truck where he kept it for personal protection. Horn then called a 911 operator to report the burglary in progress. He explicitly told the operator that he was armed with a shotgun and that he was going out to kill the two men. The 911 operator repeatedly instructed Horn to remain inside his house until the police arrived. The following are excerpts from that 911 call:

"I'm not going to let them go. I'm not going to let them get away with this," Horn told the operator. “I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot."

"Stay inside the house and don't go out there," the operator calmly instructed Horn. "I know what you're feeling, but it's not worth shooting someone over this."

"I have a right to protect myself,” Horn replied. “And a shotgun is a legal weapon. It's not an illegal weapon."

"Mr. Horn, I want you to listen to me carefully, OK?,” the 911 operator said. “I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house and I don't want you to have that gun in your hand when the officers are poking around out there."

"I ain't going to let them get away with this,” Horn adamantly replied. “They stole something. They got a bag. I'm doing this."

"Don't go out the house," the operator warned. "Don't be shooting nobody."
"Property's not worth killing someone over. OK? Don't go out the house.
Don't be shooting nobody,"

“I can't take a chance in getting killed over this. OK?” Horn replied.
"Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house,” the operator demanded. “You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun."

"You wanna make a bet," Horn responded. "I'm gonna kill them. They're gonna get away."

"I don't want you going outside, Mr. Horn," the operator said, almost futilely.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

The sound of the shotgun clicking was picked up on the 911 tape.

“Move, you’re dead,” Horn warning the two men could be heard on the tape.

Three shotgun blasts were then picked up by the 911 recorder.

"Get the law over here quick. I had no choice," Horn frantically pleaded with the 911 operator. "They came in the front yard with me. I had no choice."

If that was a Hollywood script who would believe it?

As to the final disposition, after months of controversy a grand jury gave Joe Horn a pass.  That is Texas, not Florida, but still - wow.

 

 

 

We Have A Winner

We have a winner in Hemi-Billions lottery.  "We" of, course, as in, "We the People", not the editorial "Wheeeee!"

If some lucky JOM reader wants to share some good news, we are all ears.  (Hmm, that is a JOM "we"; we need more clarity and discrimination in our use of pronouns.)

Friday Afternoon

Let's balance it up with a Friday afternoon Ricksanity thread.

Anything Else

Let's have a Mittmentum open thread before I accuse him of assaulting George Zimmerman.

Last Map Of The Retreat At Twin Lakes

Time to pull out the Etch-a-Sketch and try to pin down the spot where George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

As resources we have:

Google Maps and Zillow;

Zimmerman's call to 911 [transcript], in which he gives directions to his parked car;

The City of Sanford initial police report, which indicates the police found the body in the walkway between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retreat View Circle;

film footage the night of the crime and following day from Fox Orlando;

a neighborhood shot from the Tampa Bay Times;

and MapQuest, which locates a 7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd, Sanford FL (GoogleMaps consistently overlooks this).  That is about 3/4 mile from the Retreat at Twin Lakes, and the logical approach would be by way of the main gate.

The gist - Trayvon Martin seemed to have been on a logical path home, which would have ended in the back yard of the home he was visiting after passing down an open walkway.  He was roughly a hundred yards from home when he was shot.

George Zimmerman parked near the intersection of a pedestrian walkway and Twin Trees Lane.  He was roughly thirty yards from his car when he fired the fatal shot.

Lets start with a map of the immediate area, with some cryptic notes attached:

The main gate is at the top, cleverly labeled "Main Gate".  Trayvon Martin would have come through that gate, past the clubhouse across on Twin Trees Lane.  His final destination was the home he was visiting on Retreat View Circle a couple of townhouses down from 2821 Retreat View Circle, marked in red.

The blue circle is the likely location of George Zimmerman's car.  Let's follow along on the 911 transcript as he describes his location to the police, with my notes embedded:

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left [onto Twin Trees Lane], and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

The obvious cut through area is circled in blue.  By eerie coincidence, the Google Maps satellite picked up a truck parked there.

Now, from the cut through area, Martin had three logical paths home.  He could have continued down Twin Trees Lane, cut through further down, and gotten home.  Or, he could have taken the cut through halfway across, to the open commons area overlooked by townhouses on each side and gone down towards home (that is the highlighted blue path).  Or he could have taken the cut through all the way across and gone down Retreat View Circle, ending up at his front door. 

And keep in mind - although unpaved, there are passages between each townhouse that would allow a pedestrian to move from the commons area to either Twin Trees Lane or Retreat View Circle. Foreshadowing!

So what did Zimmerman see Martin doing?  After Martin reportedly [but no verbal contact on the 911 tape?] walked by to "check me out" we hear this:

Zimmerman... Shit he's running.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Ok

Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name? Zimmerman: George...He ran.

You can trust me or look it up, but the back entrance is down near the home Martin was visiting.

If Martin disappeared I infer he did not run down Twin Trees Lane.  I conclude he headed along the cut through (left to right on the picture) and then... well, we don't know.

Zimmerman presumably followed along the cut through; given the location of the final confrontation, it seems likely he headed down along the blue line marking Trayvon's path through the commons area.

So how did they meet up again?  That would be a key question, and any answer would be speculative.  However, since Martin was ahead of Zimmerman and headed for home, it seems likely that Martin doubled back or hid somewhere (or Zimmerman outran him?  Really?)

One *POSSIBILITY* : Martin took the top cut through all the way to Retreat View Circle, then cut back into the commons area just below 2821 Retreat View Circle (marked in red).  A second *GUESS* is that Martin went down the commons area (along the blue line), cut left towards Retreat View Circle just below 2821 (effectively hiding from the view of anyone coming down the commons area), then doubled back.  Or, for our friends on the left, maybe he made it to the commons area before curling up in the fetal position in terror, awaiting execution by the scary man with a GUN.  Maybe.

Zimmerman must have made a bit of progress down the blue line if he had time to turn back towards his truck before Martin overtook him.  However, based on the map scale we are talking distances of 25-50 yards (a person walking a desultory 3 miles per hour covers about 30 88 yards per minute; adrenaline might add to that, but caution might subtract.)

Per the police report, the body was reported in the grass between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retreat View Circle.  A straight line between those two would have the body slightly down from where I located it with the red circle.  The difference is about 20 yards, but since my final spot is a bit closer to our guess for Zimmerman's SUV, it is arguably more favorable, so let me go through my arcane reasoning.

This background story on the Retreat at Twin Lakes from the Tampa Bay Times includes a photo which ought to be the commons area highlighted with the blue arrow from my map above:

Do note the left-to-right downhill grade and especially, the pooper-scooper doggie bag holder.

Now, here are some stills from the Fox Orlando footage.  I assert, using my imagination and keying off of the pooper scooper, that the Fox camera was located on Retreat View Circle at the red "Fox 35" label, looking along the red arrow towards the crime scene.  Here we go:

The pooper scooper is obvious, as is the sidewalk; that ought to be Twin Trees Lane in the background.  Another shot:

The back of the pooper scooper is visible; the sidewalk pattern near the street jibes nicely with the Fox35 location I marked.

Finally, the Fox report concludes with a chat with Trayvon's dad and his significant other; they take a quick walk down the commons area, turn, and look dramatically at... well, not much, but the situation strongly suggests it is where Martin was killed.

That is just down from the walkway.

That is plenty for now; even more can be gleaned from the Fox 35 video but it all leads to this location.

Eventually, I want to poke holes in the story told by George Zimmerman's father to Fox, as well as question the police version of events as recounted by Trayvon Martin's dad to the WaPo.

However, a perusal of the basic geography says two things: *IF* Zimmerman left his SUV as I have placed it, the idea that Zimmerman cornered Martin is hard to picture.  There are lots of open spaces, lots of ways from A to B, lots of places that are accessible by foot but not so much by car - running away with commitment and purpose should have been a fool-proof strategy.  If, that is, calling 911 or screaming for help was for some reason off the board.  The idea that Zimmerman overtook a scared kid in flight is hard to sustain.

That said, what if Zimmerman parked a bit down Twin Trees Lane towards the informal, unmarked cut through.  Now after he sees Martin run and gets out of his car, maybe he heads up the commons area while Martin was headed down it.  I score that as 'hmmm', because the police surely know where they recovered his car [LATE UPDATE: Zimmerman's wife collected the car and drove it home that night so the cops were left guessing].and the revised location doesn't jibe with the 911 call (he couldn't see the club house from down on Twin Trees, and the mailboxes he mentioned are central for the complex and near the clubhouse).  Still, cars can roll - we hope the police have thought this through.

LET ME ADD:  The elder Mr. Zimmerman describes Zimmerman's path as basically crossing the "T" - he purportedly entered the cut through near where I located the SUV, followed it from left to right to the Fox35 marking to confirm the street address, then doubled back, whereupon he met Martin.

As a plausibility check, Zimmerman claimed to be checking for an address.  It should be true that the townhouses to Zimmerman's left as he walked towards Retreat View Circle were unnumbered, since he was looking at the backs of the houses.  Heckuva job by the neighborhood patrol - did he really only learn that night that the cut through opened onto Retreat View Circle?

"He called the non-emergency number first, and they asked him where he was, because he was at the rear of the town houses and there was no street sign," said Robert

That is consistent with being on Twin Trees Lane, at the back of the townhouses that face Retreat View Circle.

"He lost sight of the individual, he continued to walk down the same sidewalk to the next street, so he could get an address for the police," he said.

"He went to the next street, realized where he was and was walking to his vehicle. It's my understanding, at that point, Trayvon Martin walked up to him and asked him, 'Do you have a [expletive] problem?' George said, 'No, I don't have a problem,' and started to reach for his cell phone...  at that point, he (Martin) was punching him in the nose, his nose was broken and he was knocked to the concrete."

HA! The Fox interviewer asks about two gunshots on the 911 tape; the father says that the police have confirmed that the first gunshot is a slamming door, and only one shot was fired.  His cheap shot - nobody heard two shots except the Martin family lawyers.  Uh huh, and the NY Times.  Well, nobody likes an I told you so, which is why nobody likes me.  Just like they told me they wouldn't.

THE OTHER FATHER:  Brevity another day; here is Trayvon Martin's father recreating the police version of Zimmerman's alibi told to him a few days after the killing.  Unless he had notes I wonder how much detail he was taking on, since he had to be shaken up.  Regardless, the police told a tale of two encounters:

According to Tracy Martin, the Sanford, Fla., detective recounted this sequence of events: Trayvon Martin walked up to Zimmerman’s vehicle and asked why he was following him. Zimmerman denied following the youth and rolled up the car window. Minutes after Trayvon walked away, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.

Surely that would be on the 911 tape where Zimmerman says Martin is "checking me out"?  But I don't hear it.  Mute button, bad audio, BS?  Why would Zimmerman make that up - he had to know he had been calling 911? Oh, well, head trauma, PTSD.  Or, why would the cops make that up - to get dad to back down?  How's that working?

Then came the second encounter, according to Tracy Martin’s recollection of the detective’s account. Trayvon Martin appeared from behind a building in Zimmerman’s gated community, approached him and demanded, “What’s your problem, homie?”

When Zimmerman replied that he didn’t have a problem, Martin said, “You do now.” The unarmed teenager hit Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, pinned him down and told him to “shut the [expletive] up.”

During the beating, Zimmerman pulled his gun and fired one shot at close range into Martin’s chest. “You got me,” the teenager said, falling backward.

"You got me"?  They lost me.  Save it for the screenplay.

 IF I WERE THE KING OF FLORIDA:  If I ruled Florida, I would say Ixnay on the pro-ImmermanZay leaks, and let's leak all the pro-Martin stuff.  That ought to quiet the mob and assure them that We Get It.  Well, as King, I Get It.

Later I would let the professionals do their job, which will probably include pulling the rug out from under the pro-Martin side.

For example, let's play along and pretend that we believe this mortician because we figure he is so honest and stupid that he would come out publicly in support of Zimmerman if that was where the chips fell.  Even so, his claim that he found no signs of a scuffle on Martin does not prove no scuffle occurred; it just proves Zimmerman didn't fight back effectively.  If there are other, more compelling witnesses maybe this guy could ice the cake; otherwise, he won't be nearly enough.  (And where is the medical examiner?  Surely the Sanford PD has a serious report - if it is consistent with this story, why hasn't it been leaked yet?)

 

The Perils Of Placating Progressive Paranoia

Judd Legum of Think Progress delivers the "five of the most important" questions of the Trayvon Martin investigation.  Question 1 brings a smile:

1. What was the purported “conflict” that required the initial prosecutor to step down? On March 22 — after several weeks on the job — state attorney Norm Wolfinger stepped down from his role as prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case. Wolfinger relinquished his post after meeting with Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi. He said it was necessary for him to step aside to preserve “the integrity of this investigation,” adding he wanted to avoid “the appearance of a conflict of interest.” He did not explain why his continued involvement would damage the integrity of the case or explain the potential conflict he was seeking to avoid. Did anyone at the prosecutor’s office know Zimmerman or his family? [Orlando Sentinel]

Interesting.  The family had demanded a new investigation, they got one, and it is Very Suspicious!  Had they not gotten a new investigation, well, that would be Very Suspicious too.  The state can't win for playing.

The family and their attorneys had been screaming that the Sanford PD had botched the investigation, that a new look was needed, and that the Feds ought to step in.  For flavor, here is a NY Times headline and an Orlando Sentinel clip.  The Times, March 16:

Justice Department Investigation Is Sought in Florida Teenager’s Shooting Death

The Sentinel, March 17 (same story, the 911 calls, but the next day's dateline)

Both lawyers characterized what they heard as "murder" and said Zimmerman should be arrested immediately and federal authorities should take over the case.

...

At a press conference Friday morning, Trayvon's parents said that in the three weeks since he was killed, their trust in the Sanford Police Department has disappeared.

Tracy Martin, father of the slain teen, told reporters he felt "betrayed" by law enforcement investigating his son's death because they have not arrested the shooter.

"It's a shame that he's [Trayvon] not getting any justice. We're not, as a family, getting any closure," the elder Martin said. "I feel betrayed by the Sanford Police Department and there's no way that I can still trust them in investigating this crime."

So the state appoints a new prosecutor with no ties to the Sanford PD or the city of Sanford, and Suspicions Are Raised.  Let's clip a bit more from the linked story announcing the new prosecutor, since Mr. Legum's excerpter seems to have broken:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi have appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, removing the state attorney who had been considering the case.

Scott and Bondi appointed State Attorney Angela B. Corey, whose office handles cases in Duval, Clay and Nassau counties.

Also on Thursday, Scott created a task force headed by Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll to review Florida's 2005 "Stand Your Ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force if they think their lives or others' are in imminent danger or they face "great bodily harm."

Brevard-Seminole State Attorney Norm Wolfinger relinquished the investigation after a talk with Scott and Bondi, according to a statement from the governor's office. Wolfinger signed a letter requesting the special prosecutor, saying he was acting "with the intent of toning down the rhetoric and preserving the integrity of this investigation."

...

"In the interest of the public safety of the citizens of Seminole County and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, I would respectfully request the executive assignment of another state attorney for the investigation and any prosecution arising from the circumstances surrounding the death of Trayvon B. Martin," Wolfinger wrote.

...Scott said he is creating the task force on the gun law because of the public outcry over the case.

Benjamin Jealous, president and chief executive of the national NAACP, and Turner Clayton, president of the Seminole County NAACP, applauded the move but said they would not rest until Zimmerman is arrested and convicted.

As to what that conflict of interest might have been, I will offer the obvious guess in a moment.  But the notion that there is some mysterous conflict of interest that mysteriously prompted the sudden withdrawal of the prosecutor, and that this is the most important question swirling about the case, is absurd.  The public was howling and the prosecutor was scalped.

Now, the obvious conflict: the endgame for Ben Crump, the Martin family attorney, is justice for the family; "justice" with Mr. Crump typically includes a big payday from a civil wrongful death suit.  Since a big settlement requires a deep-pocketed defendant, the City of Sanford is a likely place to look.

Thus, as with every other city in America, there is a tension between the goal of investigating crimes and the goal of sparing the taxpayers from huge bills attributable to police misbehavior.  The solution in this country has not been to have the Feds investigate everything but it may be that in this case the City of Sanford really does have a bit of a stake in clearing their police department. 

OK, tying the City of Sanford to the death won't be easy, but... normally gun permits are granted at the local level - how did Sanford handle that? [Answer - by not doing it; Rob Crawford tells us that the FL Dept of Ag And Conumer Services handles gun permits; sue them]  I would start there.  Criticizing them for a slow respnse to the 911 calls looks hopeless, but who knows - even a minute could have saved a life, so evidence that a responding officer settled his tab at the doughnut shop before rolling could be critical.

