Fish Fear Me

So It Ends

It appears that the last door to criminal prosecution of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin was closed yesterday:

The Justice Department said Tuesday its independent investigation found "insufficient evidence" to charge George Zimmerman with federal civil rights violations in the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the evidence did not meet the "high standard for a federal hate crime prosecution," but the decision should not end efforts to explore racial tensions in the justice system. The decision closes the federal investigation.

It's a predictable end to a story that never should have been about race in the first place. When Martin's family hired Benjamin Crump, who in turn hired a publicist, who immediately spun a half-true narrative out to the news media, a digital lynch mob was formed that had everything to do with racial grievances and revenge and little time for actual justice. It just so happened to also dovetail nicely with Barack Obama's 2012 campaign strategy of dividing America. 

It was also another disgusting frenzy of unprofessional behavior from a news media that everyone can see values narrative and sensationalism over facts and truth. ABC News with their debunked "Zimmerman uninjured video." NBC News with their shameful editing of the 911 call. Countless news media sites that continued to propagate the falsehood that the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin long after the transcript and tape made it clear that was not the case.

And then there's us. As an untrustworthy news media spewed fact and fiction alike with abandon, many Americans decided "what the hell" and dug into whatever reality matched their tribal perspective. So deeply are they entrenched that even today the established facts cannot penetrate their narrative. I saw a lot of that yesterday from all sides in various posts and comments. 

The irony is that the race angle is probably what let Zimmerman off the hook. Under severe pressure, the DA overcharged Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, a charge that was obviously unsupported by the facts. I can't prove it, but it's my belief that a lesser charge, presented without the racial angle, would have had a good chance of seeing Zimmerman convicted. I could see myself as a juror voting to convict on a lesser charge.

Martin's death could have at least some meaning if a larger lesson could be drawn from it, but even that has been obscured by the racial animus and the media circus. The lesson is this:

"Walk away. Let it go. It's not worth dying over."

The trial record makes it clear that both Zimmerman and Martin had a chance to back off, to avoid the fatal confrontation. Strip away the race angle and this case is a powerful lesson for everybody in how stupid stuff can suddenly spin horribly out of control.

It will go unheeded by most.

Because Apparently There Wasn't Enough Poison In Our Politics Already(update)

Some woman in Texas thought she would be clever on Sunday and showed up at a protest against the George Zimmerman verdict with the following sign:

Note the caption and how the NY Daily News ran with it as a straight news item. The UK's Daily Mail online played it as a straight news photo of a George Zimmerman supporter also.

It turns out that she was actually with the Trayvon Martin side at the protest and she was just being "sarcastic."

 

It may have been sarcasm as far as she's concerned, but two major news organizations put it on the record as testimony to the racism of Zimmerman supporters.

I'd like to know how that happened, because according to the story at the video link, at one point she was clearly on the side of the street with the Trayvon Martin supporters. Is that where James Nielson of AP took the picture? Did he know that wasn't really a Zimmerman supporter and did he provide that context when he submitted the photo to his editor? 

Who was the editor and was that image altered in any substantial way? Was important context cut before it was sent out over the AP wire to other news organizations?

I wonder how many thousands or even millions of people have seen or will see that picture as a Zimmerman supporter standing unmolested amongst other Zimmerman supporters and therefore see that as a true representation of the racism of all Zimmerman supporters. How many people have been or will be misled into anger and hatred and have their hearts hardened by that photo?

I wonder if Renee Vaughan, the name of the woman with the sign apparently, is proud of that.

I wonder if James Nielsen is proud of that.

I wonder if AP President Gary Pruitt and his staff of managers and editors are proud of that. 

I wonder if Philip Caulfield and the publishers and editors at the NY Daily News and the Mail Online are proud of that.

I wonder if any of them actually give a shit.

Update: As of 12:45 CDT the New York Daily News has memory-holed the photo without a correction notice, but left the following copy in the story:

One woman in the Zimmerman group held a sign that said, "We're racist & proud."

Austin resident Renee Vaughan echoed the sign’s ugly sentiments by yelling, "We're racist. We're proud. We're better because we're white," at the Martin group as they passed, according to the Chronicle.

At this point it is hard to escape the conclusion that Philip Caulfield and all his editors are a bunch of giant assholes who are out to deliberately deceive their readers.

Which Black Man Should I Heed?

