By now, everyone knows that George Zimmerman was found not guilty, that he acted in self-defense when he shot Trayvon Martin.  Yet so many in the press and among the public at large refuse to look at the facts of the case.  They prefer instead to cling to personal feelings and unsubstantiated personal believe, even in the face of overwhelming expert opinion (police, judges, prosecutors, and attorneys from around the country). 

It was clear from the very beginning that the State had no case.  The policeman on the spot didn't think there was a case; the investigating officers didn't think there was a case; the police chief didn't think there was a case;  the 1st prosecutor ordered to try the case refused to do so for lack of evidence, and the State had to look for another prosecutor; and the prosecutor who finally did try the case had so little to work with that he had my sympathy.  It was painful to watch him try to work with so little evidence. 

I watched the case unfold on TV.  I watched it all from opening statements to closing arguments, and I did so with an open mind.  I heard every word of the State's case and the Defense case, and if I were on that jury, I would have to have voted not guilty on the murder charge too.  I thought long and hard about the lessor charge of manslaughter, and it wasn't until after the case went to the jury that I realized I couldn't vote guilty on that charge either, because the evidence wasn't there.  Even the lawyer for Trayvon's parents knew how the verdict would come down, as evidenced by the fact that he advised Trayvon's parents not to come to the court for the reading and save themselves some grief thereby.

At worst, both men showed poor judgment that night, and it cost one of them his life, and the survivor's life is forever ruined.  He faces the possibility of additional prosecution in civil court and perhaps by the federal government as well if it pursues a civil rights action.  But even if neither of these things happen (as seems likely), George Zimmerman can never lead a normal life again.  His face is too well known.  Where can he go and not be recognized.  Who will hire him without fear of his becoming a distraction in the workplace?

In the beginning, the local community was screaming for Zimmerman's arrest, without knowing the facts.  Then they screamed for a trial despite of a lack of evidence.  They got both, and now that the results are in, they are still not happy.  It's okay to be saddened by the lose of a loved one, especially one just coming into his manhood.  But it is not okay to demand that a verdict come out the way they want it to come out. 

And it is not okay to scream that justice was not served in the light of all the evidence presented.  How many did what I did and watched the whole trial?  Why is it that people are unwilling to accept that we can not convict people just because we don't like the verdict.  Don't they realize that that kind of thinking is what leads to vigilantism? 

The death of of Trayvon Martin is a tragedy.  There's no doubt about that.  If George Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon would still be alive.  But we can just as easily say that if Trayvon had just continued on home instead of doubling back to confront Zimmerman, he would also still be alive.  So in a way we can say that both men were right and both men were wrong, and all we can do is live with the end result.

I have watched the entire Zimmerman trial, and I must say that throughout the prosecution's presentation he looked like he was working for the defense team.  Of course that is probably due to the fact that he didn't have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Zimmerman committed a murder.  That being the case, the question has to be asked just why was a murder charge brought instead of manslaughter. 

The answer clearly is politics. This is a political trial; nothing more; nothing less; and no good can come from it.  If Zimmerman is convicted of 2nd degree murder, given the evidence presented at the trial, that would be a miscarriage of justice.  If he is acquitted, that will be a socially unjust verdict.  Even if he is convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, that won't satisfy the needs of those who insist on blood for blood. 

Unfortunately, that puts the judge in the hot-seat, and I suspect (based on some of her rulings) that she is biased against the defendant just because she doesn't like the Stand Your Ground law in Florida.  The maximum sentence would give her a change to express her thoughts in that regard.  If the sentence is anything less than the maximum for killing a minor with a gun, outrage will follow from some of the public (those who want to make it a case of racial discrimination) will follow.  This makes it too easy for the judge to pass judgment based on her political views.

Who is to blame for this state of affairs?  That's easy.  It is all of those people and organizations who make their living through sensation mongering.  It is the ones who poison our society with their prejudgments and conclusions even before the evidence is presented. It is those who turn local events into national media events.  It's people like Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. 

The government collection of metadata does not per se violate the Constitution, because it is not listening to conversations.  However, the government has crossed the line, because rather than just ask for phone records to foreign destinations of interest, it demanded all data on all citizens, and that in my opinion is a violation of provision of the Constitution that prohibits the issuance of General Warrants that don't name specific individuals or organizations.  Verizon and other carriers are able to filter the data that they provide to the government, and that is what the intention of the FISA law originally was, not that the government has blanket authorization to spy on everyone.

I heard an unsubstantiated repost that the jury in the Jodi Aries case was split 8-to-4 in favor of the death penalty and was, therefore, hung.  I think that with a split that large, they actually brought back a 'no death' verdict, and the prosecutor should negotiate a deal for life without parole rather than spend all the money to empanel another jury and put the victim's family through all this again.  8-to-4 is, after all, a pretty big split.  That means that a third of the jury was not convinced by his argument.  A hugh deficit to overcome.

