Yet More on the Zimmerman Case

I’m sure most of you have had you fill of the Zimmerman case, but I’m going to toss up one more post detailing my thoughts now that I’ve listend to the 911 recording (at least the most complete version I’ve found). After listening to the recording I think several things are worth noting.

First, the accusations of Zimmerman’s apparent racism are not upheld in the recording in my opinion. People mentioned Zimmerman’s apparent obsession with Martin’s race as Zimmerman reported Martin as a black male twice. It’s common for somebody giving a description to list race and gender first because they are two of the most easily noted characteristics of a person. Usually people start with the roughest information and move to more fine detail so it’s not uncommon for race and gender to precede estimated height, weight, and age. The description Zimmerman gave also including the clothing being worth by Martin, another common thing to report. I did not get any apparent racism coming from Zimmerman during the 911 call.

Second, the 911 operator never ordered Zimmerman to stop pursuing Martin as many (including myself) have reported. What the 911 operator did was ask Zimmerman if he was chasing Martin and when Zimmerman said yes the operator simply told Zimmerman that he didn’t need to do that. Neither the wording nor the tone of voice used by the operator projected an order. Furthermore as it became obvious that Zimmerman was still moving the 911 operator never asked Zimmerman if he stopped his pursuit (I also want to add that it’s not obvious from the 911 recording if Zimmerman stopped pursuing Marting and was returning to his vehicle or if he continued to pursue Martin).

Third, I was unable to hear Zimmerman use any racial slur as he has been accused of doing. A few parts of the recording were blanked out and it is possible Zimmerman said the slur at one of those times but if that’s the case, and this is the most complete recording of the call, I’m not sure how anybody came across such a statement. I also wish to add that I could have missed Zimmerman’s use of a racial slur but I was actively listening for it so I don’t believe that’s the case.

It’s worth noting that Zimmerman’s statements, tone of voice, and mannerisms did not indicate any vindictive behavior to me. Obviously such things can’t be entirely determined by an audio recording but it can be a good heuristic. Zimmerman sounded calm, collective, and not different from most officers I’ve heard giving updates on their activities during a contact. Reports have noted that Zimmerman was studying criminal justice, and combining that with his role in neighborhood watch, leaves me to believe he was acting based on received training.

Obviously I’m not an expert but condemning Zimmerman at this point, in my opinion, would be erroneous.

Meeting Gary Johnson

Last night one of my friends hosted Gary Johnson as his home so I had a chance to meet the man and grill him on political issues. I don’t have time to write about the details at the moment but I will be working on that this weekend, suffice to say he’s a pretty cool guy for a politicians. My ability to make every politician I meet squirm is lacking though as he managed to leave without the usually utterances of ‘uh’, ‘um’, and ‘ah’ that most politicians spew out when I ask them questions. He also had no problem posing with me holding up the metal horns:

Zimmerman Arrest Report

Weer’d got ahold of a copy of the arrest report [PDF] for George Zimmerman. Weer’d has a good summary of the report but the most intersting piece, in my opinion, is the following:

-When officers arrived Mr. Zimmerman was identified in the report as a “White Male”, he was cooperative with officers and identified himself as the man who made the 911 call. He was wet and had grass stains on his back. Also his nose and back of his head were injured. A Kel Tec PF9 was holstered on his belt and he allowed officers to confiscate it as evidence. (No information about ammunition, or spent shells is given)

Apparently this situation was entirely one sided if Zimmerman showed injuries and grass stains on his back. This doesn’t answer the biggest question though: who was the initiator of force. Did Zimmerman initiate force against Martin causing Martin to defend himself or did Martin initiate for against Zimmerman causing Zimmerman to defend himself? Then again the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) was called in to investigate the investigation so nothing in the police report may be truthful.

Obviously Gun Sales are Down

Paul “Gun Sales are Down” Helmke has been trying to convince people that, well, gun sales in the United States are down:

Washington, D.C. — At the NRA’s national convention in Pittsburgh this week, look for the speakers, presidential hopefuls and ardent supporters to rally around the fairy tale that America is a gun-loving country. But don’t believe it.

