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?

Comments

[NK]

Ig-- Google Groups and Facebook did avoid liability-- Craig's List had bigger problems and signed some consent degrees as I recall (serial rapist used their service). Twitter may be different, because it's meant as instantaneous interactive communication for subscribers -- time will tell.

[Rick Ballard]

"Has it been confirmed that Martin actually had the tea and skittles? "

Pofarmer,

I've seen no confirmation and now I can't even remember if the assertion was made by Martin's girlfriend during her epic conversation which endured for [?] minutes and included all necessary information to exonerate Martin from even the thought that he might have been casing the neighborhood or if it is hearsay by Martin's father, based upon what Martin told the little boy (Martin's father's girlfriend's son) whom he was apparently charged with watching but who neglected to inform the father's girlfriend that St. Trayvon had failed to return from the errand of infinite mercy upon which he had embarked in succor of the little boy's needs.

IOW - the Skittles and ice tea are as necessary to the 'Legend of St Trayvon' as unicorn farts are to the proper worship of the Skydragon. They just fit like a glove.

[NK]

Boris-- in my little discussion with RobC I always referenced his comment time to let him know to what statement I was referring. In his 2:07 comment RobC told me I was misinterpreting his lethal force statements and I acknowledged that. I never misrepresented what he said -- and he corrected me when I misinterpreted. When he took a shot at me about NY law, I copied the relevant NY Statute and explained what initial agressor is and isn't in NYS. I don't have anything to apologize for; do you?

[Mustang0302]

Now some scumbag's shaking down Skittles.

Every color in the rainbow...except one!

[NK]

Skittles and Ice Tea? we'll probably find out they are urban legends like pre-tats and burglar tools Trayvon, legends that the family lawyer and race hustlers created as part of the narrative. That opportunity should not have been left open for them; now the good guys (like TomM) are scrambling trying to put together the real timeline and facts. It did not have to play out this way.

[narciso]

Sharpton is involved, it had to happen that way, NK,

[boris]

"In his 2:07 comment RobC told me I was misinterpreting his lethal force statements and I acknowledged that. I never misrepresented what he said -- and he corrected me when I misinterpreted."

That statement is not consistant with reality. Sorry NK.

[Clarice]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/report-doj-may-indict-sc-gov-nikki-haley-for-tax-fraud/

The nikki Haley story. After the Stevens fiasco, if anyone abandons her before this is resolved, he should be disgraced.

[boris]

Also that was just one flagrant example.

[Rick Ballard]

Pofarmer,

The other thing I haven't seen is confirmation by the 7-11 clerk that St. Trayvon had blessed the establishment with his presence (hopefully with surveillance video, so that we may all share a beatific vision).

[qrstuv]

"I never misrepresented what he said"

You most certainly did.

You can chalk it up to "misinterpretation" but you did no due diligence to reading his plain words.

[Jack is Back!]

Why piss off the Indian-American community here in America? They may be the most affluent and educated per capita ethnic community in the country. Between what they have done to Catholics and now Hispanics this only adds another layer of stupidity to the Obama campaign.

[NK]

Boris-- let's keep going-- more examples please, flagrant or otherwise. BTW-- you're 5:40 is what lawyers call a wholly conclusory statement devoid of any probative value.

[boris]

"more examples please"

Why bother. You obviously have no clue that you are being an ass.

[Ignatz]

--Nothing Rob C has written would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion.--

I think a reasonable person could come to that conclusion when he said Tyson would be justified in plugging some puny girl who socked him since the hypothetical was created to envision an extreme example of how a punch did not justify lethal force.
In any event I've made my views known.
Dead horse territory IMO.

[NK]

misrepresentation means intentionlly in this case. Due diligence means citing the comment time; good faith means accepting someone's clarification. "You certainly did." is also completely conclusory and devoid of probative value. I am looking, but still don't see anything to I need to apologize for.

[NK]

Ig-- you're a better man than me, I am genetically programed to debate to the end. OK, for that I apologize.

I would still like to meet jay though.

[Tom Maguire]

Re the video - 'Enlightened's' explanation for "he was on the porch and they shot him", to wit, she paired a recent memory with his final end, is inspired (and thank heaven she didn't say "He was playing football with the neighborhood boys and they shot him", or we would be hearing calls for a round-up and grilling of every kid in the neighborhood.