Could there be other conflicts?  George Zimmerman's dad was a retired magistrate somewhere, and may have friends in the Florida justice system.  Yeah, yeah.  I would start with looking at the money.

And lest they have not realized it already - I am sure that most of the folks screaming for an immediate arrest of George Zimmerman on no evidence are well intentioned (despite a hazy grasp of US law, whch likes to see probable cause).  However, Ben Crump very much needs an arrest and, even better, a criminal trial,to advance his eventual civil suit.

The OJ Simpson civil jury famously overcame his criminal acquital and (due to a different jury and a lower burden of proof) found him civily liable for the death of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.  Ben Crump can overcome an eventual acquital, but arguing wrongful death when no one has been arrested probably exceeds even his skills.  IANAL, so I welcome guidance from the ambulance chasers distingished jurists out there.

HEY, SHOULDN'T 'MR. WONDERFUL' KEEP GOING?  Not a bad question...

OK, I can quit anytime, but (2) is a layup:

2. Why did the prosecutor ignore the recommendations of the lead homicide investigator? ABC News reported that Chris Serino, the lead homicide investigator on the Trayvon Martin case, recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on the night of the shooting. Serino filed an affidavit that night stating “he was unconvinced Zimmerman’s version of events.” As the lead homicide investigator, Serino was: 1. In the best position to evaluate Zimmerman’s credibility, and 2. Intimately familiar with Florida law. Why was he ignored?

Really?  First, as noted the person who ignored the recommendation is out and we don't know what will happen next.

Secondly, from my extensive review of Law and Order it is not unusual for investigators to have a gut feel that the suspect is lying and for prosecutors to insist that unless the invvestigators entrails can testify, actual charges and an actual trial require actual evidence.  C'mon, that scene is staged 12 times a day every day on cable.  Is "real life" really that different?  Let's cut back to Ta Nehisi-Coates and his advice from a former homicide prosecutor from Florida:

1.) I don't believe Mr. Zimmerman's story (presuming that what is in the report is truly what he told the police), but more importantly, 

2.) What prosecutors believe is not nearly as important as what they can prove. I can not stress this enough, and my mind is about to explode with all of nonsense being written about what the government can and cannot do. It is up to the government, not anyone else, to prove that Zimmerman is lying.

Third, who knows how the wind was blowing on this case, or an other?  It may be that the lead investigator routinely urges prosecution figuring (a) it won't be his sorry ass in the courtroom with no case, and (b) no one can ever call him 'weak on crime' later, since he wants to try everyone on someone else's dime. 

Or maybe the lead investigator could see pretty quickly that the fecal matter and the whirling fan were colliding on this case, so he went into CYA mode and recommended prosecution based on evidence he couldn't turn up.

Frankly, if I were the prosecutor I would be deeply irked by this back-stabbing and would strongly urge the guy to do his job and develop the case or STFU.  But whatever.  As to the idea that this is an important Unsolved Mystery, well, send better questions.

QUITTING SOON BUT... (3) is not that better question:

3. Why did then-Police Chief Bill Lee make public statements directly contradicting the official recommendations of the police department? On the day the Sanford Police concluded their investigation and handed over the case to the prosecutor, then-Police Chief Bill Lee stated publicly that there was no “probable cause” to arrest or charge Zimmerman. (Lee has subsequently “temporarily” stepped down from his post.) But the Miami Herald reports that on the same day the Sanford Police formally requested that the prosecutor charge Zimmerman, something known as a “capias” request. [ThinkProgress]

We have cites of the chief's thinking in a post below; this is from the Times, March 16:

“The evidence doesn’t establish so far that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense,” Chief Bill Lee of the Sanford police said this week, responding to why Mr. Zimmerman had not been arrested. He said he would welcome a federal investigation. “We don’t have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense at this point.”

Oh, let's proudly show our commitment to recycling!  Here is one of the Sanford investigators, on the record and hinting at dissension back on March 17 in the Orlando Sentinel:

Investigator Chris Serino of Sanford police said Friday the agency has worked closely with prosecutors, and have not arrested Zimmerman because prosecutors have consistently told them they do not have enough evidence to win a manslaughter conviction.

That's because Zimmerman says he was defending himself, something he's allowed to do under Florida law.

On my scorecard I just won 3 and 2, but never having won at match play before, I might be wrong.

NEWTON MAY HAVE BEEN RIGHT ABOUT MOMENTUM:

4. Who leaked Trayvon Martin’s school records? As public outrage increased, Zimmerman’s sympathizers launched a smear campaign against Trayvon Martin. This included details of several occasions where Martin was suspended for minor infractions (defacing a locker, possessing an empty “marijuana baggie.”) None of the information seemed to have any particular relevance to the night Trayvon Martin was shot to death. Was this a ham-handed attempt by the police or the prosecutor to defend their lack of action against Zimmerman?

As to relevance, Zimerman's critics insist he engaged in racial profiling. On the 911 call, he says Martin looked like he was on drugs; a school suspension for drug use might time in to that (a tox screen might be helpful, although I am far from an expert on how accurately those tests determine timing of drug use) and suggest that Zimmerman actually did see someone staggering down the street in a drug-induced haze.

But set that aside - yes, it was a ham-handed attempt to bolster the "Save George (and our jobs)" faction.  No kidding.  So what?  People who thought that the month long campaign to tar Zimmerman and the Sanford PD as racist would go unanswered were probably not thinking.

And why not:

5. Why was Trayvon Martin’s body tagged as a John Doe? The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart notes a police report “that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon’s full name, city of birth, address and phone number.” But yet, Trayvon’s body was reportedly “tagged as a John Doe” and his father wasn’t informed of his death until after he filed a missing person report later on the 27th. Why weren’t Trayvon Martin’s parents contacted immediately after the police confirmed his identity? [Washington Post]

Beats me.  Any guess would be in the "Wild Ass" area.  For example, the cell phone baffles me and everything I have read suggest the police fell down in not locating the girlfriend sooner.  Possible explanations for why it was not used to immediately track down his parents - it was password protected, the battery died, it was set to buzzer and no one heard it ring, space aliens ate it - did I mention that I don't know but would like to?

However, as to the clear fact that Trayvon Martin is IDed in the police report yet (per the Sanford FAQ) the family did not make the ID until "late" the following morning, well, it's puzzling.  Maybe the name was added to the report later - I have no idea if that might be acceptable procedure.

But from a different perspective, what difference does it make in terms of evaluating the case against Zimmerman?  Is the argument that the police might have taken a different approach in the first few hours if they had known that Trayvon Martin belonged in the neighborhood?  What different evidence might that have generated?

The timing of the ID in the report is a puzzle, but if I could rub a magic lantern and get answers to five questions, that would not make the list.

So what would make the list?  Hmm.  I prefer questions that might have a useful answer.  As an example of a bad uestion, was the City of Sanford worried about possible liabilty in a wrongful death suit?  On one level, of course they were.  But no one will ever admit it and there will never be a smoking gun memo ordering the investigators or DA into the tank to save the city's taxpayers, so I wouldn't waste a question on it.

Two obvious ones - what happened with the cell phone that they (apparently) never got ahold of Trayvon Martin's girlfriend?  Letting Ben Crump unveil her after the 911 tapes had been made public was not helpful to the investigation, since the defense will allege that her memory may have been supplemented or complemented by the information from those tapes. She is not as credible a witness as she could have been if the police had gotten a statement from her early on (assuming they didn't).

Second, was George Zimmerman tested for drugs and alcohol? That's an easy yes or no and a reporter could expect an answer.  It would be nice to get the result, too, but I'll settle for knowing the test was done.

I won't waste a question asking whether the police documented his wounds; I assume that if the DA had a report which read that Zimmerman claimed self-defense but had no wounds, this case (and the leaks) would play out differently.  People worried about some conspiracy in which the police, the prosecutor and the defense all know Zimmerman can't prove he had wounds will want to use a question on this.  Same thing with the forensics - if Martin was shot in the back, for example, it would take a notable cover-up for us to be where we are.

Third question - where was the body found (the police report seems clear but confirmation would be useful), where was Zimmerman's vehicle recovered, and what was the walking distance separating them?  This blogger puts the death just to the right of his letter A; that works for me, and I am now waffling about my guess that final spot was a bit more towards the top of the map (I am missing a link to a third blogger who also makes the spot to the right of the A).  That said, I think we differ by a distance of maybe 20-30 yards, which may not mean much.

Fourth question - relating to the possible state of mind of one of the two fight participants and the ability of George Zimmerman to pick out people on drugs or acting oddly - did Trayvon Martin have any drugs or, for example, a half-empty flask of whiskey (some might say half-full) on him?

The NY Timies is unequivocal on this point (my emphasis):

MIAMI — Nearly three weeks after an unarmed teenager was killed in a small city north of Orlando, stirring an outcry, a few indisputable facts remain: the teenager, who was black, was carrying nothing but a bag of Skittles, some money and a can of iced tea when he was shot.

It is indisputable because the family said so; there has been no release of a police inventory from the crime scene.  Nor should there be, since the victim and his family have privacy rights, but this is my magic lantern.  Eventually the tox screen will provide an answer, I assume; the family could no doubt publicize that answer as soon as it is available, and a decision not to do so might be revealing.  Some enterprising reporter willing to deviate from the narrative might want to ask Mr. Crump about that.  As if.

Fifth question - can I ask for more questions?  Ahh, the question genie hates that one.  How about some suggestions?

Trayvon Martin - We Hear From Zimmerman's Father

Jeralyn Merritt recaps the interview of George Zimmerman's father on Fox News.  I want to stare at the map of the neighborhood and rethink his version of Zimmerman's path that night, because it seems off.  I'm rehashing yesterday, but not believing Zimmerman may motivate an investigator but it won't do much for a prosecutor, who needs actual evidence, not suspicion.

I would say the key legal takeaway from the interview is this:

He says he and everyone who knows George knows absolutely it was George crying out for help.

Well, the Martin family says they hear Trayvon as background on the 911 call which included a gunshot.

Trayvon Martin shooting 911 calls Sanford Police to release 911 calls in Trayvon Martin shooting - Orlando Sentinel

If this ever reaches the trial stage, I imagine the defense will offer a parade of Zimmerman friends and relatives claiming they hear George; the prosecutor will offer a similar parade from the Martin side that hears Trayvon.  And given the inclination of humans to hear what they want to hear, I don't allege anyone to be insincere.

Then we may hear from the FBI audio wizards.  On CSI they would crack this easily (as would Abby on NCIS).  But here is Realityville we are hearing background noise on a 911 call, not hi-fi from a sound studio; I presume we lack past tapes of Trayvon screaming in pain, and we aren't likely to have the authorities beat up George Zimmerman and record his anguished cries.

So, how credible will the FBI wizards be?  I would guess "Not very", which means we are back to reasonable doubt, but folks with relevant expertise are urged to chime in.

A renewed investigation may turn up compelling new evidence, but I don't think this 911 call will be it.

AND WHAT ABOUT HIS HEAD "INJURIES"?  I don't know - this tape is hard to argue with, and I don't see any head wounds (at 1:01 and following).  However, one of the police officers does stare at something on the back of his head, and the police report from the scene certainly mentioned blood.

 

Either the cops comenced orchestrating a massive cover-up the night of the incident for reasons which elude the critics even a month later, or that tape is just not clear enough to be conclusive.  As Truthers become Trayvoners, I sense a feast.

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN:  I noted a few days back that (if we reach a trial) the defense will probably attribute any gaps or inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story to head injuries and post-traumatic stress.  Highly plausible, and it may even be true.

WHAT ABOUT THE NEWS THAT THE COPS WANTED A MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE?

The latest headline from the Miami Herald showed dissension in the ranks:

Sanford cops wanted to charge Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin case

Sanford cops asked prosecutors to file charges in the Trayvon Martin case, but the Seminole County State Attorney’s office held off.

Folks who read between the lines might have picked up on that possibility last March 17:

Investigator Chris Serino of Sanford police said Friday the agency has worked closely with prosecutors, and have not arrested Zimmerman because prosecutors have consistently told them they do not have enough evidence to win a manslaughter conviction.

That's because Zimmerman says he was defending himself, something he's allowed to do under Florida law.

More details are always welcome, but this is less newsy than one might first think.  Or at least, the real news is that ranks that were once closed are now dividing as people pick sides and engage in comprehensive CYA.

This is from the latest story:

The development is in stark contrast to the statements repeatedly made by Bill Lee, the Sanford police chief who has since stepped aside and was lambasted for his handling of the case. Lee publicly insisted that there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, leading many critics to say he came across more like a defense attorney for the security buff.

Hmm - here is Lee back when he was still chief, pounding the table for Zimmerman as quoted in the NY Times on March 16:

“The evidence doesn’t establish so far that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense,” Chief Bill Lee of the Sanford police said this week, responding to why Mr. Zimmerman had not been arrested. He said he would welcome a federal investigation. “We don’t have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense at this point.”

Not to be negative, but that is a lot of negatives.  His lack of enthusiasm for the Zimmerman story as displayed here may only be visible in retrospect.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/v-fullstory/2718130/sanford-cops-wanted-to-charge.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/v-fullstory/2718130/sanford-cops-wanted-to-charge.html#storylink=cpy

Call Me Mr. Wonderful

Bill Schmalfeldt of the Baltimore Liberal Examiner gives us some insight into the minds of the critics of the Sanford Police Department investigation into the killing of Trayvon Martin.

In a piece titled "Trayvon Martin Case: Leaked police report raises more questions than it answers", Mr. Schmalfeldt raises eighteen questions about the investigation and delivers this Big Finish:

There.  That is a total of 18 questions that need to be answered. It would be just wonderful if any of the conservative pundits rushing to judgement to blame Trayvon Martin for his own death had an answer to any one of these questions.

Call me Mr. Wonderful!  Or, The Answerman - that works:

3. Since January 1, 2011, Zimmerman had called Sanford cops 46 times to report "suspicious activities." Did the Sanford police have Zimmerman on any kind of "watch"? Did they have a file on him?

I have no idea about a police file; maybe in East Germany.  However, Mr. Zimmerman made those 46 phone calls between Jan 2004 and the present, not Jan 2011.  That misinformation has been widely broadcast but also somewhat widely debunked (by NPR!); the Sanford website has them all, with dates.

One down, seventeen to go.  Mr. Wonderful has time for one more:

8. When the cops arrived on the scene, they took the gun and cuffed Zimmerman. They put him in the back of a police cruiser. The responding officer wrote, "At no time did I question Zimmerman about the incident."  Why not?  Would that not be the job of an officer arriving at the scene of a shooting with the shooter in custody?

No, that would not be standard procedure; link to follow, but standard police practice would be for the escorting officer to listen to spontaneous outbursts and get the perp to the station house; the lead investigator will have more facts, an interview strategy, and recording equipment if desired.  Seriously, does any Law and Order fan think the big interviews are conducted in the back of a squad car by whatever officer was first to the scene?

Two down, sixteen to go. 

As to the remaining questions, I am as puzzled by the handling of the cell phone as anyone, so some of them are vexing.  Others are on the lines of "Is there a forensics report, and if not, why not?"  I assume, perhaps optimistically, that not everything has been leaked.

He closes with a call for a wholesale revision of the American justice system:

But they [these ignorant conservative apologists for Zimmerman] don't. No one does. Not even the conservatives here at The Examiner and elsewhere who write as if they knew for a fact that Trayvon Martin was just another black thug with trouble on his mind who was killed by a righteous guardian of the public safety in the line of duty.

It's nonsense, of course.

And no one will know for sure what happened until there's a proper investigation, arrest, and jury trial of George Zimmerman to determine the fatal sequence of events that took place that rainy evening on Feb. 26, 2012 in a gated community in Sanford, Florida.

Only a trial can establish the facts? What about prosecutorial discretion and innocent until proven guilty?  Is the State of Florida obliged to trample George Zimmerman and bring a case they don't think they can win just to placate Mr. Schmalfeldt?

Mr. Wonderful thinks he knows the answer.

LET'S PLAY 'ASK ME ANOTHER:

7. Much of the conservative "Blame Trayvon" noise includes the "fact" that he had been suspended three times from school over the last year....  But this raises the question, even if Trayvon Martin was the most prolific catburglar in his high school, did George Zimmerman know that, and what does any of this have to do with the shooting?  When he was killed all he had was the aforementioned candy and iced tea.