Here are several options in the form of three distinct tweets:

 

 

So is it racist or rational to wonder if there will be a violent reaction from some black Americans if George Zimmerman goes free?

On Friday, CNN's Don Lemon echoed the first tweet pictured above:

"No one should ever be violent about anything, and especially in this particular case," he said. "And I want to say this as judiciously as possible. I'm not just saying this because I'm African-American. But to hear people come out beforehand and talk about the possibility of violence and not rioting, it strikes me as, 'those barbarians can't contain themselves.' And it strikes many people as that as well."

I get that. If I were in Don Lemon's shoes I might feel exactly the same way. After all, I think it's obvious that all but a small percentage of black Americans would not even think of rioting after a Zimmerman acquittal. But what are we, meaning law-abiding Americans of all races and ethnicities, to make of the next two tweets?

In just an hour of reviewing Twitter last night by searching for "riot," I saw hundreds of similar tweets to the second one above, meaning there are probably thousands more out there. Some of the tweets I saw were obviously sarcastic in tone and others sounded like bluster, but many were clearly angry, threatening, and real. Again, what are we to make of the latter? Are we supposed to pretend they don't exist?

And please note that a good deal of the speculation that blacks will riot if Zimmerman walks, such as tweet #3, is coming from black Americans themselves. 

It's absurd to think that Americans of any race aren't going to notice all of that chatter and try to figure out what it means and how seriously they should take it. Or if they need to take steps to be prepared to protect themselves when a verdict is reached. 

The threats of a relative few should not be used against all black Americans, of course. But as far as speculation about some blacks turning to violence if Zimmerman is acquitted, Lemon and company can kindly send their complaints to @DRIZZY_HIGHTIDE. 

Zimmerman: I Don't See Murder Two

I haven't been following the Zimmerman trial live, but I have been catching daily recaps on various news sites and blogs. Today the trial moves to closing arguments that could still sway my opinion one way or the other, but for now here's my "2 cents."

-I can't see how Zimmerman gets convicted on the second degree murder charge. I think the prosecution didn't even come close to proving the required "... ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" for a conviction on that charge, nor did they prove "indifference to human life" on Zimmerman's part. There's no way a reasonable person can take "fucking punks" and turn it into some sort of evil intent to commit murder. How many times have you thought or muttered "fucking asshole" at somebody for what they said or did? Did you have actual murder in your heart at that point? Most of us not being psychos, the answer is no, of course. The prosecution had to strain mightily and go to a ridiculously negative extreme to try to prove this point and they failed. 

-Today the presiding judge predictably confirmed that the jury would be able to consider a lesser charge of manslaughter. I think that's what Zimmerman should have been charged with in the first place.

-I could still be persuaded otherwise, but at this point I would probably vote "not guilty" even to the charge of manslaughter. Zimmerman's mistakes may attach a certain moral culpability to that night's events, but we are dealing with legal issues and not moral judgments. In hindsight, it would have been better for everyone if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck. But following someone is not a crime and it certainly is not a legal justification for Martin to assault Zimmerman.

From the evidence it seems clear that before he was shot, Martin was on top of Zimmerman and throwing punches, the somewhat laughable "only saw downward movement" testimony aside. The state claims that Zimmerman provoked this situation, which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Zimmerman shouldn't be able to claim self-defense for a fight he started. But what did Zimmerman do to provoke an actual fight? Again, following someone isn't illegal and it is not just cause to assault that person. And as I mentioned two weeks ago, it's possible that Martin could have easily gone home and instead chose to instigate the confrontation with Zimmerman. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and again they failed on this point.

-The sole remaining point is whether Zimmerman was justified in fearing for his life as Martin was on top of him and punching him, and if there was sufficient reason to use deadly force. It's at this point that I have my reservations about Zimmerman's actions. 

Fistfights are a funny thing. I haven't been in very many myself, but I've seen two guys whale away at each other and come out basically unscathed, and yet once I saw a guy get hit just once in the face and he was out cold. Then there's the former Minneapolis policeman who punched a loud drunk at a bar while off-duty last year. The loud drunk hit his head on the floor and nearly died from his injuries. The officer was convicted of assault(properly I might add), and today was sentenced to three years and seven months in prison. One punch, two lives devastated.