Second, color me... well, I have linked to that story repeatedly but never run the video. The marking for the crime scene are pretty clear, and the action seems to have happened pretty close to the walkway cutthrough up where the road bends.

Well, I need some screen caps or something to pin that down, but GREAT grist for the mill.

[henry]

Thanks for the pic of our Lt Gov.

JiB, Rahm assigns tasks like that -- the WI Dem Party is now a front org for the SEIU / Chicago machine.

[Pofarmer]

He mischarachterized or reversed Rob C's statements at least twice in this thread. You also have to realize what folks are taught in CCW class, at least in MO. DON'T. START. NUTHIN.

[boris]

"misrepresentation means intentionlly"

Poppycock. Your assertion abot what he said was false. You did not qualify that as your interpretation. Here is what I wrote ...

How is making false statements about what someone here "says" more polite than "shut up"?

Now you want to conflate "false statement" with something you also claim requires "intent"? No sale.

[qrstuv]

Ignatz:

When did RobC say that "Tyson would be justified in plugging some puny girl who socked him"

When?

I missed that part.

[boris]

"when he said Tyson would be justified in plugging some puny girl who socked him"

Nothing I read by Rob C comes close to that.

[qrstuv]

I think that if someone you otherwise respect (an assumption that may not be valid here) says something that sounds outlandish to you, you take it easy trying to understand what the person means before putting words in their mouth. It could very well be that you misunderstood entirely.

Taking care like this... that is due diligence.

[OldTimer]

This is the Haley/Daily Caller Twitter, if it's still a valid link:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/report-doj-may-indict-sc-gov-nikki-haley-for-tax-fraud/#ixzz1qXnHeTPR

[Enlightened]

Ok to the legal beagles -

If there were pictures of Zimmerman in a bloodied state (aparrently there are but not sure if from SPD or Z's family? - would TM's attorney/family be privvy to them at this stage?

SFgate advises the family is jumping on the ABC (doctored) video of Z's head and are claiming Z did not have a wound there...so I'm just wondering if any photo's are in the SPD file - can the victims family/attorney have access to them?

I'm just rolling that around since I think it's weird that they claim Zimmerman was not injured.......

[jimmyk]

True, qrstuv, though I think that cuts both ways. NK clearly misread RobC and others, IMO, but has been around here long enough to get the benefit of the doubt and not get trashed. I would say apologies are in order in both directions, but regardless, it's time to move on.

[OldTimer]

Oops---didn't see it linked above..

[bunkerbuster]

If DoT's carrying a gun and I'm a Muslim, I have sound reason to fear for my life, based on his public statements about wanting to kill Muslims.
If I shoot him dead on site, what evidence could the state use to arrest me?
Tyson and a female banker? fuhgeddaboudit. Let's stack the deck a little less forcefully, shall we?
Let's consider Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn or any of the many other ideotainers who rely on anti-Muslim bigotry to sell books and get face time on Fox. Some of them are on record calling for attacks on Muslims. If they choose to carry a firearm, what evidence would the state need to arrest a Muslim who, discovering they were armed, shot them dead?
The Zimmerman precedent, should it stand, may as well be called the terrorist/thug empowerment act, because it will give a license to kill to anyone with half a mind to set up a murder to look like self-defense.
On the other hand, if Zimmerman is arrested, charged and then exonerated, the case would pose no significant legal deterrent or chilling effect on individuals using lethal force in self-defense.
If Zimmerman is arrested and convicted, what would the objection be to his arrest?

[Clarice]

At this point everything the Martins' lawyer says is designed to force an indictment and poison the jury pool to secure $$$$$$$. Don't forget it.

[jimmyk]

If only we could arrest and put stupid trolls on trial, maybe it would have a "chilling effect" on them too. What would be the objection?

[bunkerbuster]

And wingnuts chanting the narrative that Zim had good reason to fear for his life should at least consider what a fine line he's going to have to tread, should a full investigation ever require him to give his side of the story under oath.
Remember, the firearm has to get out of his pocket, or waistband or other concealed location into his hand WHILE he is being beaten toward death.
A struggle for the gun solves that problem, but the Official Wingnut Fantasy Narrative of events doesn't yet include that AND would contradict the gospel according to Zim's father.
If Zimmerman is cold-cocked and getting his head smashed on the ground, AND Trayvon sees the gun, how does Zim prevent Trayvon from seizing the gun?
Nothing's impossible but as scenarios go, that one's extremely unlikely...