Well, granting the hypothesis for a moment, George Zimmerman claimed in his 911 call that Martin looked suspicious; maybe he has a flair for picking out the prolific catburglars and was engaging in cat-profiling rather than racial profiling.  That would surely be the defense claim, and I suppose the prosecution would have to insist it was a lucky guess.

I can quit anytime...

4. The recently temporarily self-suspended Sanford Police Chief, Bill Lee, said, "“Until we can establish probable cause to dispute that (Zimmerman acted in self defense), we don’t have the grounds to arrest him.” Why was his claim of self-defense considered sufficient? Why did the chief accept that assertion?

Uhh, it's not what you believe, it's what you can prove? Surely that staple of crime fiction reflects the reality of the prosecutorial process.  By my good luck, here is Ta Nehesi Coates making precisely that point:

The Case to Be Made Against George Zimmerman

It will not be an easy one. I received the following note from a former homicide prosecutor in Florida. He is responding to the latest account given, in which Trayvon Martin, evidently for kicks, decks Zimmerman with one punch and starts ramming his head into the concrete:

A couple of thoughts: 

1.) I don't believe Mr. Zimmerman's story (presuming that what is in the report is truly what he told the police), but more importantly, 

2.) What prosecutors believe is not nearly as important as what they can prove. I can not stress this enough, and my mind is about to explode with all of nonsense being written about what the government can and cannot do. It is up to the government, not anyone else, to prove that Zimmerman is lying.

Ta Nehesi Coates is a liberal and he understands this, so I know it is not hopelessly complicated.

5. We understand why Trayvon's body was checked for drugs or alcohol.  Standard procedure with a DOA with violence. What were the results?

I am sure that "standard procedure" is to respect the privacy of all involved.  However, I am confident the family could obtain and release those results the moment they were available.  One might presume they have their own reasons for keeping those results quiet, but why not ask them?  After all, they did keep his school records quiet until an inappropriate leak scuttled that strategy.

2. Authorities say Zimmerman's account of what happened was corroborated by "several witnesses."  Who are these witnesses?  What did they say?

The witnesses are free to self-identify, but protecting witness privacy is standard procedure; given the New Black Panther bounties and Spike Lee home address tweets, I think we can understand why supportive witnesses are not identifying themselves.

4....Did they take Zimmerman's gun?  Did they give it back if they did? If they did not, where is the gun now?

At some point canwe penalize Bill for failure to do his homework?  From the last page of the police report at the Sanford website:

And maybe they later gave it back - I heard police do that in highly politicized shooting investigations.  No I didn't.

BILL SPEAKS!  I am graced with a response in the comments at his site:

It's an evolving story, Tom. I have neither the time or inclination to go back and rework every story I've written when some new fact is revealed.

My opinion os his credibilty has actually stopped evolving but my advice remains the same.  Do your homework!

AND NOW A TOUGH ONE:  Ok, where is the wound on the back of Zimmerman's head on this ABC News video?  The best view is at the 1:01 mark, and I don't even see anything that looks like a band-aid.

Minimal damage would not have surprised me, especially to the face - normally broken noses and black eyes reach their flowering the next morning, so clean off his face and he might look fine that night. But the cut to the back of the head mentioned in the police report?  Where is that?

Well, unless this is a massive police cover-up with phony reports released to the public, someone saw blood.  Hmm, 'Truthers' become 'Trayvoners'...

Interesting to-and-fro with the police leaks - today, the "Get George" people are dropping their bombs.

On To Supreme Justice!

The traditional ObamaCare Supreme Court open thread.

It's fun watching the lefties get in a twist about the tough questions from the right, but... I worry that Kennedy is just trying to bond with me and reassure me that he "gets it" before going all statist.  We'll find out in June.

Obama's War - Out Of Afghanistan

The NY Times reported a new poll showing fading public support for our undertaking in Afghanistan.

Defense Sec Panetta says he won't be guided by polls.

I think he wil be guided by reality, and reality is, we aren't going to "win" there.  And no, don't vex me by asking for a definition of winning - denying Al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan, thereby forcing them to operate out of Waziristan and Somalia, seems like an odd mix of sensible and stupid.  Hoping for the first strong central Afghan government in half a millenium seems mostly stupid.

When enough Republicans are ready to quit Obama will bail out.  Are we ready?

A MATTER OF POLL DESIGN:  I know poll results can be influenced by the framing of the question, but JOM readers are far too tough minded for my subtle shading to bias the responses here.  So, on Afghanistan should we:

a)  Get out

b) Get the hell out

c) Get the hell out yesterday

d) Remain with thumbs firmly up...

Well, that should be scientific.

LEST YOU QUESTION MY LACK OF COMMITMENT...

Way back in September 2009 I was wondering why we should get behind the escalation of an anti-war President who was committed to delivering theater rather than victory; I made the same point in July 2010:

My official editorial position is that if we had Lincoln in the White House, the Afghani equivalent of George Washington in Kabul, and Generals Marshall and Eisenhower peering at maps of Kandahar, we might still lose in Afghanistan.  Gen. Petraeus is a great general and a great American, but he is not partnered with Lincoln and Washington.

Conversely, we might be lucky enough to win even without a President committed to victory, but I don't think it is worth the chance.  It's too late now, but it would have been better if Obama had never escalated the war.

 

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman Claims Second Victim

Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman has claimed its second victim: in his attempt to rationalize his odd (but fashionable!) sense of justice, Atlantic senior editor Robert Wright has lost his mind.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the facts of the case are basically as Zimmerman's defenders claim: Zimmerman killed Martin because Martin was beating him up and Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. Even so, it seems to me that Zimmerman should do jail time for killing Martin.

Here are some things we know about the case:

1) A man with a gun pursued an unarmed teenager who had done nothing wrong.

I am going to clean up this post and re-present it, but the gist is, Zimmerman's initial and final locations are near the Retreat at Twin Lakes clubhouse; the location consistent with his verbal directions to his parked car was near the final shooting.  So what kind of "pursuit" are we talking about if Zimmerman scarcely moved?

2) The man with the gun initiated a confrontation with the teenager. I realize that we don't know exactly how any fight between Zimmerman and Martin started. And we never will, because only Zimmerman knows the details, and he's not exactly unbiased. But by my lights, if you pursue an innocent, law-abiding citizen, thereby giving him or her reason to believe that you mean them harm -- and reason to conclude that their self-defense may require fighting--you have initiated a confrontation. Zimmerman will presumably depict his role in the encounter as passive. That testimony should count for roughly nothing, but in any event I'd say that even if it's true, he still initiated a confrontation just by pursuing a guy in the dark until he caught up with him.

So Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by walking in the same neighborhod as Trayvon Martin.  There is no serious dispute that Zimmerman had the legal right to an evening stroll in his own neighborhood - the suggestion from the police dispatcher that he not pursue Martin was not some sort of a lawful order he must obey, and in any case, Zimmerman claims to have complied (an assertion backed by the map.)

But enough about Zimmerman; let's talk about me.  I regularly walk in my neighborhood - it is great exercise, and I have the old BP to worry about.  From time to time I find myself (due no doubt to my vigor) overtaking other pedestrians.

I am not a physically daunting specimen but I do give off a certain Eastwood-esque vibe of mystery and danger.  OK, some say it is more of a Sean Connery thing, but Clint works for me, and I digress.  Per the new Wright rules of engagement, if I am overtaking some ardent feminist well versed in the theories of male violence, I have every reason to expect a face full of mace as I approach her, yes?  This is America, I have threatened her by overtaking her, and what should I expect? 

In a different world, I might hope that she would address her fears by running into the street to flag down a car, or calling for help, or dialling 911, or running to a nearby house and pleading for assistance against my imagined depredations but in WrightWorld a face full of mace is her logical response.

Wow.  If you feel threatened, punch back hard!  Is this what Democrats are teaching in diversity training these days? 

More, my emphasis:

Still, do we want to live in a society where somebody with a gun can chase down an unarmed, law-abiding citizen, presumably scaring them to death, then kill them after a fight unsurprisingly breaks out--and still get off scot-free? Do you want every wannabe cop in America reading that this sort of thing is legal? Do you think America's actual cops want to live in a world like that?

Tough questions.  Do we want to live in a world where every pedestrian is maced or shot every time a woman unsurprisingly feels threatened?  Do we want to live in a world where young men are encouraged to beat down anyone that worries them rather than - just thinking out loud here - use their cell phone to call 911, or call their dad and ask him to step out on the porch, or just hoof it in the opposite direction; all these strategies were open to Trayvon Martin and, scared to death though he may have been, he wasn't scared enough to use his cell phone or to stay away from Zimmerman.

And I am only talking about pedestrians; what sort of dystopia would WrightWorld create for joggers?  Is that young guy coming up behind me just getting a bit of cardio, or is launching himself for an assault?  Better hose him down with mace pre-emptively, and deliver a little bootwork to make sure!  Bob Wright can lead the protests on my behalf.

Well - normally Mr. Wright is a sensible if unrelenting lefty.  Perhaps after a moment's reflection he will get over his goal of reenacting the Hunger Games on the mean streets of every city in America and come home to common sense.  And here in CommonSenseville, when a person feels threatened by a stranger fights are still surprising  Why?  Because there are many intermediate steps available to people who feel threatened that are appropriate and even more effective at preventing violence than punching the threat in the face, jumping on top of them and beating their head against the sidewalk.

I am planting my flag on the previously uncontroversial ground that says I can walk my neighborhood and even exchange words with strangers without expecting violence.

CLASSIC SNEER FROM A STATIST:  Yes, I noticed this:

[Zimmerman] knew he was violating the rules of the Neighborhood Watch game...

Yeah, there had been thirteen police incidents in January and February (eight burglaries, two bike thefts and three simple assaults); it would be much less of a game if the elderly Mrs. Wright lived there, but the young Mr. Wright feels safe in a world where, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.  Because he will punch out the lights of anyone who threatens him.  Unsurprisingly.

The Neighborhood Watch game - are we having fun yet?

COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?  What that?  Did I ever think I'd see the day when liberals would be rationalizing this sort of street thuggery?  Well, it's not thuggery if the cause is just, which is why the Occupy violence is rarely reported.  Still, when Mr. Wright discovers that, per his voter registration, George Zimmerman is a Democrat and self-identified Hispanic, I don't want to be his chiropractor (hmm, the risk is whiplash, not spine-stiffening... my Pesci-esque air of mystery is taking over.)

Trayvon Martin - TimesWatch Update

The NY Times lifts their embargo on coverage of the New Black Panther $10,000 bounty on Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman.

A shift to "fair and balanced"?  Well, circumstances made it possible to present the story in a light that is favorable to the Martin family:

Slain Teenager’s Parents Appear on Capitol Hill

The parents of Trayvon Martin called on the public on Tuesday to refrain from violence and from trying to apprehend the man who fatally shot their son last month.

...A lawyer for the family, Benjamin Crump, said relatives “don’t want anyone making an arrest of George Zimmerman,” the man who shot the teenager on Feb. 26, “other than the authorities.” A group called the New Black Panthers has said it will give a $10,000 reward to anyone who captures Mr. Zimmerman, who has been in hiding.

It would have been hard to report on the parents comments without providing a bit more context.  Hence, baby steps!  However, that call for restraint was not quite enough to end their embargo of Spike Lee's retweeting of the wrong address for Zimmerman's home.

ObamaCare Open Thread

I heard something on the radio about Supreme Court hearings today...

Trayvon Martin - Open Thread

Let's move the speculation and rumination to a new thread while I pass this off as an original thought:

From time to time I see lefty commenters offering a variation of "If we can only get Zimmerman inside a courtroom and on the stand, we will rip him apart.  And he can't invoke the Stand Your Ground defense without taking the stand".

Keep hope alive.  But setting aside his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Zimmerman can simply take the stand and explain that, although he cooperated with the police as best he could and made whatever statements he made to them, due to the blows on his head suffered during the scuffle as well as natural post-traumatic stress, his memory of the details of that night is hazy.

Which may leave us with a trial with *zero* witnesses to the outset of the fight between Zimmerman and Martin.  And the defense seems to have witnesses who saw Zimmerman on the bottom getting pummeled during the scuffle.  Zimmerman can't prove Martin started it, but he doesn't need to, and no one living can say he didn't.

Unless the police turn up some heretofore silent but credible witness, we may know about as much as we are going to know, which doesn't look anywhere close to proving that Zimmerman did not act in self defense.

UPDATE:  CNN reports on Joe Oliver, a friend of Zimmerman's:

[Zimmerman is] being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, for depression, for insomnia," Oliver said.

OK.  PTSD it is.

Trayvon Martin - Basic Geography May Cut Against Zimmerman (Or Not - See UPDATE)

[Upon booth review of the Zimmerman call to 911 I am reversing the call on the field.  The initial address offered by Zimmerman does not jibe with the final location he described - see UPDATE].

Bill Jacobson reiterates an important point in assessing the latest details to emerge on the Trayvon Martin shooting:

What was the geography?  Is there evidence Zimmerman continued to chase Martin after the 911 operator said it was not needed?  Was the shooting in a place where Zimmerman may have run into Martin while Zimmerman was heading towards a place he could be seen by police, or was the location indicative of Zimmerman still chasing Martin?

There is enough information in the Sanford PD police reports to take a stab at that.

The initial police call-out was to 1111 Retreat View Circle (addresses were dropped from the recorded 911 calls released to the public but are in the text of the reports - go figure.)

However, the responding officers redirect to 2821 Retreat View Circle and 1231 Twin Trees Lane in response to gunhots.  Eventually the body is found on the walkway between those two addresses.

Let's go to Google Maps for an aerial view.  1111 Retreat View Circle is marked as A; 2821 Retreat View Circle, reportedly a quarter mile away, is B; 1231 Twin Trees Lane is C.  The walkway is clearly visible to me, although Google Maps drew blue lines to guide a car.

 [LATE UPDATE: I have since learned that 1111 Retreat View Circle is the address for the clubhouse at the corner of Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees Lane.  Consequently, George Zimmerman may have been near the clubhouse on either street.]

For a higher perspective, here we go:

 

If every picture tell a story, what are we being told here?  First, was 1111 Retreat View Circle Zimmerman's correct address when he parked his car?  The police surely noted the address of the parked vehicle.

Secondly, assuming that the 1111 Retreat View Circle address is the appropriate starting point [a point I now question  - see UPDATE], a quarter mile is a four or five minute walk; based on the timing (and I will need to re-listen to the 911 calls), Zimmerman had gone a lot farther than he needed to go to check his address for the dispatcher (which was an earlier reported explanation).

In fact, if the first call-in was at precisely 7:11 (not, for example, 7:11:45) and the final gunshot was at 7:17, there is not much time for Zimmerman to have walked to the area of 2821 Retreat View Circle, turned back to his car, been confronted by Trayvon Martin, and scuffled for roughly a minute (the fatal gunshot is at the 41 second mark of one woman's 911 call; presumably she took a few seconds to recognize two men quarreling, find the phone and dial.)

Hmm.  The map tilts toward Trayvon, I would say - based on the assumption that 1111 Retreat View Circle is the starting point, Zimmerman followed on foot for roughly a quarter mile.

Let's reprise the latest detailed version:

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

In a similar earlier telling, Zimmerman reportedly claimed he stepped out of the car to doublecheck his address:

Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

That's a long walk to check an address.

However, one wonders - if Travon Martin came come through the gate (between A and B) fro the 7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd. and headed towards B, either Zimmerman parked in an odd place or had moved up towards the gate subsequently.

And do keep in mind - self-important cranks have rights in this free country, including the right to walk their own neighborhood (and run blogs...).  The police dispatcher urged Zimmerman to wait in his car for the responding officers but the PD considers that to be a suggestion rather than a lawful order.

INCLUDING THE 7-ELEVEN:

If in fact Trayvon Martin went to the nearest 7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd, about 0.7 miles away (and not a closer "convenience store"), here is the aerial view of a driver's route.

It was reported that Trayvon had visited the neighborhood several times and would play football with the local kids, but would he know the back route to the 7-Eleven?  If not, the logical gate into the Retreat at Twin Lakes would be the one off of Oregon Ave, as shown above.

 

UPDATE:  Here is a transcript of the 911 call by Zimmerman, which concludes with this attempt to pinpoint his location for the responding officers [Keep in mind while reading this that the intial address, 1111 Retreat View Circle, was the address of the clubhouse]:

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible] Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of? Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

Well, now.  Straight past the clubhouse and turn left, then stop at the cut through - that is right near Point C.