My default position is that fistfights between two men generally don't escalate to a level that justifies deadly force. However, according to the FBI there were 728 people murdered by "hands, fists, feet, etc" in the US in 2011. That's more than rifles and shotguns combined for that year.  On the other hand, while there's no doubt in my mind that Martin injured Zimmerman, I do have my doubts that those injuries were severe enough to justify using deadly force on Martin. Would those doubts be enough to vote to convict if I were on that jury?

I don't think so, but it's a difficult call. Despite my suspicions about Zimmerman's injuries, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy on his back in this sort of situation. Once again the burden is on the prosecution and I think they failed to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt here as well.   

So that's where I'm at today. I don't believe Zimmerman was out to get Martin like some "vigilante." I don't believe that Zimmerman had any racial animus towards Martin. The case the state should have focused on, in pursuit of a conviction on the far more reasonable charge of manslaughter, is that Zimmerman would have been okay if he had just waited for the cops to come. The fight with Martin did not cause serious enough injury for him to fear for his life and use deadly force. I might have gone for that argument, but I think the prosecution blew a lot of credibility with the second degree murder overreach.

Zimmerman Trial

Today is day three in the George Zimmerman murder trial. My hope is not for an acquittal or a conviction, but that the evidence and testimony under oath can burn away most of the misinformation and half-truths that have surrounded this case since it first burst on the national scene more than a year ago. That's my hope, but I realize that there are strong reasons to be pessimistic about that. People have not only absorbed that bad information, they've become heavily invested in the politicized narratives around them. And given the poor and even despicable performance of our MSM before the trial, it's not certain that any fact that goes against those narratives will even get covered.

My own take is it will all come down to two consequential decisions. Many people are focused solely on the first, which is Zimmerman choosing to get out of his SUV to follow Trayvon Martin on foot, for whatever reason. For them, that's the end of the story. Trayvon Martin would be alive today if Zimmerman had stayed in his SUV.

However, the timing of all this appears to show there was a second consequential decision, and that was Trayvon Martin choosing to not go home and instead, confronting Zimmerman. Had Martin simply kept walking back to the the condo he was staying in he would be alive today.

Just mentioning the above is sure to evoke a strong and emotional response from some people, but justice demands a cold hard look at the timing and distances involved, to the extent that they can be determined, and let the chips fall where they may. 

If you are looking for another news source on the trial, I recommend giving the Legal Insurrection blog a view. They seem able to get into the details a little better than the MSM reports I've read so far.

My sense right now is that there's no way the jury finds Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder. If the judge allows the jury to consider manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, I think it could go either way on both of those because contrary to many opinions out there, I really think it will be a tough call. 

Back At It

This wonderfully sunny Monday finds the week-long battle against my head cold all but over. The critical day was Thursday, when I was able to beat back its attempt to settle in my chest. Yesterday was the somewhat ghastly clearing of the sinuses and today I have just a few sniffles left. It's good to be able to smell the spring air again. Now if I could only get used to this daily shaving thing.

We've had good rainfall here that last few weeks and after our extremely dry winter that's good news. The timing hasn't been the greatest though. This weekend was once again pretty much a washout for getting stuff done in the yard. I should be able to get a few hours in this evening and tomorrow before the rains return.

John Huntsman(Sore Loser-Utah) is whining about the GOP again. After losing the GOP base with the brilliant strategy of disagreeing while being disagreeable, the ever arrogant and entitled-feeling Huntsman is shocked, shocked!, that the GOP shunned him for calling for a third party to go against, at least in part, the GOP. The man is so self-absorbed that he cannot even grasp the consequences of his own actions. 

And Huntsman can spare us the regurgitation of this stupid meme that's going around that Ronald Reagan couldn't get the GOP nomination today. If he truly believes that, he can start by showing me the page in Reagan's playbook where he wins the nomination by telling the base essentially to "shut up you stupid gits." Then he can show us how Reagan would love a federal government that feels entitled to dictate to us even to the point of telling us the kinds of light bulbs we can or cannot buy. Good luck with that. Finally, Reagan would be horrified at a Democratic party that has gone far beyond assuring a societal safety net and now openly espouses redistribution of wealth. He would be pounding Democrats with that far harder than Romney or Huntsman ever will. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

Over the weekend I read this depressing piece on the Trayvon Martin case from a man named Mansfield Frazier(via Bob Owens). Apparently Frazier has convicted George Zimmerman in the court of his mind and now, "The paramount concern has to be to avert a large-scale racial calamity." Frazier goes on to urge Zimmerman's attorney to arrange a plea bargain that would see Zimmerman back on the street within eight years. Otherwise:

"America can only dodge so many racial bullets, and a not-guilty verdict in this case could very easily turn the racial cold war into a very hot one."