[Ignatz]

Shut up bubu. You're stupid and dishonest.
See, I'm not that tolerant, boris. :)

[matt]

Tax fraud cases are pursued through the IRS, not the DoJ normally, aren't they?

according to one web site:

First, the IRS Service Center may send you a non-threatening written notice informing you of a discrepancy in your taxes.

Second, you may receive a letter or phone call from a Taxpayer Service Representative giving you a deadline for re-filing your taxes.

Third, a Revenue Agent or Officer may call you or visit you in your home, giving a deadline for filing the returns and perhaps offering to assist you in preparing the returns. If you refuse to file your taxes at this point, the IRS can file a return for you, which may not be as favorable as it would be otherwise.

Fourth, an agent of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division may pay you a visit, informing you that you are now a target of a criminal investigation

Since the IRS falls under the Treasury Department the heavy lifting is done there. It then goes to Justice for criminal prosecution.

But since she's been governor for a year and then a member of the SC legislature for several years, I would not think she would risk her career and her freedom in that manner.

Then again, Herman Cain must have thought he was invincible and hubris seems to run in tandem with the choice of a political career these days.

[Mustang0302]

Hey, y'all...stop a moment and take a quick look at the title of this thread...

...like a Twilight Zone episode, ain't it?

[Rick Ballard]

jimmyk,

They're already serving a life sentence of stupidity without possibility of parole. There's probably an 8th Amendment problem concerning a penalty harsher than that.

[Extraneus]

One the CRT front...

Herm Edwards: Rooney Rule 'a sham' as Saints eye Parcells

Bill Parcells hasn't been offered a position with the New Orleans Saints, and the team isn't rushing to replace Sean Payton during his one-year suspension from the league.

That didn't stop former NFL coach Herm Edwards from lambasting the Saints in light of the Rooney Rule, which requires teams to interview at least one minority candidate for head-coaching positions. Edwards believes New Orleans' perceived interest in Parcells turns the eventual hiring process into a foregone conclusion.

"It makes it a little bit of a scam now," Edwards said on ESPN, via ProFootballTalk.com. "That's the shame of it all. Sean Payton opening his mouth like he did, he really reflects that this thing is going to become a sham if Bill Parcells takes this job. Because if you do decide to interview a minority, you're going to go with Bill Parcells. You've already said, 'This is our coach.' That's the shame of it all. It puts (NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell) in another bind."

Let me just say that Herm Edwards was a terrible coach - really terrible - and he got his head-coaching job with the Jets after never having been either an offensive or defensive coordinator. Who else has done that?

[Threadkiller]

--" If DoT's carrying a gun and I'm a Muslim"--

If?

[Ignatz]

--Ignatz:

When did RobC say that "Tyson would be justified in plugging some puny girl who socked him"

When?

I missed that part.--

--Nothing I read by Rob C comes close to that.--

Rob said;
"If someone attacks with their fists -- drop 'em dead where they stand."

which sounded pretty all inclusive and prompted the NK response which you both objected to and his Tyson hypothetical to which Rob responded thusly;

"*sigh*

Tyson initiated the encounter. He's at fault."

which states that Tyson is fault not because he was using excessive force on a puny woman but because he called her a name and thereby initiated the altercation.
I'm not going through the rest of thread to see how it further devolved or was deconstructed.

This horse has initiated an altercation and according to case law I'm authorized to use my .450 Rigby to make sure it stays dead. BOOM!

[Threadkiller]

Ext, I was going to say Obama, but I am pretty sure he has been an offensive coordinator.

[Extraneus]

If only we could arrest and put stupid trolls on trial, maybe it would have a "chilling effect" on them too. What would be the objection?

Heh. None here.

[NK]

qrstuv/Boris-- go back and read the comments 1:16 - 1:33, I believed that RobC saidlethal force could always be used to defend against fists when RobC@1:16said:

"Actually, you're not. If someone attacks with their fists -- drop 'em dead where they stand"

That's pretty definitive-- I don't think I was reckless to believe that RobC was saying a fist attack gave a right to unconditional lethal force. Then @133 you can see where I misunderstood what RobC meant. from 2:04 on, you can see where RobC and I clarified what we were saying and how RobC corrected me @207. I have no problem with anything RobC said all afternoon, we disagree on somethings, he corrected me and I corrected him about NYS law. That said, you guys may want to look at your own comments --pretty silly. frankly I don't care if you guys look infantile, but it's something you guys may want to ponder.