His earlier attempt has a timeless "Who's on first" quality but seems to lead to the same place:

Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.

Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?

Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit he's running.

Shit, indeed.  Boots on the ground with a transcript in hand could resolve this.

CONCLUDING THOUGHT:  Based on the complete transcript of the Zimmerman call and guided by the thought that his initial location was near the clubhouse, Zimmerman has scarcely moved by the time he gives his final location.  So when and where was the dramatic chase to whch our friends on the left refer?

TRANSCRIPT:  Here is the Zimmerman 911 call for posterity:

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...

Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black. Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...

Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...

Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.

Dispatcher: OK... Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.

Dispatcher: OK--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?

Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...

Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the--he's near the clubhouse right now?

Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.

Dispatcher: OK.

Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.

Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?

Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens. Dispatcher: Late teens ok.

Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok

Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?

Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.

Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?

Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit he's running.

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance...fucking [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok

Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?

Zimmerman: George...He ran.

Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?

Zimmerman: Zimmerman

Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?

Zimmerman: [redacted by Mother Jones] Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there? Zimmerman: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area? Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible] Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?

Zimmerman: It's a home it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?

Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine.

Dispatcher: Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?

Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.

Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?

Dispatcher: Yeah I got it [redacted by Mother Jones]

Zimmerman: Yeah you got it.

Dispatcher: Okay no problem, I'll let them know to call you when you're in the area.

Zimmerman: Thanks.

Dispatcher: You're welcome

Trayvon Martin - Why The Ten Day Suspension?

[OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS - SEE UPDATE... and UPDATE II.  and UPDATE III]

Trayvon Martin was up in Sanford, FL on a school night instead of back in Miami because he was on a ten day suspension from school.  Ten days suspensions don't include a death penalty, but one might wonder what, if anything, his suspension indicates about his temperment and inclination to initiate a scuffle.

As to what we know, not much - his school records are sealed and the family is not releasing them.  However, we have seen this:

Still, Trayvon had nonviolent behavioral issues in school, and on the day he was killed, he had been suspended for 10 days from Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade.

“He was not suspended for something dealing with violence or anything like that. It wasn’t a crime he committed, but he was in an unauthorized area [on school property],” Martin said, declining to offer more details.

The high school is considered a magnet school due to its programs in the visual and performing arts.  The student handbook includes disciplinary violations and punishments.

Basically, a Level I violation is punished with a choice from Plan I; Level II violations with Plan II, and so on up to Level V / Plan V.  In addition, repeated violations at one level can result in a penalty from a higher level (violate the dress code often enough and you're out!).

However, the father seems to be saying that Trayvon Martin was on a ten-day suspension for a one-time offense.  That means he committed a Level III, IV, or V violation.

I am ruling out Level V, which looks like pretty extreme behavior:

Most Serious, Dangerous or Violent Behaviors
• Aggravated assault
• Aggravated battery
• Armed robbery
• Arson
• Assault/Threat against M-DCPS employees or persons
conducting official business
• Battery or Aggravated battery against M-DCPS employees
or persons conducting official business*
• Homicide
• Kidnapping/Abduction
• Making a false report/threat against the school*
• Sexual battery
• Possession, use, sale, or distribution of firearms, explosives,
destructive devices, and other weapons.*

Plan V penalties are a ten day suspension, recommendation for expulsion and a police report.  I don't see any way that fits this story.

Level III, on the other hand, overlaps well with the father's description:

Offensive/Harmful Behaviors
• Assault/Threat against a non-staff member
• Breaking and Entering/Burglary
• Bullying (repeated harassment)*
• Disruption on campus/Disorderly conduct
• Fighting (serious)
• Harassment (Civil Rights)**
• Hazing (misdemeanor)
• Possession or use of alcohol and/or controlled
substances
• Possession of simulated weapons
• Sexual harassment**
• Trespassing
• Vandalism (major)

Per the father, Trayvon "was in an unauthorized area".  That is either trespassing or B&E.  Level III penalties cover a range, and do require a police report:

• Parent/guardian contact***
• Suspension from school for one to ten days****
• Permanent removal from class (Placement Review
Committee decision required)
• Diversion Center
• Recommendation for alternative educational setting
• Recommendation for expulsion

The ten day suspension was the maximum; as to whether he received a max punishment in terms of recommended expulsion, your guess is as good as mine, or better.

As I said, no death penalty is included.  And although having a sense of his temperment might make some scenarios seem more plausible than others it would prove nothing whatsoever about how the scuffle between Martin and Zimmerman actually developed. And on the subject of temperment, let's add that Zimmerman had a domestic violence situation with his spouse ending in mutual restraining orders, and an assault charge on a cop that was dropped after he took what sounds like an anger management class.  That was all seven or eight years ago and he is now 28, but who's the hothead?

That said, Zimmerman's claim on his 911 call was that Martin looked suspicious; his updated defense will be along the lines of "the guy who was busted for trespassing or breaking and entering looked to me like a guy who would trespass or break and enter".  Zimmerman's detractors will talk about lucky guesses and stopped clocks.

All inconclusive.  I waste my time so you don't have to.

SINCE IT'S ALL ABOUT RACE: 

Dr. Michael M. Krop HS is 41% Hispanic, 29% White non-Hispanic, 28% Black, and 0.1% Asian.

Is that White Hispanic, the new category created for George Zimmerman, or non-white Hispanic?  Beats me.

UPDATE:  The Sanford PD seems to think that pushback will calm the situation, or maybe save some jobs.  They are now leaking like a sieve to the Orlando Sentinel.  The suspension is a sidebar to the headline, but here we go:

Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

So the father misrepresented the nature of the suspension. 

As to the headline:

Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but that night, Feb. 26, and in later meetings he described and re-enacted for police what he says happened.

In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Zimmerman seems to be the only living witness to the initiation of the fight.  However, "John" described Trayvon on top beating Zimmerman, who was calling for help, in a Feb 27 Fox 35 Orlando story discussed here.

Well - now we have a clear idea of Zimmerman's story, and we are sure the police have at least one witness to support part of it.

Zimmerman's critics will say that his version does not square with the version offered by Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him at about the time the incident ocurred.  I described a bit of my skepticism about the dramatic emergence of this new witness in this post:

So how can it be that Trayvon's girlfriend went undiscovered for three weeks, only to be conveniently found by the Martins' attorney *after* the 911 tapes were released?

...

The police should have gotten her statement before the tapes were out.  The Martin family attorneys are officers of the court in addition to being advocates for the family, but I know what I would tell my client before I deposed her in a case like this, especially with the 911 tapes at hand.  Well, if I were a lawyer and had clients...

In any case, the attorney's story is that the girl was freaking out for three weeks but no one knew she had been talking with Trayvon moments before he was shot until Trayvon's dad leafed through his cell phone records.  Yeah - the young lady never blurted out "OMG! I was talking to him just before he was killed!" to her mother or anyone else.  

She will be speaking with the grand jury if the case gets that far (the latest Sentinel story says it may not), so they can see for themselves.

UPDATE II:  Now the AP is out with a statement from the family:

Family: Pot Linked to Trayvon Martin Suspension

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM ET

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — An unarmed Florida teenager fatally shot by a neighborhood watch volunteer was suspended from school because traces of marijuana were found in his book bag, a spokesman for the teen's family said Monday.

Trayvon Martin, 17, was suspended by Miami-Dade County schools after the residue was discovered in a plastic baggie in the book bag, spokesman Ryan Julison said. Martin was shot Feb. 26 by George Zimmerman while he was suspended from school and visiting this central Florida town with his father.

"We maintain that regardless of the specific reason for the suspension, it's got nothing to do with the events that unfolded on Feb. 26," Julison said.

Also Monday, state Department of Juvenile Justice confirmed that Martin does not have a juvenile offender record. The information came after a public records request by The Associated Press.

His possible drug use has nothing to do with this except Zimmerman told the cops on his 911 call that he thought Trayvon Martin looked high and now we learn that, like many other high school kids, he enjoys a bit of weed.  Did the cops recover drugs at the scene, or could they have been lost in the scuffle?  Was a tox screen part of the autopsy?  Do some people get paranoid while high (I did, or at least, that's what the voices told me...)?  Could Trayvon Martin have been worried that Zimmerman was trying to steal his stash (the existence of which is speculative)?  Zimmerman's defense attorney should be able to feast on this and raise all sorts of questions and reasonable doubts, as the prosecutor well knows.

Well - this is a bit of a blow to the liberal narrative, but there is no death penalty for enjoying marijuana.

UPDATE III:  The Florida Empire strikes back - the Miami Herald got some police reports on Trayvon Martin - the February suspension was for marijuana, as noted above; the previously unreported October suspension was formally for graffiti, but Martin was found in possession of womens jewelry of dubious provenance and a screwdriver described as a "burgalry tool" (although sometimes a screwdriver is just a screwdriver). They note the nuance:

Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin

Pushback leaks from police in Miami and Sanford.  Let's include this look at the Martin family attorney, Ben Crump, an Al Sharpton wanna-be who has racked up some important wins.

FWIW:  On the Sanford Initial Police Report (Not the coroner's report) Trayvon Martin is listed as 6' 0" and 160 lbs.  My guess is that they were just guessing, and even people with experience often over-estimate the weight of the preternaturally slim (I speak from experience at county fairs.)

Trayvon Martin - TimesWatch

The New Black Panthers has offered a $10,000 reward for the capture, "Dead or Alive", of George Zimmerman.

Controversial?  Yes.  But I infer from the empty Times search results that the New Black Panthers don't qualify as All The News That Fits The Narrative.

ObamaCare Open Thread

This is the week we hear the pros and cons of allowing the government to force me to buy broccoli.  The Heritage Foundation preps us.

Sanford And Signs

Let's draw on the power of Google Maps to drop in on the Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford Florida, made infamous by the Trayvon Martin shooting.

First, a view of the gates to this gated community.

I see a tollbooth style automobile barrier in the foreground and actual gates, open here, in the background.  As to how buttoned down this neighborhood is, who can tell?  Presumably the gate is operated by a passcard, since (I have read) there are no humans in attendance.

For this second shot we rotate about 70 degrees to the left of our current perspective and look down Oregon Ave.

I note the brick wall and the townhouses; the sign says "Models from the $120s", so if Thurston Howell II is living here he is rubbing elbows with some 99 percenters.

Let's close with an aerial shot.  Lots of townhouses.  The gate shown above was from Oregon Ave at point B at the top of this pic.

There are lots pass-throughs between the townhouses, so a pedestrian familiar with the area (not Trayvon, regretably) could easily elude a driver in a car.  On the other hand a pedestrian who knew where he was going (Zimmerman) might easily overtake Martin.

Final stray thought - some news accounts say Trayvon Martin had stepped out to a 7-11; most go with "convenience store".

Back "convenience store" - the nearest 7-11s are three miles away, if we can trust Google.  [UPDATE - we can't.]

UPDATE:  With boots on the ground and a boost from Rick Ballard, I learn that there is a 7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd; the 7-Eleven store locator confirms this but Google is obdurate. The distance is roughly 3/4 of a mile.

LOTS MORE:  Narcisco contributes this fascinating backgrounder from the Tampa Bay Times. Due to the real estate slump it was a neighborhood in turmoil, with lots of renters and empty units.  I will highlight this:

For the first two months of this year, at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the Sanford police logged 51 calls for service. Half were just people requesting information. The others included eight burglaries, two bike thefts and three simple assaults.

Thirteen incidents in two months.

The Tampa Bay Times takes the approach we have seen adopted by the Times - there is no mention of Zimmerman's bloody nose or cut to the back of his head.  Lots of rumination about how children can avoid "looking suspicious", but no advice along the lines of "don't punch strangers in the nose".  Flight trumps fight, as one mother notes:

For her son's whole life, Brown said, she has told him: If someone's chasing you, run. "What if it's a kidnapper? Or someone trying to beat or rob you?" she asked.

She stopped walking the dog and shook her head. "But if he runs, does that make him even more suspicious?" Brown wiped her eyes. "What makes someone suspicious? That's what worries me the most."

 

 

I Smell A Rat, Or Trouble, Or Something Other Than Gasoline

I posted on the story of the 13 year old Kansas City boy set on fire by two black teens when it got some attention a few weeks ago.  I believed that since the story didn't fit the "privileged whites / oppressed black" narrative sought by the Elite Media it would be buried. 

However, I did include this:

JUST WHAT IS THE ALLEGATION?  I question this headline in The Root:  

Black Teens Allegedly Light White Teen on Fire

I understand that news outlets employ an abundance of caution when naming names, but no suspects have been identified.  Is there serious doubt as to whether (a) the victim was white, or (b) his assailants were black, or (c) he was set on fire?

OK, maybe there is some doubt.  Team Root will look like geniuses if this kid was really burned in a meth lab explosion in his basement.

Several weeks have gone by and the story has disappeared, not just from the national media but from the local Kansas City news outlets.  The national media I can rationalize, but the local news?

Which leads me to focus on this puzzling paragraph in this story:

Kansas City, Missouri Police wouldn’t speak on camera about the incident on Tuesday. Though, did tell 41 Action News, that after several interviews with the boy, they don’t believe the incident needs to be investigated as a hate crime.

The boy’s family disagrees.

I don't think the cops are looking for a meth lab but I wonder whether they are looking for anyone at all.  The cops won't go on camera, they don't think its a hate crime, the local outlets have dropped it - one logical explanation is that the kid's story doesn't hang together.

And a bonus baffler - the news video clearly shows the gasoline can allegedly used by the assailants still sitting next to the porch a day later.  Unless the news crew is engaging in creative reenactment, what kind of police investigation is that?  Surely even the Sanford PD would have wanted the gas container as evidence.

Well - maybe a thirteeen year old was playing with gas, lit himself up and lied to the cops and his parents.  In that scenario, letting it slide may be best for everyone.

Perhaps somewhere in the blogosphere are people who actually know some Kansas City cops who can shed some light on this.  As a proud member of the VRWC, we don't want to be Duke lacrosse/faculty dupes on this.  And if I have to salute Team Root, well - I have found a place for crow in my low-carb diet before.

IF THIS DOG'S NOT BARKING MAYBE THAT DOG WON'T HUNT:  Rush Limbaugh worked in Kansas City and presumably has some contacts there.  Can some regular listeners tell us whether he has been pushing this story?  I am coming up empty in his archives.

OK, So He Can't Throw A Football...

Ross Douthat is very interesting on Tim Tebow in Sodom.  Or Gomorrah:

Tebow in Babylon

By ROSS DOUTHAT

THE Prophet Jonah was sent to Nineveh. St. Paul was sent to Athens, Macedonia, Rome. And now Tim Tebow has been sent to New York City.

There was a moment last week when it looked as if the trade shipping Tebow from the Denver Broncos to the New York Jets might somehow fall through — that Tebow might end up a Jacksonville Jaguar instead, with a guaranteed starting job, a heavily evangelical fan base, and none of the insanity involved in eclipsing Jeremy Lin as the most famous Christian athlete in Babylon-upon-the-Hudson.

O ye of little faith. Did you think that the Lord God of Hosts, having raised Tebow up as a Gideon of the gridiron, would pass up the opportunity to put his faithful servant to the test? Did you think that the angelic screenwriters responsible for scripting last year’s succession of Tebow-related improbabilities had nodded off after the Broncos were dispatched in the A.F.C. playoffs? Did you think that the archons and demiurges who preside over America’s culture war would be content to let Tebow fade into obscurity — some red-state-friendly endorsement deals, a few 6-10 finishes, and then early retirement and a lifetime of under-the-radar charity work?

And yes, this may be a storybook:

Nothing discredits religion quite like the gap that often yawns between what believers profess and how they live. With Tebow, that gap seems so narrow as to be invisible. (“There’s not an ounce of artifice or phoniness or Hollywood in this kid Tebow,” ESPN’s Rick Reilly wrote last year of the quarterback’s charitable works, “and I’ve looked everywhere for it.”) He fascinates, in part, because he behaves — at least in public, and at least for now — the way one would expect more Christians to behave if their faith were really true.

But the fascination doesn’t end there. Tebow’s religion doesn’t just promise a path to personal transformation. It claims that every human life is actually a story with an Author, and that a genuinely Christian life should make that divine Authorship manifest.

So in Tebow’s case, the link between faith and football can’t actually be broken. The more that his professional career seems like, well, a storybook — with exciting up and downs, new opportunities and unexpected twists — the more credible his faith in providence becomes.