Gun ownership in the nation is at the lowest level ever recorded by the General Social Survey, according to an analysis issued Tuesday by the Violence Policy Center. The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago has been surveying the American public on gun ownership since the early 1970s. Far from representing the mainstream sentiment of Americans, the NRA’s gun-in-every-home-and-hollow mantra is resonating with fewer and fewer of us.

Apparently nobody told Ruger:

Gun shop owners around the nation told FoxNews.com that sales, brisk ever since President Obama was elected, have spiked upward in recent months. And manufacturers are having so much trouble keeping up with the demand that one, Sturm, Ruger & Co., can’t keep up with demand. The Southport, Conn.-based company has had to suspend new orders after taking orders for more than 1 million guns in the first three months of the year. Smith & Wesson sales are way up, as well.

I wonder what else differs between reality and the anti-gunner’s fantasy land. We already know in anti-gunner fantasy land everybody with a gun is a murderer, gun sales continue to decline, and a militia lurks around every corner, but I wonder if basic things like gravity, thermodynamics, and the general theory of relativity exist there.

Another Example of “Right-Wing Extremism”

The recent shootings in France ended in numerous accusations that the murder was a right-wing extremist:

Seven now dead as police hunt assassin with right-wing connections

[…]

Surveillance tapes at the school showed that the gunman – believed to be a trained marksman with far-Right views – recorded his shooting spree with a small video camera around his neck.

[…]

‘The ex-soldiers are free to go,’ said a source close to the investigation. ‘Other lines of enquiry are being pursued.’ Despite the release of the ex-soldiers, police still believe the scooter-riding killer may have been a right-wing extremist.

As it turns out:

Mohammed Merah, 23, who claimed to have al-Qaeda training, opened fire on police commandos after they stormed into his flat at 09:30 GMT.

Prosecutors said he was shot in the head as he tried to flee.

Merah carried out three separate attacks, killing four people at a Jewish school and three soldiers.

He had said he was acting to “avenge Palestinian children” and protest against French military interventions overseas.

So much for that.

Because Discrimination is Fun

I always find it funny when people scream about discrimination in schools. Why? It’s not because I support discrimination but because of the selective nature of anti-discriminatory policies. While they preach about the need to create a safe environment for all children they also try to prevent many students from feeling welcome. For every rule prohibiting the discrimination of homosexuals, African Americans, women, etc. there is another rule that ban talking about firearms. No rules exist to protect libertarians, atheists, or other groups that are often discriminated against, especially in schools. If you want to see a kid get discriminated against immediately just watch for one to make a comment against public unions, the teachers will descend upon him like vulture on carrion. My main point is that schools don’t oppose discrimination, they promote it by being very selective in the groups they protect. When a school protects one group over another they also make a statement, that those protected groups are better than others and therefore other groups are obviously lesser and, therefore, valid targets of discrimination.

Now that I’ve gotten the gears of discrimination moving let’s talk about adult film stars, or more specifically, two adult file stars. This story starts with an 18 year-old male named Mike Stone, a student at the Tartan High School. Mr. Stone decided to send out invitations to 600 adult film actresses to be his date to prom, and one accepted. The one who accepted, Megan Piper, then invited another, Emy Reyes. Obviously Mr. Stone is now the talk of his class, and for good reason (consider his age, consider what he accomplished, then realize he’s going to be the most popular guy with the guys). Needless to say the school administration saw a student having fun and accomplishing one of his goals in life so they had to shut him down:

A Tartan High School student who used Twitter to find an adult film actress to go to prom with him May 12 won’t be allowed to bring the woman to the dance, according to a statement released by the school. The statement says:

“It has been reported in the national news that a Tartan student has invited a porn star to attend prom and she has accepted his invitation, subject to his paying for her airfare to Minnesota. However, this prom date will not be allowed to attend the Tartan prom as her attendance would be prohibited under Tartan’s standard prom procedures and would be inconsistent with two school district policies, E-077 (Visitors to School District Buildings and Sites) and E-084 (School Sponsored Student Publications and Activities).”