Given Frazier's mention of the Rodney King riots it's not difficult to see what he means here. Anything less than jail time for Zimmerman at this point means rioting in the streets. Is that just an accurate reading of the situation or a threat? I don't know. It may be both. I've seen enough threats of violence on the web not to discount it.

This spring has already seen a small group of black young people attack passersby(white?) half a dozen times in downtown Minneapolis, culminating in some arrests after increased police patrols. So called "flash mobs" have also been on the rise across the country. My gut tells me that our urban black underclass was getting primed to explode even before the Martin killing. I can't believe that has made things any better.

Regardless, it's depressing to see someone like Frazier warn of a mob and then declare it must be appeased, or else. Whether Zimmerman decides to take a plea, is found guilty, or is acquitted, it is no matter to me as long as the system is allowed to work without threats of violence.

The Twins return home tonight against Boston. They managed a 2-2 split in New York and avoided a sweep in Tampa Bay over the weekend. Not bad as far as I'm concerned. I figured they had a good chance of going 0-7. And since I've been ragging on the $23 million/year man for his pathetic 2011 effort, it's only fair to note that Joe Mauer has played in all 16 games so far this season. He's not putting up $23 million/year numbers just yet, but the first step is just being there. Credit where due.

A just missed weekend for Gopher baseball on the road at Michigan State. They went 1-2 with both losses coming in extra innings. The series win earned Michigan St. a tie with the Gophers for second in the Big Ten. 

"Journalists" Suck (continued)

Defenders of our current mainstream journalism, please defend this from CNN:

Martin's family believes Zimmerman, 28, racially profiled their 17-year-old son, who was walking back from a convenience store, and unjustly killed him after disregarding a police dispatcher's request not to follow the unarmed teen.

Zimmerman contends he acted in self-defense. His family says he did not profile Martin.

The bolded text in the first paragraph above is false. There is no question about it. Here is the relevant exchange with the 911 operator, information that has been available for weeks now:

911 operator: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

911 operator: "Okay, we don't need you to do that."

Clearly there was no "request" for Zimmerman to stop following Martin. The operator merely informed Zimmerman that he didn't need to do that. I think it is reasonable to question Zimmerman on the wisdom of following Martin, but claiming that he disregarded the 911 operator's request is false.

It's possible to read that first paragraph as straight reporting about what the Martin family believes. They believe that Zimmerman racially profiled their son and they believe he disregarded the 911 operator's request not to follow Trayvon. If that's the case though, why did they give space for the Zimmerman family's position on the first point in the next paragraph, and stay silent about the second point? The first point is debatable and contentious at this stage. The second point is not. So why not make it clear to the reader what the facts are?

Or is it that the reporters, Phil Gast, Vivian Kuo and Jessica Thill, are the ones who believe that Zimmerman disregarded the 911 operator's request? Could they actually be so astoundingly wrong about an important fact of the case? Or, to be cynical, do they just want you to be astoundingly ill-informed?

Journalism has hit a new low with the Trayvon Martin case. In some instances it has been so bad that even massive incompetence cannot seem to account for the incredible falsehoods that have been published and are obviously still being published today. It seems to me that some of this has do be done with malicious intent.

I truly hate to say that. I think journalists can, and in some cases still, do tremendous good for the public. But they can do, and are doing, tremendous harm right now by spreading false information in this case and far too many others. It has gotten so bad and is so blatant that I think it is time for blanket condemnation of every journalist who works at some our largest news media companies. 

I understand that may seem unfair to the "good" journalists who work in those organizations, but what are they doing to correct the falsehoods their "news" companies spew every day? Where are their protests over the corruption of news into the propaganda of one group over another? All I hear is silence from them. 

So fuck them too.

Noted Savage* Savages U.S. As "Nation Of Savages" For Not Savaging George Zimmerman

No, seriously. Mike Tyson has weighed in on the Trayvon Martin case:

"My personal feeling is that, as a young kid that was beat on by a bully, that was pretty much singled out—the guy [Zimmerman] stalked him, didn't follow instructions from a superior officer, when they said, 'Stop following the kid.' That tells you everything right there. But my all-around perspective, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. But it's just so widespread and overt what happened. Even though this is the best country in the world, certain laws in this country are a disgrace to a nation of savages." 