[MarkO]

--" If DoT's carrying a gun and I'm a Muslim"--

You could not be safer. In fact, DoT would do anything in his power to not have to use his weapon. Obama would likely shoot you first, just out of his ordinary stupidity.

[boatbuilder]

Ex--Herm Edwards is right--they will have to interview Dennis Green or that guy who just coached the Colts into position to draft Andrew Luck, but it's a sham. Herm should know--he's done a lot of those interviews. And you are correct--Herm Edwards was a terrible coach.

[Pofarmer]

Infantile?

Was I the one misusing brandishing who refused to be corrected? No. Was I the one making up ridiculous circumstances to bolster a fictitious Point? No. Am I the one making difinitive statements on what people with CCW permits are instructed on when I myself have not been so instructed? No. And NK, to be precise, you're 6:54 still makes you look like a pompous ass on this thread.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . which states that Tyson is fault not because he was using excessive force on a puny woman but because he called her a name and thereby initiated the altercation.

Umm, not quite. He stated the first reason Tyson would not be able to claim self-defense. He didn't say that was the only reason. And since both of these guys are using different statutes it's pretty hard to evaluate, but apparently that reason is correct in Ohio.

Meanwhile, the Florida statute is interesting:

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

I'm not sure what "provoked" consists of (and whether or not a verbal would be sufficient), but by my reading Zimmerman would have a good case under either 2(a) or (b) above, if the witness corroborates his being beaten and his shouting for help.

[boatbuilder]

Yes, BuBu--he should be forced to give a full accounting of his actions, under oath, so that the state can charge him with murder. And even better, if it doesn't add up, the state can charge him with perjury. What a great country! What the hell is wrong with Florida?

[Cecil Turner]

Carp. Meant to say in my hypothetical above that Zimmerman has a case even if he provoked the incident.

[boris]

"If someone attacks with their fists -- drop 'em dead where they stand."

In the first place that was not related to the Tyson hypo. Also life threatening unprovoked attack was the context of that statement responding to "If an assailant attacks with a lethal weapon ... drop 'em dead wwhere they stand. I issue medals for that".

Self defense does not rule out disproportionate means. People die in fist fights on a regular basis.

[Extraneus]

That's interesting, Cecil. So the FL statute doesn't give the "stand your ground" exemption to the initiator, but still gives that person the right of self-defense in the event that it isn't possible to escape great bodily harm.

Seems reasonable.

[boatbuilder]

And can we please give Mike Tyson a break? He hasn't done anything completely insane for at least several months.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Via MacsMind:

I’ve obtained copies of the Paramedic report on George Zimmerman from the scene and it confirms the injuries in the police report. For HIPAA reasons I won’t post it here, but it says in part that subject sustained superficial lacerations on the back on his head, left cheek and a swollen nose. He was treated and cleared for transport.

[Cecil Turner]

Can't believe it: somebody spelled "HIPAA" correctly in casual usage. Rare as hen's teeth.

[Extraneus]

Speaking of the Jets...

NY judge blocks sales of Jets-Tebow apparel

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel granted Nike Inc. a temporary restraining order late Wednesday, finding "sufficient reason" for him to block sales of Tebow merchandise created by Reebok International Ltd. after March 1.

Nike has a five-year contract to be the NFL's exclusive provider of on-field apparel, including game uniforms and sideline apparel. It maintained in a lawsuit that Reebok rushed to market with Tebow apparel to take advantage of a "unique and short-lived opportunity."

[snip]

Castel banned Reebok from selling any apparel with the name "Tebow" on it unless it was made by March 1, while he was still with the Broncos. He set a hearing in the case for Wednesday.

Reebok had the license until March 1, and Nike has it beginning April 1. Kind of amazing that nobody had it between those dates.

[Steve]

If Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him, would there be blood on Zimmerman?

[Extraneus]

If Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him, would there be blood on Zimmerman?

Possibly, but unlike the exit wound, the entry wound doesn't usually splash blood.