Hold the boat here, what? A student is being prohibited from brining his dates to prom? What kind of discriminatory bullshit is that? Are high schools not the bastions of anti-discrimination? Are we not told that all are excepted, and indeed welcomes, in the hands of public schools? What could possibly be in these school policies that would override their supposed prohibitions against discrimination? Let’s take a look. I went diving through the Oakdale school district’s webpage and found the policies mentioned in the statement above. E-077 [PDF] deals with visitors and exists mainly to give the school the option of banning “undesirables” from school grounds:

3) Visitor Limitations

A. An individual or group may be denied permission to visit a school or school property or
such permission may be revoked if the visitor(s) does not comply with the school district
procedures and regulations or if the visit is not in the best interest of students, employees
or the school district.

If that’s not a catch-all statement I don’t know what is. I’m curious who gets to decide whether or not a visitor is “in the best interests of students, employees, or the school district?” Is there some kind of blacklist containing various “undesirables” such as libertarians, gun owners, and adult film starts or is the decision entirely made willy nilly? My guess is the latter. Next we must take a look at E-084 [PDF], which deals with school publications and events:

1) General Statement of Policy

A. The school district may exercise editorial control over the style and content of student
expression in school-sponsored publications and activities.

B. Expression and representations made by students in school publications is not an
expression of official school district policy. Faculty advisors shall supervise student
writers to ensure compliance with the law and school district policies.

C. Students who believe their right to free expression has been unreasonably restricted in an
official student publication or activity may seek review of the decision by the building
principal. The principal shall issue a decision no later than three (3) school days after
review is requested.

1. Students producing official school publications and activities shall be under the
supervision of a faculty advisor and the school principal. Official publications and
activities shall be subject to the guidelines set forth below.

2. Official school publications may be distributed at reasonable times and locations.

[…]

3) Guidelines

A. Expression in an official school publication or school-sponsored activity is prohibited when
the material:

1. is obscene to minors;

2. is libelous or slanderous;

3. advertises or promotes any product or service not permitted for minors by law;

4. encourages students to commit illegal acts or violate school regulations or
substantially disrupts the orderly operation of school or school activities;

5. expresses or advocates sexual, racial, or religious harassment or violence or
prejudice;

6. is distributed or displayed in violation of time, place, and manner regulations

Honestly I’m not sure how E-084 comes into play here. Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Reyes are not material being written about in a publication, nor are they promoting anything listed in the verboten list. At most E-084 would allow the school to prevent Mr. Stone from publishing material for distribution in the school bragging about what he has done, although that prevention wouldn’t be based on any of the listed items on the verboten list.

Either way the school has seen fit to prohibit Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Reyes from entering the school, a decisions that is technically covered under E-077. This raises a question in my opinion: were the two women banned from entering the school because of their choice in careers? Does the mere fact of being an adult file actress put you on the school’s blacklist? If so, what other careers can put you on the blacklist? We know school officials have a zero tolerance policy towards firearm so we must ask if anybody working in the firearms manufacturing field would be prohibited from entering the school. If Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Reyes violate E-084 then police officers must as well under 3-5, “expresses or advocates sexual, racial, or religious harassment or violence or prejudice;” since police officers do express and advocate violence from time to time.

Let’s take this a step further, what if Mrs. Piper or Mrs. Reyes had a kid in the Oakdale school system? Would they be prohibited from attending student teacher conferences? Could they enter the building to pick up the child for a doctor’s appointment? After all if they’re career is what prohibited it them from entering the school then they must never be allowed to enter, right? If it’s not their choice in careers is is because they’re both women? Is it because Mrs. Reyes happens to be black? We do know for certain that discrimination is afoot.