Well alrighty then. I guess we should have just lynched the man. Uh...yeah:

"It's a disgrace that man hasn't been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That's the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested--the fact that he hasn't been shot yet is a disgrace. That's how I feel personally about it."

Really, Mike? Have you been roaming the streets the last month, weapon in hand while you try to hunt Zimmerman down? 

Tell us, Mike, how would you do him? A shot to the back of the head? That might be too cold. How about a shot to the face? Would one do it, Mike, or would you put the whole clip into him? Come on, Mike, don't be shy at this point.

The truth here, of course, is the only thing Tyson is going to shoot is his mouth, or perhaps his foot. Unfortunately, some fool might listen to that fool and try to do something stupid, and ruin his own life in the process. 

I'm not big on any president getting personally involved in local cases like this, but when you have celebreties openly touting vigilantism and millions of people personally invested not just in a trial, but also a conviction, maybe it's time for President Hope and Change to act presidential and stand up for the rule of law and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. 

 

*The man is a convicted rapist and was once disqualified from a boxing match because he bit off a piece of his opponent's ear. "Savage" is one of the nicer terms I could use for Tyson.

NBC News: The Cover-up Continues

It looks like NBC News has now turned to the "not for attribution" leak phase of their campaign to avoid honestly confessing what happened to create the Zimmerman 911 call debacle. A couple of Reuters reporters have talked to two NBC insiders and filed this report:

(Reuters) - An internal NBC News probe has determined a "seasoned" producer was to blame for a misleading clip of a 911 call that the network broadcast during its coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to two sources at the network.

NBC News brass interviewed more than half a dozen staffers during its investigation of the misleadingly edited 911 call placed by George Zimmerman just before he shot the unarmed Florida teenager, said the sources, one of whom is an executive at the network.

According to the article:

The sources described the producer's actions as a very bad mistake, but not deliberate.

That is absurd and an insult to any reasonably intelligent person. There is no way that this...

Zimmerman: 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 black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

...gets edited down to this...

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

...without that "seasoned" producer knowing full well how he has changed the perspective completely. I don't buy that "mistake" crap for one minute.

It also strains credulity that every single person in this chain would miss the selective editing:

The Today show's editorial control policies - which include a script editor, senior producer oversight, and in most cases legal and standards department reviews of material to be broadcast - missed the selective editing of the call, said the NBC executive.

I'm certain I would have caught the error if I had seen the original broadcast and I find it again to be incredible that those people, whose business is the news, would miss such a thing. It makes me wonder if there was actually no mistake here either. Perhaps it was that one or more(or all) of those people felt the selective edit was within the acceptable parameters set for covering the story by NBC News executives.

I was mocking the other day when I wrote about a culture of corruption at NBC News, but now that I see the cover-up continuing, maybe it really does exist. 

NBC Does The Modified Limited Hangout

NBC News has taken a page out of the Team Nixon playbook in response to the heat it has taken for broadcasting a deliberately truncated audio of a 911 tape in the Trayvon Martin case. The editing in question was obviously intended to make it appear that George Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin on the night that Zimmerman shot him. Hollywood Reporter has Ehrlichman's NBC's statement:

"During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret," NBC News said in a statement e-mailed to The Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday. "We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."

When asked if anyone at Today had lost their job or had been reassigned as a result of the investigation, an NBC spokeswoman said: "We will not be commenting on our course of action."

The apology is fine but the rest of it is PR pap that is designed to hopefully make the issue go away for NBC. "Sorry about that. Nothing else to see here, though. Please move along."

If this was a simple case of a reporter or producer making an error, then this a terrible way to handle it. Not naming names now only broadens the list of possible suspects, and their work product, that the public can and will feel entitled to be suspicious towards. 

And this was also a blatant breach of trust. The best way for NBC to reestablish that trust with the public would be to take open and concrete actions toward that goal, not to thumb its nose and say "Now you can trust us." 

On the other hand, we have to remember that the fish rots from the head down. If someone high up in the chain was responsible for distorting the coverage on this issue, for example, managing editor and Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, then the modified limited hangout becomes a far more preferable strategy than admitting that your news operation is rotten to the core. If that fails, we all know what comes next.

Hey, can somebody go down to 30 Rock and see if they're building a stone wall?