[Danube of Thought]

"I have sound reason to fear for my life, based on his public statements about wanting to kill Muslims"

No you don't. Anyway, in ten seconds I'd have ny foot on your neck.

[NK]

CecilT-- I didn't read the early sections of the Florida statute, but GZ is claiming he was NOT the INITIAL AGRESSOR, GZ claims that he was walking back to his car when Martin jumped him; so GZ claims he could use lethal force because he was in danger of serious injury or death. Now if the facts were that GZ threw the first punch at Martin -- therefore GZ was the aggressor, in order for GZ to have a defense under 2(a) --GZ would have to show that Martin was on top of him , he couldn't escape, Martin was banging his head on the ground, he could feel the blood and if he didn't use lethal force Martin would have killed him. I can't see the special prosecutor being able to establish those facts definitively at this point. The circus will continue, unfortunately.

[Ignatz]

--In the first place that was not related to the Tyson hypo.--

Goddamned horse.
It resulted directly in the Tyson hypothetical precisely because it was so all inclusive.

--Umm, not quite. He stated the first reason Tyson would not be able to claim self-defense.--

Cecil,
There is nothing in the statement I quoted that says this was the first of two or more reasons Tyson would be legally culpable. NK gave his hypothetical and Rob only said Tyson was liable because he had initiated the altercation verbally, which incidentally appears incorrect.
He may have meant more but he didn't state it.
And he may even have stated it later. I'm not parsing the whole thread to find out.

--I'm not sure what "provoked" consists of (and whether or not a verbal would be sufficient)--

Not sure about Florida but the statute that Rob himself quoted seemed to implicitly exclude verbal provocation as sufficient since the first party could not have started the altercation through an intent only to physically harm the second party.

Just to remind everyone, I disagreed with most of NK's points on this thread and only objected to what seemed like over the top criticism of him personally. Haven't seen anything yet justifying those personal digs.

[Danube of Thought]

"Some of them are on record calling for attacks on Muslims. If they choose to carry a firearm, what evidence would the state need to arrest a Muslim who, discovering they were armed, shot them dead?"

Sounds like bubu thinks we can shoot to kill the NBBP guys on sight.

[Danube of Thought]

"...should a full investigation ever require him to give his side of the story under oath."

What will it take to make this young fool understand that no such requirement can ever be imposed on him? Really, how stupid is this kid?

[Extraneus]

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

[boris]

That's pretty definitive-- I don't think I was reckless to believe that RobC was saying a fist attack gave a right to unconditional lethal force.

Who cares if you were "reckless", you ascribed a position to him that was false. Then you tried to claim calling you on it was invalid based on your "intent". Also false. You have been squirming over that call since then and have yet to acknowledge it was valid.

[NK]

Boris@710-- I appreciate you're being more polite... but... you repeatedly accused me of intentionally or at least recklessly misrepresenting what RobC said. NOW, you're saying I --let's say-- carelessly misunderstood the context of "..attacks with their fists.. drop em where they stand" I'll accept @710 as your acknowledgement that I didn't intentionally or recklessly misrepresent someone else's comments. It's important to me that record at JOM reflect that.

[Danube of Thought]

"If I shoot him dead on site, what evidence could the state use to arrest me?"

The sentence immediately preceding that question would be sufficient to get you the needle, moron.

[NK]

Ig,Ig-- Please see my @7:32, I've deemed Boris@7:10 as an acknowledgement that I didn't intentionally misrepresent anyone's comments. I'm good with that. You are a fair man, appreciate your kind words, but I'm moving on. Hope the scan went AOK, and your muscle building plan is on course. Regards, NK

[Cecil Turner]

GZ is claiming he was NOT the INITIAL AGRESSOR, GZ claims that he was walking back to his car when Martin jumped him;

I know. But both Z's father and the GF version have a short discussion initiated by Trayvon (either "why are you following me?" or "what's your problem?" or some such). Seems to me that's the weakest part of GZ's story--on the chance that following TM is interpreted to "provoke" the use of force.

And as to GZ's reasonable fear of great bodily harm, looks to me like he and the witnesses all concur on that point (except for the earwitnesses, which I think any reasonable observer would discount).

[Steve]

"... Possibly, but unlike the exit wound, the entry wound doesn't usually splash blood. ..."