Whether or not one agrees with the school’s decision isn’t of my concern, the fact that the school claims to be a bastion of anti-discrimination while being discriminators themselves is. The hypocrisy is palpable. School officials never waste an opportunity to come out and talk at length about their hard work in making their school a safe place for everybody. They will go so far as to find scapegoats to sacrifice just so they can’t demonstrate how hard they work to fight discrimination. You can be sure that any fight between kids of differing races will be treated as a hate crime, even if the fight was simply over a non-racial statement said by one student to the other.

The bottom line is schools work hard to prohibit discrimination only if you’re part of a group they like. If you’re not a member of a group they like, say gun owners or libertarians, you’ll not receive their protection and will actually be discriminated against by faculty members. Apparently adult film actresses aren’t one of the protected groups and therefore the school is more than happy to discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Property Owners

EDIT: 2012-03-22: 12:33: Zerg539 pointed out what I entirely missed, this ruling simply allows Sacketts to take this case to court. Ignore what I said below, I now longer thing this ruling is good enough. If something the government does appears to be good, it’s probably not. Also, I should read things a bit closer from time to time.

The Supreme Court, the same court that rules property can be seized via eminent domain when influential property owners desired it, has actually made a ruling in favor of land owners. Sackett v. EPA started when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told Mike Sackett that he couldn’t develop the property he purchased because it was a wetland, unless of course he paid the EPA a $250,000 extortion fee for a permit who would then decide whether or not the land could be developed (even when you pay the extortion fee you have no guarantee). The Supreme Court ruled that Sackett could develop his property:

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.

The complete ruling can be found here [PDF]. It’s good to see justice appearing once in a while, although it’s sad that Sackett had to suffer the expensive in time and money just so he could build a damned house on his property.

More on the Martin Case

The more I look into the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the more messed up the entire situation appears to be. I theorized in my post yesterday that George Zimmerman, the shooter, suffered from a hero complex. After doing a little more research my suspicion is even strong:

SANFORD — The people at the Retreat at Twin Lakes had been missing bikes, grills and a few times thought strangers were casing their town houses.

When the homeowners association wanted to start a neighborhood watch, only one man stepped up: George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who admitted to shooting an unarmed Miami Gardens teenager and who is now the focal point of a race-related scandal of national proportions.

Interviews with neighbors reveal a pleasant young man passionate about neighborhood security who took it upon himself to do nightly patrols while he walked his dog.

Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said. The self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch program is credited with cracking some crimes, and thwarting others.

Being the only applicant for a neighborhood watch isn’t evidence of a hero complex in of itself but the combination of that, being a criminal justice student, and his actions on the night of the shooting point in that direction. Many people are putting a lot of weight into his warnings to neighbors about “young black men.” I’m not touching that with a cattle prod, not because I’m afraid of being labeled a racist if I don’t agree with the generally accepted sentiment, but because I lack knowledge about Zimmerman’s statements. That is to say the community wanted to establish a neighborhood watch after items started going missing and if there were witnesses that reported the suspects to be young black men Zimmerman’s statement could have been based on those accounts. On the other hand Zimmerman may have simply been stereotyping, I haven’t a clue.

Back to my original point, Zimmerman’s possible hero complex. Zimmerman became the community’s neighborhood watch, was a student in criminal justice, and decided to pursue a person he believe to be suspicious even though he was instructed not to by a 911 operator. The last part is where my suspicion ultimately stems from. Most people would avoid a confrontation that can ensure by pursuing a person unless there was solid reason for doing so. From the evidence I have available Zimmerman had nothing but a gut feeling, certainly not something you would potentially put your life at risk over. In addition to that the police were on their way, why risk your life for nothing more than a gut feeling if the police are en route to take care of the situation? To me it just doesn’t add up.

With that said I don’t have all the evidence at hand so I’m speculating on evidence that I’ve read in news articles. My final judgement is meaningless, that’s the job of juries, but it’s still an interesting case to mull of in one’s mind. I’m still fearful that any chances of a fair trial, if this goes to trail, are gone. Anybody ruling in Zimmerman’s favor would be risking a permanent label of racist and that makes it in everybody’s best interest to rule him guilty regardless of the evidence.