Note that “a storybook” is not the same as “an inevitable success.” In Christian theology as in young-adult fiction, even the author’s most beloved characters can suffer pain, temptation, failure, exile. The lives of the saints often end in martyrdom. The gentle, brutalized Peeta Mellark is as much the hero of “The Hunger Games” as the indomitable Katniss Everdeen.

So even the most pious of Jets fans shouldn’t expect a Super Bowl title. But if their new quarterback’s story really has an Author, they’re in for a pretty interesting ride.

The Rick Reilly column is well worth reading, as is this Huffington Post piece on Tebow's predilection for dating ten year olds.  And sixteen year olds - c'mon!

A lot of New York writers will dedicate their lives to finding Tebow's feet of clay, but Derek and Mariano have managed a career's worth of exemplary behavior without letting their fans down.

Trayvon Martin - Baby Face

Charles Blow is back to Twitter on Trayvon Martin:

And for all the ppl who say the pics we've seen of #Trayvon are old: wrong! I saw picks taken 2 weeks before shooting. He has a baby face.

Can't trust those skeptics!  But can we trust anonymous websites that post purported pics of Trayvon "Slim" Martin?  Make the call!

Is that the cutest little baby face?  One might well ask, who cares?  Is looking like an adult now grounds for death?  Still, I think the elite media has been having their fun printing mug shots of George Zimmerman and three year old photos of the victim.

If Mr. Blow wants to impugn the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy he ought to put up or shut up.

Trayvon Martin - Everything Old Is New Again

The Mail Online, all the way from the UK, interrpupts the narrative to "break" some Trayvon Martin news:

Now witness claims TRAYVON attacked Zimmerman: Anonymous onlooker told  police neighbourhood watch captain was provoked... 

Trayvon Martin may have attacked a Neighborhood Watch captain before the man shot dead the unarmed teen in a gated community in Florida, an anonymous witness who spoke to police claimed yesterday.

The witness, known only as John, told Sanford police that he saw Martin on top of George Zimmerman shortly before the fatal shot that has led to a national outcry, including a huge 'hoodie' march in Philadelphia last night. He recounted the details to Fox 35 News in Florida.

The idea that the Sanford police actually had witnesses supporting Zimmerman's self-defense story will only come as news to a certain type of observer. But I bet we can find them!  Let's cut to Jesse Singal of the Washington Monthly:

Welcome to Phase 2 of the Trayvon Martin Debacle

By Jesse Singal

Well something like this was inevitable, I suppose, and it isn’t hard to anticipate the reaction from the usual suspects...

Or Joe Gandelman of the Moderate Yet Reliably Left-Leaning Voice:   

New Trayvon Martin Twist: Anonymous Witness Reportedly Tells Police Martin Attacked Zimmerman

...So it’ll be interesting to see if suddenly — as a further sign of just how everything in American politics must devolve into a partisan and ideological struggle — conservative website suddenly pick up this new twist in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. As of this writing none of the news sites (Fox News, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC and BBC) are reporting this story. A witness has reportedly come forward and told police that Martin provoked neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman...

For heaven's sake - other than their addition of the legally critical "attacked", the Mail is recycling almost verbatim a Fox 35 Orlando story from Feb 27, 2012, the Monday after the shooting before the narrative had been agreed by the Elite Media.  This is neither a new twist, a late-emerging witness, or "Phase II", unless Phase II represents a quest for information rather than validation of the current narrative adopted by the left.

The witness in question is almost surely on the second 911 call from the Sanford PD website; his account is inconclusive on the phone since Martin is dead by the time he gets on the line.

But while we're here lets bring in another new witness with another new twist to spare our friends on the left from any surprises - 13 year old dogwalker Austin McLendon was originally reported as having seen Zimmerman on the ground:

Zimmerman told police he acted in self-defense. Police found blood on his face and the back of his head as well as grass on the back of his shirt.

That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old Austin stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.

"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "

It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.

The boy said he is not sure who called for help. After a moment, his dog escaped, and he turned to catch it and a few seconds later heard a gunshot, he said.

"When I heard the shot, the screaming stopped," he said.

He then rushed inside and told his sister to call police.

He and his sister are also on the 911 calls; I forget which number, and it was inconclusive.  Eventually, he backed away from his story as new information emerged.

Trayvon Martin - Grist For The Mill

The Sanford PD has put up a web page on the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Incuded is a listing of each 911 call made by George Zimmerman.

Let's break some news - first, he made forty-six 911 calls between 2004 and the present, not, as widely reported, in the past fourteen months.

And more news, of the "hmm" type - check out the 911 call from February 2, 2012, 3 1/2 weeks before the deadly Trayvon / Zimmerman incident (p. 45).

Zimmerman reports a suspicious black male "going back to" a specific address on Retreat View Circle.  Eventually the police arrive and confirm the property is secure but... "the BM in quetion was GOA".  Which sure beats DOA, but it times in nicely to the subsequent Tryvon Martin 911 call made by Zimmerman in which he notes that "these a**holes always get away". Well - reading the recent burglary reports for the Twin Lakes Retreat gives a hint as to why Mr. Zimmerman was troubled by strange young black men.

More headscratching from the FAQs provided by the City Manager:

Why was George Zimmerman labeled as “squeaky clean” when in fact he has
a prior arrest history?

In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to
him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the
investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be “squeaky clean”. We
are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this
event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information.

Careful readers of the Times picked up on the detail that the police were just passing along Zimmerman's self-characterization:

Frustration also grew after the parents said they had been told by detectives that Mr. Zimmerman had a “squeaky clean” record. They knew this, the detectives said, because Mr. Zimmerman told them.

However, one wonders what the City Manager means by "We are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this event."  Isn't the second individual Trayvon Martin, and what (if anything) do they know that the public does not?

It has been reported that Trayvon Martin was on a ten-day suspension from school, but those records have been kept from the public.  I have not checked Mr. Martin's high school, but as a guide, some other Miami high school imposes ten day suspensions for fighting, but also as a culmination of repeated violations of the dress code or smoking bans.  The police know, but we don't, and the Martin family attorneys are keeping a lid on this.

ERRATA: We have a non-mug shot of a smiling George Zimmerman and a more contemporaneous photo of Trayvon "Slim" Martin.  Per the police report, Trayvon Martin was 6'0" and 160 lbs; when I was 6' and 160 back in college people went with "skinny", but I preferred "lean", "lithe", or "slender".  Well, it's not all about me.  Speaking of which...

SEGUE:  Yesterday I noted Obama's remarks and offered that our President was not speaking stupidly.  Upon booth review, I beg to differ.  Here are his remarks:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the Attorney General reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.

But obviously, this is a tragedy.  I can only imagine what these parents are going through.  And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.  And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together -- federal, state and local -- to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.

So I'm glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what's taking place.  I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen.  And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.

But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin.  If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.  And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we're going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

The soundbites lost the nuance nd focused on the "main message":

NY Times:

A Personal Note as Obama Speaks on Death of Boy

By JACKIE CALMES and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON — President Obama did not mention race even as he addressed it on Friday, instead letting his person and his words say it all: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Politico:

Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'

Hmm.  Newt Gingrich fired back with this:

Newt Gingrich called Obama's remarks about Trayvon Martin "disgraceful" in an interview with Sean Hannity, according to CBS/National Journal.

“It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background," Gingrich said. "Is the President suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?"

To take Newt first, no, the President is not saying, in either his full remarks or the headlined excerpts, that it would be OK to shoot a white kid.

But just what is he saying?  First, why is it always about Obama and his exotic parentage? 

Second, is he suggesting that he would care less is the victim were white?  The headline says yes, but the intital effort - "And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids" - is race-neutral.

Third, is he suggesting to the Martin family they they can trust the Federal investigation because we have a black President and a black AG?  Is that really the way to bring people together?  Enough about Obama - let's get back to me.  I am neither black nor reassured by his hint of race-based justice.

The evidence that the President misspoke is obvious from the NY Times cover-up (my emphasis):

WASHINGTON — President Obama did not mention race even as he addressed it on Friday, instead letting his person and his words say it all: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

He did not mention race yet his words did?  How does that work?

Weighing in for the first time on the death of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager shot and killed a month ago in Florida by a neighborhood watch volunteer, Mr. Obama in powerfully personal terms deplored the “tragedy” and, as a parent, expressed sympathy for the boy’s mother and father.

Sorry, he was a parent with the first pass and a black man the second.

While speaking movingly from his perspective as the father of two girls, one a teenager, Mr. Obama notably made no reference to the racial context that has made the killing of Trayvon and the gunman’s claim of self-defense a rallying point for African-Americans. Since Mr. Obama first began campaigning to be “president of all the people,” as his advisers would put it when pressed on racial issues, he has been generally reluctant to talk about race.

Well, he introduced it here. Or (and this is too weird) does the Times only hear dog whistles directed at the right?  Rather than fully insult our intelligence, the Times buries this later in the story:

Boyce D. Watkins, a Syracuse University professor and the founder of the Your Black World coalition, said Friday in a Twitter message, “If Trayvon’s mother were white, would Obama give her a call?”

Dr. Watkins, in an interview, called Mr. Obama’s statement “a step in the right direction,” but added that the president could “squash a great deal of the criticism” with a call to the parents. And while applauding Mr. Obama’s comment that his own son would look like Trayvon, Dr. Watkins said the president’s remarks were characteristic of how Mr. Obama talks to black people.

“That’s what I would refer to as a standard political smoke signal that President Obama sends through the back door to the black community,” Dr. Watkins said. “He communicates to the black community in code language. That’s a subtle way of saying, ‘I know this kid is black.’ ”

I guess we could argue about how subtle it is.

Here is classic Times reporting:

Until Friday, Mr. Obama had refrained from commenting on the death of Trayvon, 17, a high school student who was killed on the night of Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., near Orlando. George Zimmerman, 28, the neighborhood watch volunteer, said he fired at Trayvon in self-defense, although there is no apparent evidence that the teenager, who held only a bag of Skittles candy and an iced tea, was doing anything wrong.

No apparent evidence?  Zimmerman had a cut on the back of his head, a bloody nose, and grass stains on his back.  Some (presumably disputed) witness accounts say that Trayvon Martin was on top and beating him.

There may not be conclusive evidence, since we don't know what precipitated the scuffle, and there may not be evidence that Trayvon Martin was doing something wrong when Zimmerman first called 911 to report suspicious behavior but to say there is "no apparent evidence" that Zimmerman fired in self-defense is the quality of reporting we have come to expect from the Duke Lacrosse cheerleaders.  All The News That Advances The Narrative.

Obama On Trayvon Martin

I don't have the full transcript but our President didn't speak stupidly.

In a related story about neighborhood watches, the AP incites me with this:

Violent incidents involving neighborhood watch volunteers are rare but not unheard of. In 2009, two armed neighborhood watch volunteers in Bluffdale, Utah, got into a dispute; one took out his gun and shot the other, paralyzing him.

Those daffy neighborhod watch vigilantes!  Somewhat more contemporaneously, I am surprised the AP ignored this story from January of this year - for reasons I can't fathom, CNN posted news of the subsequent arrest as a related story on an article about Trayvon Martin, which is how I heard about it; here is what the AP missed:

Wednesday started like any other school day for Harry "Mike" Ainsworth. He dropped his two boys at their Algiers Point bus stop around 7 a.m., gave them a warm goodbye and began to walk back home. But the morning turned tragic when Ainsworth was shot to death after he jumped on the hood of car to try to stop a carjacking in the 500 block of Vallette Street.

Ainsworth's sons, ages 9 and 10, heard the gunshots and saw their father stumble to a nearby lawn and collapse, according to Bill Ainsworth, the victim's brother. The boys rushed to their father's side, only to watch him take his final breath.

Meanwhile, the gunman ran from the scene. He remained at large Wednesday night.

Police described the suspect as 5-foot-6 to 5-foot-8 and 140 to 150 pounds. He wore a black hat during the shooting, but police provided no additional information about his clothing.

...

Police said the incident began when the shooter walked up to a woman who was sitting in a gray Saturn preparing to leave for work. The man knocked on the window and asked for the time. When she turned, the man pulled out a black handgun and demanded she get out of the vehicle. She did, and the gunman got in and closed the door.

When Ainsworth saw what was happening, he jumped on the car's hood. The gunman then shot Ainsworth and abandoned the vehicle. Witnesses told investigators the suspect was seen running toward Opelousas Avenue, said homicide commander Lt. Gary Marchese.

Since the woman was reportedly out of the car and (probably) out of harm's way, I question Ainsworth's decision making here.  

Ainsworth, a 44-year-old contractor, spent much of his free time volunteering for police causes, his brother said. He was a member of COPS 8 -- Citizens' Organization for Police Support -- a group that raises money and provides supplies to the NOPD's 8th District, which patrols the Central Business District, French Quarter and Faubourg Marigny. In October 2010, he founded a separate police-support group to help individual officers in need of assistance, Bill Ainsworth said.

"He was a Christian. He helped people," Ainsworth said of his brother. "He tried to make the city a better place. That was his main drive."

That Mike Ainsworth died trying to prevent a crime came as no surprise to those who knew him.

"This was far from the first time he's done it," Bill Ainsworth said. "Anything at all, people starting to get in a ruckus, he would go there and break it up."

COPS 8 is more of a fund-raising effort, but there is also an Algiers Point Neighborhood Watch; I saw a story mentioning he was a member, which seems likely in any case.  Which should have been good enough for the AP, except that for obvious reasons there is no news value in the Ainsworth killing.  The Trayvon Martin killing illustrates the ongoing institutional and individual racism that is central to the liberal view of America so it generates a national conversation and Presidential rumination.  A black kid shoots a middle aged white father in New Orleans and there are no broader lessons.

AND ONE MORE THING:  I have read that the police were in possession of Trayvon Martin's cell phone.  Even if it is password protected, it can't take three weeks to get a warrant and have the phone cracked by the phone company, or to get the phone records.  So how can it be that Trayvon's girlfried went undiscovered for three weeks, only to be conveniently found by the Martin's attorney *after* the 911 tapes were released?

[Martin family attorney] Crump said Martin got off the phone with the girl for a few minutes because it started to rain and he was running to get under shelter.

The two reconnected via cellphone for the last time at 7:12 p.m. for four minutes. Police say they arrived at the scene at 7:17 to find Martin dead, Crump said.

The girl told Crump that Martin told her he was being followed and that she had encouraged him to run.

"She knew details about what went on because he was telling her," Crump said.

He said the girl heard the initial confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman.

"Trayvon said, 'Why you following me, man?'" and Zimmerman said, 'What are you doing here?'" Crump said.

He said the girl could tell by Martin's voice that he was then pushed. She thinks Martin's cellphone headset came off and then the call was disconnected, Crump said.

He said that when she called back, the girl did not get an answer and knew nothing else until she heard of her friend's killing on the news.

The girl was so traumatized after learning what happened that she was unable to attend Martin's wake and had to be hospitalized, Crump said.

The police should have gotten her statement before the tapes were out.  The Martin family attorneys are officers of the court in addition to being advocates for the family, but I know what I would tell my client before I deposed her in a case like this, especially with the 911 tapes at hand.  Well, if I were a lawyer and had clients...

In any case, the attorney's story is that the girl was freaking out for three weeks but no one knew she had been talking with Trayvon moments before he was shot until Trayvon's dad leafed through his cell phone records.  Yeah - the young lady never blurted out "OMG! I was talking to him just before he was killed!" to her mother or anyone else.  

Whatever. I don't need to believe the family attorneys to believe that Zimmerman acted badly and that the Sanford police couldn't investigate rodeo clowns.

THIS IS INTERESTING... From RadarOnline:

The Sanford Police Department never questioned Trayvon's girlfriend, even though her parents contacted the cops to tell them she wanted to come in for a sit down interview.

That reinforces my lack of confidence in the competence of the cops and the credibility of the attorneys.

She will be speaking to the grand jury.

SERIOUSLY, I'M STOPPING... An Obama headline:

Obama calls for 'soul searching' in Trayvon case

Ahh, geez, its so dark in there and me without a flashlight.  I guess I will search the FBI Uniform Crime Reports instead.

Hmm, violent crime arrests in 2010, for offenders under 18: 27,983 whites and 29,754 blacks (also 628 Asians, who are either non-violent or too clever to be arrested).

And what are the relative populations?  Great question - from a report on abortion I learn that, as of 2005, there were roughly 6.4 million non-Hispanic white women and 1.7 million black women between the ages of 15 and 19.

So for a very quick and dirty approximation I will assume equal numbers of males and females, that all violent criminals are male, and that 15-19 is a fair proxy for "Under 18".  