If you shoot someone dead who is kneeling above you, punching you in the head, do they fall on top of you? It will be interesting to read what Zimmerman has to say about where he was when he shot Martin. If there is any distance between the two, or Martin was not striking him, Zimmerman has a problem.

[Cecil Turner]

There is nothing in the statement I quoted that says this was the first of two or more reasons Tyson would be legally culpable.

Doesn't need two reasons. Any one would make Tyson culpable. The answer to the hypothetical (which everyone agrees) is that he was culpable.

(He's also a convicted felon, in one or more of those jurisdictions he'd have a duty to withdraw, he had other options than a firearm . . . and I bet there's a couple more.)

[narciso]

Ah you follow the Ballasy story, to the Palmetto bugs, and we find a link to Will Folks's outfit, the creepy IM like libeler,
re these supposed lawsuits, that are the basis for these charges,

[Cecil Turner]

If there is any distance between the two, or Martin was not striking him, Zimmerman has a problem.

My understanding of the forensics is that this is very easy to determine and remarkably accurate. I seriously doubt they'd be leaking inconsequential detention video if there were evidence showing a significant distance between shooter and victim.

[Extraneus]

Since we're so far into the weeds, what constitutes the provocation of legitimate physical violence? It can't be the following of a person or words. Surely not the n-word in Martin's case, and I know that hasn't been alleged.

If Martin initiated physical violence, what justification could he have possibly had?

[Pofarmer]

If Martin was rushing him, and zimmerman threw the "first punch" he is still in the clear. Heck, if Martin was rushing him, and Zimmerman plugged him, he would be in the clear, but, that wouldn't happen froma waste band holster.

[NK]

CecilT-- if the facts are -- IF-- GZ is following Martin, Martin turns and confronts GZ, and GZ does nothing except say impolite things (ef-off), GZ is not an aggressor -- no way. GZ's conduct would have to initiate physical force -- or at least the threat of physical force-- of some kind to be an aggressor. IF, IF Martin throws the first punch, GZ can use reasonable force and lethal force defenses. Your statute section relates to GZ FIRST pushing, shoving or threatening physical force (ie brandishing his gun) against Martin. Even then GZ has his defenses if Martin had trapped him and was pounding his head on the ground. To avoid indictment, IMO, the investigation would have to conclusivelty show GZ was not an aggressor. I'm not optomistic.

[Danube of Thought]

OT: watching Bush 41 endorsing Romney, he sounds as though he has aged a great deal very recently. Fine gentleman.

[MarkO]

Bush 41 may have been the most qualified man ever to be elected President.

[Jane]

Changing the subject: I just got back from a republican fundraiser - it was a dinner with 2 speakers - one the vice chairman of the rep party and the other one of the "heavy hitters" who reports on Fox every week. I was "the moderator."

It was such a blast. I asked pretty provocative questions, I think. They started out saying they didn't think there was all that much media bias but the press gravitated toward the most provocative story. I followed up by saying "how would you explain the lack of coverage on Fast and Furious and the excessive coverage on Trayvon Martin. The guy actually rethought his premise and we had an interesting dialogue (even tho I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be dialoguing.)

The repub guy compared OWS with the Tea party (I had asked how he planned to get the tea party in his corner) and he said the tea party was better. I told him he would be smart to never ever mention the two in the same sentence as there was no comparison. The crowd applauded.

The repub guy said he didn't trust blogs but wanted something edited. I asked him about the Dan Rather story and reminded a blogger made that happen. He reconsidered.

There was lots more.

Both congratulated me at the end. And I LOVED IT! I've never done anything like that before but it really was a blast.

Okay, enough about me....but I couldn't help but share.

[Extraneus]

If you shoot someone dead who is kneeling above you, punching you in the head, do they fall on top of you?

Maybe if you shot them with a .22 or possibly even a .32, but I would think a 9mm hollow-point would launch him backwards pretty forcefully, and most people carrying a 9mm would be packing hollow-points unless they're at the shooting range.

[Captain Hate]

Let me just say that Herm Edwards was a terrible coach - really terrible - and he got his head-coaching job with the Jets after never having been either an offensive or defensive coordinator. Who else has done that?