Why was the split so big?  I can't say for certain, because so far the jury is not talking, but several possibilities come to mind.  First, those opposed to the death penalty may simply have felt that the prosecutor just didn't convince them that the murder was really premeditated.  Second, some one or more of the jurors was actually morally opposed to the death penalty and lied about their ability to impose the death sentence just so they could get on the jury and impede the process or prevent an execution.  If so, that would be a prosecutable offense if it can be proven.  A third possibility might be that at least one of the jurors was an anarchist dedicated to interfering with the government and its processes regardless of what the issue might be.  Given that the jury was also split 7-to-5 on the 1st degree murder conviction, it seems to me that maybe the split on the penalty phase was a combination of the above reasons.

Now, the media seems to be hung up on the idea that four people refused to budge off of their position against sentencing Jodi to die.  I should point out that one could just as easily say that eight people absolutely refused to move off their position to see Jodi executed.  They might be accused of being too hungry for blood.  

The title of this blog today refers specifically Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace.  How can these women continue to talk so much?  How can they repeat themselves so often?  Both can ask a question and then talk for another 5 minutes before giving their guest a chance to answer the original question.  It makes me so nauseous that I want to puke even before I can change the channel.  It is my opinion that these two talking heads are really sick.  I don't know these women except by what little I have seen of then on television, but if they should ever find themselves in hell, I believe an appropriate punishment is that they be made to listen to themselves 24 hours a day throughout all eternity.

Jodi Aries gave an interview after her conviction of 1st degree murder in which she told the media that she would prefer the death penalty rather than life in prison.  Since then the media has been hyping that statement trying to whip the public into speculating whether or not Jodi is trying to use reverse psychology to save herself from getting the death penalty.  OK.  I'll play along.

I think she really does prefer death to life in prison.  Two reasons.  First: Jodi Aries is a person who wants to be in control of everything in her life.  If she get the death penalty, she can go down telling herself that it is by her wish, her decision to die, and no one else made the decision.  She maintains control to the end.

The second possibility is that she realizes that spending 23 hours a day in a 7 X 10 cell is not gonna be fun.  That's a very small space, especially after one puts in a bed, a toilet, and a sink.  What's left is barely room enough to move around.  And this confinement will last for perhaps 50 years.  That's more that 18,000 days if she lives to the age of 82, which is conceivable.

Hell, given the choice, I'd prefer death too.  It would give me some measure of freedom, to paraphase her.  The question is what sentence to handdown.  Part of me thinks that she should get life without the possibility of parole.  Along with that would be a provision to provide her with a straight edge razor for a period of one week with which she can cut her own throat if she really wants to die.  Another part of me wants to go with the death penalty, and get it done quickly to save the State the cost of a lengthy incarceration. 

Some would argue that death is cruel and unusual punishment.  I disagree.  A lifetime in a 7 X 10 cell for 23 hours a day 7 days a week for 50 years or so is a lot more cruel for most people.  And by extention, making a death-row inmate wait for 10/12/15/20 years for the sentence to be carried out is cruel.  Execution of sentence needs to be swift in cases as clear-cut as Jodi Aries' case is. No more than 2/3 years for appeal should be allowed in cases where the evidence is so strong.

I'm so glad that the Jodi Aries murder case has finally gone to the Jury, but I was surprised to learn by the Judge's instruction to the Jury that there are three different types of murder in the first degree.  I had thought that Murder One always involved premeditation, but apparently that's not the case.  One can have Murder One without premeditation.

Now as to the case against Ms. Aries.  Having watched much of the trial and listened to the closing arguments for both sides, I naturally have to ask how I would vote were I on the jury.  The first thing to note is that Jodi Aries is guilty of murder.  She has already admitted that. But was it self-defence as she suggests?  Under the best circumstance I can conceive of, which requires me to believe her version of events, I am forced to conclude that it was not a self-defence killing as defined by law, nor was it a case of provoked manslaughter, though I do believe that Travis Alexander did say or do something that pushed her into action. 

Why was it not a case of self-defence?  Because in order for a case for self-defence to hold up, the one making that claim 1) must use only a measured amount of force equal to, or just barely greater than, the force being used by the attacker, and 2) the use of said force must cease when the attacker either disengages willfully or is disabled to the point where s/he no longer presents a credible threat.  (As to this second requirement, the law does not make any exceptions for simply snapping under stress.)  Since Jodi Aries' own account of the event clearly does not fall within the legal requirement, it could not be classified as a case of self-defence.