Which means that 0.44% of all whites males aged 15-19 were arrested in 2010, compared with 1.76% of young black males.  That is a 4-1 ratio.

And the lesson is what?  Well, this isn't exactly a comparison of lightning strikes to bee stings, but still - the vast majority of young men on the street, including young black men, won't be arrested for a violent crime in the next year, which suggests they are unlikely to commit one during any one passing encounter (of course, in most violent crimes the victim and assailant know each other and your odds of becoming a target may also vary depending on whether you look like Clint Eastwood or Don Knotts...).

On the other hand, Jesse Jackson had the numbers on his side:

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” 

Yeah, him and Obama's grandma. I have read that Mr. Jackson has since distanced himself from that sentiment because cranks like me keep vexing him with it.  Maybe we can get him to disavow this one too:

“Never look down on anybody unless you're helping him up.”

So now I can sneer at welfare recipients on April 15 (that is the day that half of Americans pay income taxes, for those who find that reference confusing)?  Thank heaven Rush Limbaugh didn't say that or Media Matters would never let go.  FWIW, I deplore the attitude Jackson is promoting here.

Fortunately, This Didn't Happen Under Bush

The NY Times tells us of an expansion in the government anti-terror databases:

U.S. Relaxes Limits on Use of Data in Terror Analysis

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is moving to relax restrictions on how counterterrorism analysts may retrieve, store and search information about Americans gathered by government agencies for purposes other than national security threats.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Thursday signed new guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center, which was created in 2004 to foster intelligence sharing and serve as a terrorism threat clearinghouse.

The guidelines will lengthen to five years — from 180 days — the amount of time the center can retain private information about Americans when there is no suspicion that they are tied to terrorism, intelligence officials said. The guidelines are also expected to result in the center making more copies of entire databases and “data mining them” using complex algorithms to search for patterns that could indicate a threat.

Civil libertarians are worried but they hve yet to darken the skies with leaps from ledges, as would have happened under Evil BushCo:

“We’re all in the dark, and for all we know it could be a rerun of Total Information Awareness, which would have allowed the government to make a computerized database of everything on everybody,” said Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, who criticized the administration for not making the draft guidelines public for scrutiny ahead of time.

And there is logic behind this:

Intelligence officials offered a hypothetical scenario to explain one way the change could be helpful: A person from Yemen applies for a visa and lists an American as a point of contact. There is no sign that either person is a terrorist. Two years later, another person from Yemen applies for a visa and lists the same American, and this second person is a suspected terrorist.

Under the existing system, they said, to discover that the first visa applicant now had a known tie to a suspected terrorist, an analyst would have to ask the State Department to check its database to see if the American’s name had come up on anyone else’s visa application — a step that could be overlooked or cause a delay. Under the new rules, a computer could instantly alert analysts of the connection.

Critics will surely come up with hypothetical abuses, especially if a Republican wins the White House.

 

 

Great Insights From Statistical Analysis

An AP "Fact Check" on the correlation of US energy production with gasoline prices takes us to the border of supply and demand before veering off into a comedy club:

FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn't drop gas price

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

...

Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That's what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted. Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.

U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that's not what prices are now.

That's because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.

Oh, for heaven's sake - the question is, does additional US production result in lower prices than would have otherwise prevailed?  If, just to seize an example, producers only ramp up US production in response to shortages and rising prices elsewhere, a simple statistical analysis such as done here will "prove" that more production is always associated with higher prices.

Well - Obama's energy plan calls for more investment in clean energy and increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards.  So we eagerly await the next AP "Fact Check" where they analyze the correlation of rising CAFE standards and clean energy output with gasoline prices.

My guess - since we have a record level of solar and wind output yet gasoline prices are also at a record high, the statistical correlation will be clear - all this "clean energy" investment has increased gasoline prices.  

And has the AP failed to notice that gasoline prices have been spiking since electric cars hit the streets and Obama announced stricter fuel economy standards?  Surely the conclusion is inescapable - this push for fuel efficiency is driving gasoline prices through the roof.

Obvi.

JUST RUMINATING: I don't think OPEC has the pricing power it once did, if it ever had.  But taking inspiration from the AP, I won't be letting facts interfere with a good story.  Imagine (HYPOTHETICALLY!!!) that OPEC has sufficient market power and solidarity to control prices (and/or that Saudi Arabia, as a swing producer, can maintain OPEC discipline on aggregate output).  In that world, if OPEC is determined to keep oil prices at a certain level, or rising along a certain path, they will simply cut their production to offset increased US production.  The net impact of increased US production on global prices will be nil, although revenue will flow in different directions.

However!  The same can be true on the demand side.  If the US manages to cut its demand for oil by improving fuel efficiency or substituting clean energy, OPEC could simply reduce output to maintain prices.

Presumably, at some point if the US reduced its demand enough (or increased production enough) OPEC's pricing power would be undone.  And the US certainly accounts for more gloabl demand than global supply, so that ought to be a sensible place to look.

However, the simple statistical analysis done by the AP is unlikely to illuminate these issues.

Off To Mexico! (Shhhh...)

Claudia Rosett tackles the wisdom of malia's spring break excursion to Mexico, explaining that, even though it is good to be king, a bit of noblesse oblige might be appropriate.  

Twenty-five Secret Service agents are making the trip, which seems like a lot, and they are may be augmented by local police (if anyone trusts them).

Still, stories like this, torn from yesterday's headlines, give pause:

Investigating Beheadings, 12 Officers Slain in Mexico

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ACAPULCO, Mexico (AP) — Gunmen ambushed and killed 12 police officers who had been sent to investigate the beheadings of 10 people in the southern state of Guerrero, Mexican authorities said Monday.

Six state and six local officers were killed and 11 officers were wounded Sunday night on a road leading out of the town of Teloloapan, between Acapulco and Mexico City, said Arturo Martínez, a Guerrero State police spokesman.

The officers were traveling in six patrol pickups and searching for the bodies of seven men and three women whose heads had been dumped outside the town’s slaughterhouse earlier Sunday, Mr. Martínez said.

Twenty three cops killed or wounded - that sounds like a small infantry engagement.

Obviously the Secret Service is better trained and better equipped, and they won't be wandering the sides of roads looking for clues.  And Oaxaca, where the vacationing party is frolicking, is not subject to the recent State Department travel advisory and is several hundred miles from this battle.  Still, the bad guys seem capable of delivering astonishing amounts of force.  But so does Michelle, so what choice did Barack have?

ERRATA:  The State Dept did identify the area between Acapulco and Mexico City, where this incident ocurred, as problematic:

 You should also exercise caution and travel only during daylight hours on highway 95D (cuota/toll road) between Mexico City and Acapulco and highway 200 between Acapulco and Zihuatanejo/Ixtapa.  In Acapulco, defer non-essential travel to areas further than 2 blocks inland of the Costera Miguel Aleman Boulevard, which parallels the popular beach areas. 

 

 

Mittmentum Is Back!

Rimney wins Illinois, but the low turnout suggests that the bowl of cold oatmeal still looks like a bowl of cold oatmeal.  With maybe a hint of mold.

Doesn't matter - I'll be fired up for the general election even if especially if we nominate Tim Tebow, who needs a job this fall.

And the Romney-Santorum fusion ticket is panned here.  There are surely many of nationally prominent Republivcans who can energize the base and reassure social conservatives, so why Santorum?

Into Pre-Election Limbo

The Justice Departmnt and FBI have picked up the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case.  Zimmerman can't be cleared before the election, so unless they can come up with convincing new evidence (audio wizardry on the 911 tapes?) this case goes into pre-election limbo.

I still think Zimmerman ought to be guilty of something, but under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self defense law (aka "Shoot First"), the other party to their scuffle is dead and no other witnesses seem to contradict the self-defense alibi.

We get a new version of Zimmerman's story:

Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said. He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.

The self-appointed self-important neighborhood watch captain wasn't sure what street he was on?  Or was he just double-checking?

The police captain had offered this (possibly hypothetical) version of events last week:

“Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is that the confrontation was initiated by Trayvon,” Police Chief Bill Lee said in an interview. “I am not going into specifics of what led to the violent physical encounter witnessed by residents. All the physical evidence and testimony we have independent of what Mr. Zimmerman provides corroborates this claim to self-defense.”

To claim self-defense, someone has to show there was danger of great bodily harm or death, Lee said. “Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story,” Lee said.

Zimmerman had a damp shirt, grass stains, a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound in back of his head, according to police reports.

“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody?” Lee said. “It’s not.”

Since we have the "not going into specifics" disclaimer it is not clear that the bit about "If someone asks you..." is Zimmerman's actual alibi.

Or, I suppose, Zimmerman could have asked that question, turned around, and gotten jumped.

The Feds will sort this out.  Either they clear Zimmerman next December or they indict him in October; there is no way they bring this to trial and risk an acquital or dismissal before the election.

ad more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2703029/us-department-of-justice-fbi-and.html#storylink=cpy

Sure, He's White Now

Think Progress puts together a primer on the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Thay manage to stay accurate all the way through the first sentence, but derail on the second:

What Everyone Should Know About Trayvon Martin (1995-2012)

By Judd Legum on Mar 18, 2012 at 6:19 pm

On February 26, 2012, a 17-year-old African-American named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida. The shooter was George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white man.

No, Mr. Zimmerman was biracial and frankly, from the mug shot the NY Times is posting, looks like the Hispanic answer to Willie Horton.  In a slightly different scenario, for example if Mr. Zimmerman had been shot by a white Tea Partier of northern Europen extraction, all we would be hearing from Think Progress is that anti-immigrant insanity had made the streets unsafe for Hispanics.  But since Mr. Zimmerman was the shooter, he's white.

Also missing from the "What you should know" - Mr. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, a cut on the back of his head, and a bloody nose.  Witnesses saw a scuffle with Trayvon Martin on top of the much larger Zimmerman, which is certainly relevant to his self-defense claim.

This case is a mess, and my position is that Mr. Zimmerman is at fault for creating the situation by disregarding the police dispatcher and following after the 17 year old Trayvon Martin.  A self-important self-appointed neighborhood watch captain is trouble.  But let's hear from the chief of police:

“Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is that the confrontation was initiated by Trayvon,” Police Chief Bill Lee said in an interview. “I am not going into specifics of what led to the violent physical encounter witnessed by residents. All the physical evidence and testimony we have independent of what Mr. Zimmerman provides corroborates this claim to self-defense.”

To claim self-defense, someone has to show there was danger of great bodily harm or death, Lee said. “Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story,” Lee said.

Zimmerman had a damp shirt, grass stains, a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound in back of his head, according to police reports.

“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody?” Lee said. “It’s not.”

Well, that was Zimmerman's story and the police can't, or won't, shake it. 

A big part of the problem is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.  Part of it clarifies that a homeowner can use deadly force during a break-in, which is OK.  But Section 3 extends the "A man's home is his castle" doctrine such that a man's castle is wherever he happens to be standing:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That is the clause which is keeping Zimmerman from being charged.  It has been described by critics as the "Shoot first" clause, with some reason: for example, if in the case at hand Trayvon Martin had clubbed Zimmerman to death with a stick, he could have explained that a large, scary guy with a gun grabbed him and tried to force him back to his car.  Self-defense!  As to the truth, well, in that example Zimmerman wouldn't have much to say, being dead.  Just as in the current case we haven't heard Trayvon Martin's story.

The case has been handed punted to the State Attorney General, and good luck.  I am not a lawyer, so I don't know whether Zimmerman has to prove he acted in self-defense or the state has to prove that he didn't, but I would assume the burden of proof is on the state [a very helpful summary from Adam Weinstein of Mother Jones addresses that point; the state retains the burden of proof].  So one guy is dead and the other is blameless - I find that to be a very unsatisfying result in this case, where there seems to be (at a minimum) some shared culpability.

Well - arresting Zimmerman without any clear plan for charging him or getting a conviction seems like the wrong way to go, unless we are now making feel-good arrests on the basis of Twitter buzz.  My impression is that he would be able to make bail easily (the Chapter 874 caveat relates to gang activities) so he would be back on the street soon enough.

MORE:  Adam Weinstein of Mother Jones has an excellent summary, including some problematic history of the Sanford Police Dept.

Apparently Jay Carney was asked about it and did not say "the police acted stupidly", so there is evidence of educability in the White House.

 

more

ead more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/v-fullstory/2696446/trayvon-martin-case.html#storylink=cpy

Krugman On ObamaCare - Just Make Stuff Up Faster Than The Opponents

Paul Krugman has decided to fight fiction with fiction in the health care debate, and when the opposition spreads BS, he will spread BS twice as hard.  Waddya expect from a former Enron adviser?

He correctly notes this Republican miscue:

Given this evidence, what’s a virulent opponent of reform to do? The answer is, make stuff up.

...

For now, however, most of the disinformation involves claims about costs. Each new report from the Congressional Budget Office is touted as proof that the true cost of Obamacare is exploding, even when — as was the case with the latest report — the document says on its very first page that projected costs have actually fallen slightly. Nor are we talking about random pundits making these false claims. We are, instead, talking about people like the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, who issued a completely fraudulent press release after the latest budget office report.

Jonathan Cohn takes us through the math; his gist is that the CBO was re-estimating the cost of one portion of the program over a different time period, not the cost of the whole program net of taxes and Medicare savings.  Is Rush listening?

However, since Krugman is citing the new CBO report, his opening salvo is intellectually inexplicable:

To understand the lies, you first have to understand the truth. How would ObamaRomneycare change American health care?

For most people the answer is, not at all. In particular, those receiving good health benefits from employers would keep them.

No, no, no.  Let's cut to the CBO summary, on the very first page of the summary:

CBO and JCT's Key Findings

CBO and JCT continue to expect that the ACA will lead to a small reduction in employment-based health insurance.

A "small reduction"?  Here in investigative blogging land we call that a clue.  We can glean more from the full report; this is from their lead paragraph on the very first page:

As reflected in CBO’s latest baseline projections, the two agencies now anticipate that,
because of the ACA, about 3 million to 5 million fewer people, on net, will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case under prior law.

Another clue!  Despite citing the "very first page", Krugman seems to have overlooked both the key findings and the opening of the full report.  And the phrase "on net" is fraught - in summary, CBO projects (using 2019 for illustrative purposes) that about 11 million people will lose their employer-based coverage as employers drop out; another 3 million will elect to drop their employer coverage and join a subsidized exchange. As a partial offset, about 9 milion people who formerly lacked employer-based coaverage will get it.  On net, 5 million lose their coverage, but 11 million are on the broken end of the promise that their coverage would not be affected.

The gory details, also seemingly overlooked by Krugman:

CBO and JCT’s Current Estimates of the Effects of the ACA on Employment-Based Health Insurance Coverage

CBO and JCT now estimate that, because of the ACA, about 3 million to 5 million fewer people, on net, will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case under prior law.  (That estimate is reflected in CBO’s latest baseline projections.) That projected change in the number of people with employment-based insurance is the net result of several shifts in coverage, which can be illustrated using the estimates for 2019. For that year, CBO and JCT estimate a net decline of 5 million in the number of people obtaining coverage through their employer, as a result of the following changes:

■ About 11 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will not have an offer under the ACA. That estimate represents about 7 percent of the roughly 161 million people projected to have employment-based coverage under prior law.5 The businesses that choose not to offer coverage as a result of the ACA will tend to be smaller employers and employers with predominantly lower-wage workers; those workers and their families are more likely to be eligible for Medicaid, CHIP, or subsidies through the health insurance exchanges.

■ Another 3 million people who would have had employment-based insurance under prior law and will still have an offer of such coverage under the ACA will instead choose to obtain coverage from another source. Under the legislation, workers with an offer of employment-based coverage will generally be ineligible for exchange subsidies, but that “firewall” will presumably be enforced imperfectly, and an explicit exception to it will be made for workers whose offer of employment-based coverage is deemed unaffordable.

■ About 9 million people who would not have been covered by an employment-based plan under prior law will have that coverage under the ACA. That change reflects the combined impact of the insurance mandate, the penalties that will be imposed on employers who do not offer insurance, and the tax credits for certain small employers who provide insurance for their workers— which will lead some employers who would not have offered coverage in the absence of the ACA to offer it and will lead some people who would not have taken up their employer’s offer of insurance to do so.

Well - this was covered by The Hill and Politico, including the gross and net impact (Jonathan noted the net impact). One marvels that Krugman and his (laugh with me) editors missed this.  Is he lying, or did he fail to read the reports he cited?  Tough call.