Herm was like a black Marty Schottenheimer with his clueless looks on the sideline while getting smoked by his opponent, although without the regular season victories to set up the inevitable playoff collapsing lolcano. Even though Herm's being a complete imbecile in this (and thank you for deviating for the trollbait topic of this stale thread) anything that puts sand in Roger Goodell's mangina gets my full approval.

[bunkerbuster]

DoT brags: ``Anyway, in ten seconds I'd have ny foot on your neck.''
Making my point that you have a track record of threatening unoprovoked violence against Muslims. Remember, whether or not you intended to kill me isn't at issue, given the Zimmerman precedent. The issue is whether it would be reasonable to assume you did. More important, it will be up to the state to obtain evidence you DIDN'T intend to kill me before I can even be arrested. And please do tell us how you think they'd go about doing that, given your published record of bigotry and threats.
If the Zimmerman precedent does stand, I wonder if it will have a chilling effect on all the bigotry spewed on web sites like this.

[Ignatz]

--and your muscle building plan is on course.--

Like clockwork. Circumference of my head has increased a solid inch.

--Doesn't need two reasons. Any one would make Tyson culpable.--

I'm pretty sure my game winning field goal just fell short cause the goalposts got picked up and moved 10 rows into the stands.
You said he stated the first reason, but according to the statute he quoted he didn't state a valid reason Tyson would be culpable.
I don't know if he ever stated a second reason and I'm suddenly trying without success to remember why I care. :)
Besides any hypothetical in which Mike Tyson is the shooter and not the shootee is invalid on its face.

[NK]

Po@748-- does Florida Law hold that lethal force can be used in self-defense withOUT a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm? Do you have the statute or case citation for that? Or are you saying that a 17yo "rushing at" a 28yo creates reasonable fear as a matter of law in Florida?

[henry]

Jane, many here posited that a blogger as moderator would be superior to the standard MSM types. Sounds like you proved it!

[Extraneus]

Go Jane! Surprising they needed that amount of remedial education.

[Gmax]

With a pretty decent sized exit wound and blood and sinew and maybe bone scattered behind him. I cant imagine anyone getting a license for Concealed Carry and then carrying a .22 which might not stop a determined dog.

[Gmax]

OK Jane who was the heavy hitter? Inquiring minds want to know...

[centralcal]

How very cool, Jane! Sounds like you did a great job!

[Jane]

Surprising they needed that amount of remedial education.

That's the mainstream, and they are everywhere.

[Ignatz]

Go Jane!
For your next great trick, could you please step on bubu's neck too?

[NK]

Ig-- ah-- the anabolics are working then. I hope you're not using the Mexican bovine steroid stuff the HS kids get on line.

[Pofarmer]

NK, what is with you?

"To avoid indictment, IMO, the investigation would have to conclusivelty show GZ was not an aggressor. I'm not optomistic. "

Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? That State has to prove it was NOT self defense. Witness statements corroborate that it was.

Let's see, it's dark and raining, some guy comes rushing straight at me at top speed in the dark. Should I fear bodily harm? Good Golly beave.

[Threadkiller]

I just not a conspiracy kind of a guy.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/pentagon-has-no-records-of-osama-bin-ladens-death/

[Gmax]

Bunky you would piss your pants and cry for momma? A weinie like you aint got a weapon or a clue...

[Jane]

Bubu should leave in shame. I've asked him the same question 3 times and he won't answer. He does not deal in facts.

[Pofarmer]

How much blood on the shooter would depend on bullet, shot placement, etc. A 9mm at point blank is probably going to go pretty much straight through, would be my guess. Whoever asked about point blank, I think it was steve, most CCW shootings occur at less than 7 yards.

[Gmax]

Bunky used to be a drive by troll. But since Dana bares his @ss and gets it banned, he becomes a nonstop poster. Coincidence or conspiracy?

[Extraneus]

I cant imagine anyone getting a license for Concealed Carry and then carrying a .22 which might not stop a determined dog.

I usually carry a Seecamp .32 when I carry, but I know enough to squeeze off two or three shots if necessary.

[bunkerbuster]

Anyone got a got reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested for involuntary manslaughter?

[narciso]

Really TK, David 'Frickin' Ray Griffin, the king of the 9/11 denialists on this side of the Atlantic,

[Janet]

Wonderful, Jane!! Thanks for filling us in...I love hearing about it. I wish we could get your TV show.