Since Times columnists don't have to correct their "opinions", I suppose Krugman can insist that 11 million people, representing 7% of the current insured, are too close to zero to count.

Oh, well - a million here, a million there, and pretty soon it adds up to real people - but not for Krugman.

ERRATA:  I like this from Krugman:

We all know how the act’s proposal that Medicare evaluate medical procedures for effectiveness became, in the fevered imagination of the right, an evil plan to create death panels. And rest assured, this lie will be back in force once the general election campaign is in full swing.

Do we all know how that started?  And is it a lie?  Is Krugman himself aware of the Obama interview with David Leonhardt of the Times, which included Obama's rumination on health care cost control and end-of-life care?

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Some independent group that can give guidance about end-of-life care with an eye to cost-effectiveness.  OK, I doubt Team Obama would have chosen "death panel" to market that concept, but what is he talking about?

To be fair, an earnest lib who relied on the Times might well be oblivious to that Obama interview.  Can't help those who want to stay in the bubble.

 

Sunday Evening Rally

Away we go.

Who Are You Going To Believe, Me Or Your Lying Ears?

The NY Times opens a campaign to bring racial justice to Florida.  They may have landed on the right side of the issue, or not.  Their lead:

Justice Department Investigation Is Sought in Florida Teenager’s Shooting Death

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

MIAMI — Nearly three weeks after an unarmed teenager was killed in a small city north of Orlando, stirring an outcry, a few indisputable facts remain: the teenager, who was black, was carrying nothing but a bag of Skittles, some money and a can of iced tea when he was shot. The neighborhood crime watch volunteer who got out of his car and shot him is white and Hispanic. He has not been arrested and is claiming self-defense.

Beyond that, however, little is clear about the Feb. 26 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, 17.

As criticism of the police investigation mounts, so too do the calls for swift action in a case with heavy racial overtones. Protests grow larger each week, and lawyers for the family are now asking the Department of Justice to intervene. The case also brings into sharp focus Florida’s self-defense laws, which give people who feel threatened greater latitude in defending themselves than most states.

We all know the script, and yes, former Presidential candidate Al Sharpton is on his way.

Let's press on with what the Times presents as fact:

The police in of Sanford, where the shooting took place, are not revealing details of the investigation. Late Friday night, after weeks of pressure, the police played the 911 calls in the case for the family and gave copies to the news media. On the recordings, one shot, an apparent warning or miss, is heard, followed by a voice begging or pleading, and a cry. A second shot is then heard, and the pleading stops.

“It is so clear that this was a 17-year-old boy pleading for his life, and someone shot him in cold blood,” said Natalie Jackson, one of the Martin family lawyers.

Two shots!  Well, can we make that "two shots?" with a BIG question mark? [UPDATE:  In a follow-up story, the Times does just that.]  From other sources it seems clear to me that the shooter, George Zimmerman, provoked the situation by leaving his car and following the teen.  However, there seems to be a real question, other than in TimesLand, as to how many shots were fired.

Here is the Orlando Sentinel:

Trayvon Martin shooting: Screams, shots heard on 911 call

Two shots and screaming can be heard in dramatic 911 calls released late Friday from the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

So far so good for the Times editorial process.  But...

In one of the eight calls, screaming can be heard in the background as a woman tries to get help. That call is punctuated by two gunshots.

"You hear a shot, a clear shot, then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life," said Natalie Jackson, another family attorney. "Then you hear a second shot."

It was the first time that anyone said two shots were fired that night.

And in an earlier version of the same Sentinel story run by an ABC news affiliate, this paragraph was included:

But three witnesses who have made public statements have been clear that they heard a single shot, and Trayvon was hit in the chest by a single bullet.

One shot is still one too many, but the narrative with a warning shot, the pleading and the cold-bloded execution relies on two shots.

So let's go to the tape.  The Orlando Sentinel version is here; the first "gunshot" is at 24 seconds and the next at 41.  I have downloaded it and converted it to MP3, which is here.

 

Trayvon Martin shooting 911 calls Sanford Police to release 911 calls in Trayvon Martin shooting - Orlando Sentinel

An obvious puzzle is the woman caller's non-reaction to the first "gunshot" at 24 seconds, especially considering her clear "There's a gunshot" reaction to the shot heard at 41.

A possible explanation - the woman recognized the first sound as something else altogether - a door slamming, the phone being bumped against a wall, or whatever - and paid it no mind.  The second shot we hear is the first shot fired.

Eventually, some news service (presumaby not the Times) will hire audio experts to study the tape.  In the meantime, I have employed some free software and some free time to offer some free analysis (and you get what you pay for.)  Here, using Audacity, are waveforms of the two gunshots.

First, the waveform around 24 seconds:

And next, the 41 second mark:

If one of those sounded louder on the tape, it might be because it was louder.  That said, the woman seemed to be moving around inside her home, so the sound quality could have changed.  However, the notion that the first "gunshot" was actually something else would explain her non-reaction and the other witness accounts.

Well - nobody working as a CSI needs to fear for their job based on my effort.  However, I would welcome and encourage a serious effort to establish just what we are hearing on this tape.

WORTH KEEPING IN MIND:

[Police investigator] Serino said Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, listened to all of the 911 calls in the case before the entire family convened at City Hall to listen Friday night. When asked if the voice on one, a male calling for help was his son, told Serino no.

Police lied Friday, Crump said, when they said Tracy Martin said the voice crying for help was not his son. What Tracy Martin told police, Crump said, was that "he couldn't tell, that it was too distorted."

The audio has since been cleaned up, and now Tracy Martin has no doubt but that the voice is his son, Crump said.

As to just how cleaned up these tapes are, who knows?  Is a gunshot so distinctive that it could be cleaned away?  And there is still her non-reaction to the first shot.

FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE... As a casual consumer of self defense articles, I infer that warning shots are not encouraged. In the case at hand, there was a 17 second lag between shots, which is an age in the course of a backyard scuffle.

Ok, maybe Zimmerman shot with intent twice and missed the first time.

GETTING SOMEWHERE:  This Miami Herald story from Thursday precedes the release of the 911 tapes.  Two witnesses - Austin McLendon, the 13 year old dog walker and Mary Cutcher heard one shot.  From Ms. Cutcher:

“This was not self-defense,” Cutcher said. “We heard no fighting, no wrestling, no punching. We heard a boy crying. As soon as the shot went off, it stopped, which tells me it was the child crying. If it had been Zimmerman crying, it wouldn’t have stopped. If you’re hurting, you’re hurting.”

She and her friend say they heard the sounds from a few steps away, where they were inside beside an open window.

FWIW, the police say they spoke with her and now her story is changing as she speaks to the press.

The HuffPo details Austin's account:

Austin comes on the line [with the 911 dispatcher]: "I saw a man laying on the ground that needed help, that was screaming and then I was going to go over there to try and help him, but my dog got off the leash, so I went and got my dog, and then I heard a loud sound and then the screaming stopped."

The dispatcher asks: "Did you see the person shot? Did you know the person that was shot, or see the person with the gun?"

"No, I just heard a loud sound and then the screaming stopped," Austin replied.

The screaming stopped after the second shot, so how did he not hear the first while he was outside and nearby?

Let's hear from the chief of police:

“Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is that the confrontation was initiated by Trayvon,” Police Chief Bill Lee said in an interview. “I am not going into specifics of what led to the violent physical encounter witnessed by residents. All the physical evidence and testimony we have independent of what Mr. Zimmerman provides corroborates this claim to self-defense.”

To claim self-defense, someone has to show there was danger of great bodily harm or death, Lee said. “Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story,” Lee said.

Zimmerman had a damp shirt, grass stains, a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound in back of his head, according to police reports.

“If someone asks you, ‘Hey do you live here?’ is it OK for you to jump on them and beat the crap out of somebody?” Lee said. “It’s not.”

Was Zimmerman engaging in a bit of racial profiling when he started following the black teen?  Was Martin engaging in a bit of profiling by feeling threatened by the large swarthy man?

I remain confident that if Zimmerman had not had a gun he would have stayed in his car and this would be a non-event. As to how the two of them interacted, I don't know, although I am sure Al Sharpton will explain it cogently.

IF YOU CAN'T TRUST THE AP:

Officials released a total of seven 911 calls. All of the callers described a single shot.

AND NOW THE TIMES COMES AROUND A BIT:

Ms. Alvarez has a new story.  Her lead:

911 Calls Add Detail to Debate Over Florida Killing

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

MIAMI — It was raining the night of Feb. 26 when George Zimmerman, a crime watch volunteer, set out to patrol his neighborhood in his sport utility vehicle, as was his habit in recent weeks. Several break-ins had been reported in the area, and Mr. Zimmerman was especially alert.

He spotted a young black teenager wearing a sweatshirt, with the hood draped over his head. Mr. Zimmerman, a 28-year-old Hispanic man, trailed him a bit. Then he called 911, the first of seven calls from Mr. Zimmerman and panicked neighbors that begin to flesh out the details in the death of Trayvon Martin, 17, whom Mr. Zimmerman shot. The police released the recordings to local reporters late Friday night after nearly three weeks of pressure from Trayvon’s parents and their supporters.

The 911 calls from a gated community in Sanford, north of Orlando, culminate with a faint voice in the distance crying and pleading for help. A gunshot is heard, and then silence. Mr. Zimmerman told the police that he had shot Trayvon in self-defense, after the two got into a fight and Mr. Zimmerman wound up on the ground. There have been no arrests in the case. The unarmed teenager, who carried Skittles and a can of iced tea, was walking to the home of his father’s girlfriend from a convenience store.

Big Skip and:

It is not clear from the audio whether one or two shots was fired. And, with the voice muffled in the distance, it is difficult to know which of the two men is crying out for help.

Yesterday we heard two gunshots, today it's one.  I can't wait for tomorrow, and crickets.

Here is one more for the Unanswered Questions file:

Trayvon had no criminal record. He was suspended from his Miami high school for 10 days in February, which is the reason he was visiting his father. The family said the suspension was not for violent or criminal behavior but for a violation of school policy.

I have no idea what school he attended, but for flavor, here is a Southwest Miami High School discipline plan.  Fighting is an automatic ten-day suspension; repeated minor offenses such as smoking or dress code violations can result in a ten dayer.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/15/v-fullstory/2696446/trayvon-martin-case.html#storylink=cpy

Happy St. Patrick's Day

It's a fine day for the Irish!  In celebration the Dead Tree NY Times delivers this puzzle:

An Irish Tradition With an Only-in-America Star

Dance Champion Breaks Sterotypes

By SABRINA TAVERNISE

GREENVILLE, Ohio — For those feeling down about the United States and its place in the world, meet Drew Lovejoy, a 17-year-old from rural Ohio. His background could not be more American. His father is black and Baptist from Georgia and his mother is white and Jewish from Iowa. But his fame is international after winning the all-Ireland dancing championship in Dublin for a third straight year.

Drew is the first to admit that this is a lot to take in, so he sometimes hides part of his biography for the sake of convenience. As in 2010, when he became the first person of color to win the world championship for Irish dancing — the highest honor in that small and close-knit world — and a group of male dancers in their 70s, all of them Irish, offered their congratulations.

“They said, ‘We never thought it would happen, but we’re thrilled that it did,’ ” said Drew’s mother, Andee Goldberg. She added, “They don’t even know he’s Jewish. That hasn’t been broached. I think it would be too overwhelming.”

The web version omits the baffling "Dance Champion Breaks Sterotypes".  What stereotype - that black people can't dance?

What If They Gave A Scandal And Nobody Came?

NY Times reporters Andrew Jacobs and Penn Bullock wrote it onto the front page but their latest Romney 'scandal' has not found a following at Memeorandum [Hmm, a self-defeating prophecy...].  The gist:

Firm Romney Founded Is Tied to Chinese Surveillance

BEIJING — As the Chinese government forges ahead on a multibillion-dollar effort to blanket the country with surveillance cameras, one American company stands to profit: Bain Capital, the private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney.

In December, a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust has holdings purchased the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government’s Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system that allows the authorities to watch over university campuses, hospitals, mosques and movie theaters from centralized command posts.

The Bain-owned company, Uniview Technologies, produces what it calls “infrared antiriot” cameras and software that enable police officials in different jurisdictions to share images in real time through the Internet. Previous projects have included an emergency command center in Tibet that “provides a solid foundation for the maintenance of social stability and the protection of people’s peaceful life,” according to Uniview’s Web site.

Such surveillance systems are often used to combat crime and the manufacturer has no control over whether they are used for other purposes. But human rights advocates say in China they are also used to intimidate and monitor political and religious dissidents. “There are video cameras all over our monastery, and their only purpose is to make us feel fear,” said Loksag, a Tibetan Buddhist monk in Gansu Province. He said the cameras helped the authorities identify and detain nearly 200 monks who participated in a protest at his monastery in 2008.

Mr. Romney has had no role in Bain’s operations since 1999 and had no say over the investment in China. But the fortunes of Bain and Mr. Romney are still closely tied.

The financial disclosure forms Mr. Romney filed last August show that a blind trust in the name of his wife, Ann Romney, held a relatively small stake of between $100,000 and $250,000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.

First, thank heaven no one has linked Romney to the video equipment used by the NYPD at the Republican National Convention in 2004!  Liberals would never vote for him.

As the story notes this is dual use equipment; Romney left Bain in 1999; Bain acquired Uniview, the camera manufacturer, in 2010; and Romney has no say in their investment decisions.

And dare we have a moment of perspective?  Romney's net worth is estimated to be in excess of $250 million.  The Times is breathless about a $250 thousand dollar investment in Bain Capital Asia, which notes investments in 18 companies including the video camera manufacturer.  As a ballpark guess, Romney's (blind, indirect) stake in Uniview might be $25,000, which would be 0.01% of his net worth.  Consequential?  Not to a guy who infamously described his $374,000 in speaking fees as "not very much".

But let's spin like Lin and press on for a bit more perspective! Per their most recent financial disclosure (May 2011), Barack and Michelle Obama have between $100,000 and $250,000 in 529 college funds for both Sasha and Malia.  Each young lady is invested in the Bright Directions® College Savings Program for 9-12 year olds, and all seems to be admirable and above-board. 

But is it? (Cue "Jaws" soundtrack...)

The disclosure form does not indicate whether the Obama are in the aggressive, moderate or timid variations of the Bright Directions fund, but no matter - all three variations have a mix of equity mutual funds, including some index funds and the utterly non-controversial TR Price Institutional Large Cap Growth Fund.

But hold the front page! The TR Price managers have put roughly 1% of their assets into Baidu, the Chinese search engine famous for its repression of dissent.  Really, Barack?

And another 1% is in Peabody Energy, "the largest private-sector coal company in the world".  Seriously, Michelle?

Sasha and Malia will be going to college funded by global warming denialism and repression in China - where is the outrage?

Since you asked, my very rough guess is that the Sasha and Malia college funds combine for about 6% of the Obama net worth of (my guess) $5 million.  Take 2% of 6% and - isn't that interesting - these controversial investments are as inconsequential to the Obama fortune as the Uniview stake is to the Romney fortune.  (One might argue that the Obama stake is even less since he has huge book deals and speaking fees looming after he leaves the White House; after all, Bill Clinton ran not much up to many millions in less than ten years.  Or maybe Democrats don't want to ride that horse just now...)

I will add that the Times article cites General Electric, Honeywell, United Technologies and Cisco among US heavyweights that have caught flak for their dealings with China.  The Obamas hold stakes in all these companies through their index funds and GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt is chair of Obama's job council, so pass the smelling salts.

Leaving us where?  After we recover from the outrage that a wealthy man has investments all over the world, including China, and the shock that our Presidents mutual funds include large, well known companies, perhaps we can move on.

BUT BEFORE WE DO...  Think Progress inflates this non-story a bit - who can spot the hype?

The New York Times revealed yesterday that a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust had holdings purchased Uniview Technologies in December, a Chinese company that claims to be the biggest supplier of surveillance cameras to the Chinese government.

Wrong.  Uniview claims to be the largest supplier to the Chinese "Safe Cities" program; deep in the article we learn that their market share is, well, not very much:

According to the British firm IMS Research, the Chinese market for security camera networks was $2.5 billion last year, a figure that is expected to double by 2015, with more than two-thirds of that demand coming from the government. Uniview currently has just 1 percent of the market, the firm said.

Hmm - if Uniview has a 1% market share either there are a lot of companies or some are bigger. And I am intrigued by this formulation in the Times lead:

BEIJING — As the Chinese government forges ahead on a multibillion-dollar effort to blanket the country with surveillance cameras, one American company stands to profit...

Do they really mean that only one American company is involved in this market?  Or do they mean that one company of special interest to them is involved?  Can anyone run that down?

 

Win Some, Lose Some

A person can drown in a lake with an average depth of only two feet.  Or, a person could drown in Obams's broken promises and spin thereof.  From The Hill:

As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of President Obama's healthcare reform law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a new report Thursday.

The figure represents the worst-case scenario, CBO says, and the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019.

The best estimate, subject to a "tremendous amount of uncertainty," is that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022.

However, reading on we learn that the most likely estimate of 3 to 5 million fewer people covered is a net figure:

Under CBO's best estimate, 11 million mostly low-wage workers would lose their employer coverage. About 3 million would choose to drop their coverage to go into the new subsidized health exchanges or on Medicaid, while another 9 million would gain employer-sponsored coverage, for a net total of 5 million people losing employer coverage in 2019.

So 11 million people will have a change in their health coverage foisted upon them, despite Obama's repeated promise that under ObamaCare people could keep their care:

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.. 

But rather than confront reality the White House chose to focus on net numbers:

The White House for its part argues that the latest projections are in line with what the CBO estimated when it scored the bill at the time of passage two years ago.

"Today's report also does not project major changes in the number of workers who will get coverage through their job," Jeanne Lambrew, the deputy assistant to the president for health policy, wrote on the White House blog. "At the time of passage CBO projected a change of 3 million people; last year CBO projected 1 million; this year 4 million – out of the roughly 150 million people get insurance through their job today. Other respected independent analysts have concluded that the number of Americans who get their health insurance at work will not change in a significant way."

A million here and a million there, and pretty soon it adds up to real people - but not yet, not at least for Team Obama.  That is change they just don't want to believe in.

At Least He's No Longer Bashing Bush...

Enough Bush bashing!  Obama drops the gloves and takes on Rutherford B. Hayes.  Ooops:

President Obama got a laugh out of a Maryland audience on Thursday when he mocked the Republican Party in a speech, comparing their skepticism of alternative energy to the “Flat Earth Society” in Christopher Columbus’ day and President Rutherford B. Hayes’ apparent dismissal of the telephone. But while Obama thinks the GOP is in need of a science lesson, he may need to bone up on history himself.

In mocking the GOP, Obama cited an anecdote about Hayes in which, upon using the telephone for the first time, he said, “It’s a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?”

“That’s why he’s not on Mount Rushmore,” Obama said. “He’s explaining why we can’t do something instead of why we can do something.”

But Nan Card, curator of manuscripts at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Ohio, told TPM that the nation’s 19th president was being unfairly tagged as a Luddite.

“He really was the opposite,” she said. “He had the first telephone in the White House. He also had the first typewriter in the White House. Thomas Edison came to the White House as well and displayed the phonograph. Photographing people who came to the White House and visited at dinners and receptions was also very important to him.”

Obama's speech writing team doesn't do their homework, which is one reason he won't be on Mt. Rushmore.

LEST WE FORGET: Of five Civil War veterans to become President, only Hayes was wounded in the war; he was the first law school grad to become President; his wife was the first college grad to become First Lady, an honorific that either started or was popularized with her.

Thursday Morning

Glenn links to this WaPo hand-wringer about Obama's quagmire in Afghanistan.  Their Big Finish:

And it’s little wonder that most Americans favor withdrawing troops as quickly as possible. If it’s evident that the president won’t defend the war, and is focused on “winding down” rather than winning, why should anyone else support it?

Gee, an anti-war President, leading an anti-war party, isn't four-square behind his own effort in Afghanistan.  Could anyone have seen this coming?

To be fair, Afghanistan was always going to be tough - it was not christened the Graveyard of Empires on January 20, 2009.  Still, Obama's lack of commitment has been obvious for years - certainly the hokey-pokey surge was a clue, as the WaPo acknowledges.

As soon as Barack gets enough Republican cover he will declare Mission Accomplished on his own Operation Manhood (Are You Tougher Than Bush?) and head for the exits.

Poll Dancing And Spinning

Bloomberg News leads on their new opinion survey, which highlights their innovative "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" polling technique:

Americans overwhelmingly regard the debate over President Barack Obama’s policy on employer-provided contraceptive coverage as a matter of women’s health, not religious freedom, rejecting Republicans’ rationale for opposing the rule. More than three-quarters say the topic shouldn’t even be a part of the U.S. political debate.

Let's take that one claim at a time.  On the question of whether this is a matter of women's rights or religious freedom, Bloomberg polled the following:

There has been recent controversy over whether education and health care facilities affiliated with religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, should provide access to birth control through health insurance plans. Which of the following describes your view on this debate: (Read two options. Rotate.

33% - This is a matter of religious liberty
62% - This is a matter of a woman’s health and access to birth control
5% - Not sure

That is somewhat similar to the recent NY Times result, which found that 51% see this as a debate on womens's rights and 37% view this as a matter of religious freedom.  However, unlike Bloomberg the Times also asked about the topic in the news; despite the preference for the "women's rights" framing, 57% thought that religiously-affiliated institutions ought to be allowed an opt-out, versus 36% who thought they should cover regardless.  One might infer that a subset of respondents believes that this issue is mostly a matter of women's rights but religious freedom can still be respected and protected.

As to what Bloomberg would have found if they had asked that question, who can tell?  They had a wider margin preferring the "women's rights" frame, so maybe they would not have found a clear majority favoring a religiously affiliated opt-out.  Maybe.  Their "Don't Ask" polling technique leaves us in the dark.

Their second claim, "More than three-quarters say the topic shouldn’t even be a part of the U.S. political debate", is utterly opaque.  From the poll:

Do you believe birth control should or should not be part of the national political debate?

20% - Should
77% - Should not

So now we know.  As to just what we know, I have no idea.  Birth control was not part of the national debate until Obama announced his surprisingly restrictive ObamaCare rules in late January.  As to whether we should be debating it now, do the Bloomberg pollsters really think (or expect us to believe) that 77% of Americans believe that anything Obama announces should be accepted without question?   That doesn't quite square with his approval rating, which is somewhere near 50%.

I am confident that many people opposed to Team Obama's new rules on contraception coverage would rather be talking about jobs, jobs, jobs and real plans to spur the recovery.  There may be many who think that we had a workable religious exception at the Federal level until 2009 and there is no need to be debating a change in that now.

The workings of ObamaCare have foisted this debate on us, so here we are.  And until the Bloomberg pollsters work up the nerve to poll the obvious question at hand it is hard to take their results seriously.

As a clue, here is the current Times formulation:

Do you think health insurance plans for all employees should have to cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees, or should employers be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?

For "all employers", 40% of respondents said "cover" while 51% said "opt-out". For religiously-affiliated employers, as noted above, the breakdown was 36%-57%.

MEANWHILE, IN ALAN COLMES LA-LA LAND: The Colmes cocooners go home to fantasy land with this headline:

77% Reject Republican Arguments On Birth Control

Improved reading comprehension and critical thinking may one day lead these reality free-basers back to reality.

All The News That's Fit For Sasha And Malia - Bill Maher Edition

The NY Times front-pages a fundraising appeal for the Obama SuperPACs, warning the faithful that the Republicans are raising more money.

They manage to splash some ink on Bill Maher while completely ducking the controversy that has driven David Axelrod off his show.  Here they go again:

Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting the president’s re-election, will report $2 million in February donations, group officials said, including $1 million from the television host Bill Maher. Those amounts are substantial for Priorities USA and a related group, which together raised about $6.1 million through the end of 2011.

...

Mr. Maher said he had decided to contribute to Priorities USA after attending the Grammys in mid-February and being told by several Hollywood friends that the election was “in the bag” for Mr. Obama.

“One reason I was doing this was to try to throw a snowball and create an avalanche among rich people on the left,” said Mr. Maher, who did not inform Priorities USA of his plans before announcing the donation.

That's all Times readers need to know - start your own snowball.

The Times is in a bit of a quandary here.  If they acknowledge the Maher controversy they will set a precedent for future coverage. If Team Obama succeeds in opening the spigots of the entertainment industry there is sure to be a clown car of thug rappers and foul-mouthed fools for the Times to avoid covering.  Rather than show some commitment by defending free speech or free association (and ignoring Obama's 'What would I say to Sasha and Malia' explanation for attacking Rush Limbaugh) the self-styled Paper of Record has elected to move on.

Sasha and Malia will never know the sort of people their dad takes money from, if they rely on the Times.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Back in 2007 Obama explained that we are all complicit in the coarsening of our culture.  I have done my part by apologizing and returning the money Bill Maher gave to this blog.  Still waiting for Barack...

Another Night At The Polls

It's Tuesday night - do you know where your candidates are?

Eyes Wide Shut, or Lots of the News That's Fit to Print

Frank Bruni of the Times writes on the double standard that leads to women but not (straight) men being derogated sexually.  He finds all sorts of examples from both sides of the aisle but manages to not publicize Bill Maher, the million-dollar man.

Apparently it is safer to denounce hypocrisy and double standards from a perch at the Times if Obama gets a pass.  Stanley Fish tackled this yesterday, mentioning Maher but ignoring Obama's own criteria for double standards; my impression is that he is on-line only.

Sandra Fluke Back In The News

Sandra Fluke, the third-year Georgetown law student who wants others to pay for her contraception, is back in the news with more reasoned debate.  My fave bit is this:

I joined these students in speaking at a media event because I believe that stories of how real women are affected are the most powerful argument for access to affordable, quality reproductive health care services.

That is how she wants us to make public policy - she will tell her sad stories, some Georgetown representative can opine about the threat to his religious freedom and the risk to his immortal soul, and the public can decide who has told the better sob story.  Babies being born to a mom that wasn't ready versus an eternity of hellfire - tricky.  But who has ever seen a soul, or hellfire, and maybe God will relent if Obama forces the hand of the uncaring Jesuits. 

Ms. Fluke, clearly of the Reality-TV generation, has proposed such an efficient mechanism, and with so much more human drama than a dusty reading of the Constitution or the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  One wonders why Ms. Fluke bothered with law school rather than a school for the performing arts, but whatever.

Here is a bit of a headscratcher:

Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.

Hmm, Rush famously called her a slut and a prostitute. Is slut worse?  I make these tough calls every day, but on this day I'm going to pass.

She closes with a plea for, well, I'm not sure what:

I am proud to stand with the millions of women and men who recognize that our government should legislate according to the reality of our lives -- not for ideology.

The reality of our lives?  And religious freedom is what, just a random silly idea some dead white guys once took seriously?

Or, to pick another example, the reality of our lives is that people gain an immediate benefit from cheap energy.  Science suggests that in the long run the environmental consequences may be problematic.  However, it is really only an idea, i.e., an ideology, that we have an obligation to shoulder the prospective burdens of future generations yet unborn.  It is an idea I would be happy to defend in certain contexts, as would, I presume, Ms. Fluke, but if she thinks that it is something other than an ideological position, well, its back to performing arts for her.

If I had to guess, her real view is that her preferences (and sad stories!) should take precedence over other people "ideas".  Well, if she wants to argue that she truly doesn't have an idea in her head, I won't rebut her.

OH GEEZ, SHE WENT LIVE... Apparently she was also on the air, debating Will Cain, who asked her to wake up and smell the free coffee:

“But Sandra, couldn’t that same logic be applied to so many other things that health care doesn’t cover, such as gym memberships?” Cain countered. “Exercise is important to health but that’s not covered by health care insurance. Couldn’t that logic you’re using, saying access is denied because it’s not being offered to you for some reduced price, apply to so many things?”

“I think that that’s not a fair comparison!” Fluke exclaimed. “And most women would tell you that’s not a fair comparison!”

Ah hah! He can't really contribute to this debate, not being biologically equipped.  Sexist much?  If only she had read her own editorial she would have learned that fathers, brothers, husbands and boyfriends do have a stake in the contraception debate.

They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life.

I infer that men are welcome to chime in in support of her view; otherwise, they should feel free to shut up since they can't understand.

As to the notion that our First Lady and her "Let's Move" anti-obesity campaign are misdirected and the real health crisis is a lack of access to contraception, my goodness.

Winning The Future, One Lost Debate At A Time

In yet another WTF moment, Team Obama continues its plan to Win The Future by losing the debate on mandated contraceptive coverage.

The employer mandate, with a very limited religious exception, was announced in January.  NY Times polling from early February suggested that Obama had picked a winning issue - per question 74 of the poll, "Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health isurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients", 66% of respondents supported the mandate.  A follow up question, "And what about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university..." showed 61% in support.

Buat after a month of debate, and with a more nuanced question, the latest Times poll shows that support has faded (or that the original poll overstated the support):

73. Do you think health insurance plans for all employees should have to cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees, or should employers be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?

"Cover" gets 40%; "Opt-out" has 51%.  Ooops.  And as Mickey Kaus notes, even among women a slight edge goes to "opt-out".

A follow-up specifically focuses on religiously affiliated institutions; "Cover" drops to 36% while "opt-out" rises to 57%.

It seems to be the case that specifically including the "opt-out" notion in the question is shading the result.  As evidence, let's look at a recent Washington Post poll with a differently phrased question:

35. Do you think health insurance companies should or should not be required to cover the full cost of birth control for women? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

That phrasing is quite similar to the NY Times question of February, but where the Times had 66% support in February the WaPo is showing 61% support now (with 35% opposed).  As an amateur poll reader, I recall that the decision to include alternatives in a question will shade the result, which seems to be happening with the Times results.

More importantly, the WaPo follows up on religiously-affiliated institutions, and they indicate more of a gap than the Times captured in February.  Among 61% who support the employer mandate, 80% support it with no exception; 18% support a religious-affiliation exception.

So on net, 49% support the requirement that religiously affiliated institutions provide contraceptive coverage.  That is down from the Times result of 61% in February (subject to reservations about the cross-comparison due to wording or sampling technique, which are above my pay grade.)

It's hard to read this as evidence that Obama is winning the debate.  That said, the left is having succes with framing the issue - per the Times, 37% think the debate is about religious freedom and 51% think we are mooting women's rights.  Even with that modest success, however, Team Obama is not seeing strong support for their view.

Apparently if the Team Obama pollsters phrase their questions favorably they can get the result targeted within the Pelosi/Reid/Obama bubble.  But, as with the health care debacle, they may be surprised to learn that the public is not actually with them.

BITTERLY CLINGING TO THEIR TALKING POINTS:  Obama never listened in church but made the mistake of thinking no one else did, either.

Ninety Percent Of This Process Is Half Mental

Jim Geraghty comes out in favor of half-measures, especially if paired.

Fish Goes Foul With Obama-Free Double Standards

Stanley Fish, in "Two Cheers for Double Standards", explains why bashing Rush Limbaugh and giving Ed Schultz and Bill Maher a pass may not actually represent a double standard.  The crux (and don't imagine this excerpt does it justice):

[A person may believe that] Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice. Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy. Why should he get an even break?

There is no answer to that question once you step outside of the liberal calculus in which all persons, no matter what their moral status as you see it, are weighed in an equal balance. Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K. If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.

That is interesting but completely at odds with the position taken by Obama.  From his press conference (my emphasis):

What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don't have any place in the public discourse. 

And the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on.  I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way.  And I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because they're being good citizens.  And I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate, and we want you to be engaged, and there's a way to do it that doesn't involve you being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you’re a private citizen.

Literalists may chose to argue that Obama is adopting position driven by paternity: as their father he would object to seeing Sasha or Malia hit with the c-bomb even if they were advocating something heinous, like a pro-life view.  But for conservative women who are not his daughters, well, its open season.

However, it is pretty clear that, contra Fish, Obama thinks that both sides are entitled to a respectful hearing.  Since he has yet to return Bill Maher's million these are obviously just more words, but if he were serious he would want to encourage both sides, not just the other side, to keep it civil and he would want to distance himself from people who are unwilling or unable to do so.

Wll, Obama talks, but money talks louder.  And it can say anything it wants.

THE NEVERENDING STORY:  Michelle Obama will appear on David Letterman.  What are the odds that Letterman jokes about Sasha or Malia getting knocked up by someone?  What are the odds that Ms. Obama chasitises him for that sort of talk?  None and nada.

HIOW TO EXPLAIN THIS TO SASHA AND MALIA:  Maybe the White House could bring in Prof. Fish to explain to the kids that their dad is basically a poser and that crude insults directed at your political opponents is A-OK.