But might it have been a case of manslaughter as her attorney tried to suggest to the jury in his closing argument?  After all, Travis Alexander was a pretty big guy compared to her own much smaller frame.  I think not, simply because after having stabbed him 27 times (including one wound that would have ultimately been fatal in and of itself if not quickly treated), she then took the time to cut his throat by severing not just his juggler, but also his carotid artery and his trachea.  Again, the law does not allow for a person to be so out of control that they can't stop.  If it did, people could do all kinds of slaughter and get away with it in the name of passion.  Jodi is, therefore, guilty of Murder Two at the very least, for which she could receive a life sentence. 

Now about premeditation.  Had she simply shot Travis as soon as the opportunity presented itself, there would be little doubt of premeditation.  But she didn't do that.  Instead, she let several opportunities pass without shooting him, making me wonder if her intent really was to kill him when she drove to Arizona.  It took me a few minutes to realize that premeditation was demonstrated not by the fact that she had a gun in her purse, but by the fact that she shot Travis Alexander after stabbing him and cutting his throat. 

Once his throat was cut, he was finished.  He may have struggled to pull himself up to the level of the sink while holding his neck, but if so, it was only briefly before falling to the floor again.  People whose throats have been cut don't move more than one or two feet at most before they are down for the count.  And while he lay bleeding out on the bathroom floor, she went into the next room, perhaps the closet, and retrieved a gun.  (Whether it was his or hers really doesn't matter). She then returned to the bathroom.  In that interval (the time it took to leave the bathroom and return with a gun), Jodi Aries had ceased her attack on Travis.  The rage has passed, and she now deliberately sought out the means to make certain he would die.  She returned to the bathroom and shot him in the head from a distance of at least 2 to 3 feet.  And that shot was as cold blooded and premeditated as any shot ever fired. 

How ironic.  If she had left that gun at home, she might have been able to beat the Murder One charge simply by leaving the house after cutting his throat (depending on the Jury).  But as it is, she is definitely guilty of Premeditated Murder.

I suppose that some would argue that Jodi Aries didn't actually shoot Travis Alexander until after he was already dead.  Therefore, since you cannot kill someone who is already dead, premeditation at that point doesn't matter, and maybe they would be right, but I doubt it; and I don't think the jury would be swayed by that argument either.  That argument would hold up better if she shot him an hour later than she did, but doing it as part 'n' parcel of the original crime is enough in my mind to make it part of the original intent.

I heard on the news last night that the two bombs that exploded in Boston two days ago were hidden inside a couple of Pressure Cookers, so I thought it would be a good idea if we banned the manufacture and sale of Pressure Cookers.  That way no coward or anarchist can use them to hide his or her Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in them, and things like this week's attack in Boston won't be able to happen. 

While we're at it, perhaps we should also look into the possiblity of banning the manufacture and sale of nails and ball bearings since they are so often used in the construction of IEDs.  Maybe we can attach this legislation to the proposed gun legislation.  I'm sure those on the hard left would agree that this would solve the violence problem in the country. 

Time and again it has been shown that gun control laws do not have the desired effect, yet politicians keep trying the same old ideas to curb violence that have failed in the past.  The Brady Law was allowed to expire because it proved to be ineffective.  The very cities that have historically had the toughest gun laws in the nation (Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C.) have also had the highest violent crime rates while the cities with the fewest gun laws have had the lowest homicide rates.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to again pass a law similar to the Brady Law.  She wants to make "assault" weapons illegal.  Does she really think that gun laws like the one she wants to pass will actually have any effect?  Why would they!  Murder is already illegal throughout the country, yet between 8,000 and 12,000 people are murdered every year in the United States.  Did the laws against unlawfully killing another person prevent these murders?  Hell no!.  Stealing is also illegal, but does that prevent thousands of bank robberies, burglaries, and break-ins every year?   Nooo.  The only good having a law does is it enables application of penalties if one is caught breaking the law.

When will they learn that criminals don't care about the law, and crazy people don't think about the law? 

Now I am aware that there are those who say that civilians have no legitimate need for assault weapons, and with that I agree.  But what exactly is an assault weapon?  Actually, it is a fully automatic weapon that can spit-out 2/3 hundred bullets or more a minute with a single pull of the trigger.  Public ownership of such weapons has been illegal since the mid-1930s.  The only way someone other than the government can even get one is under some very special circumstances approved by the government who will then issue a special permit for said weapon which must then be stored and/or transported under very specific conditions.  They just aren't for sale anywhere to the likes of you and me.  What the proposed law wants to ban is not assault weapons, but assault/military look-a-like weapons that functionally are no different from any other semiautomatic rifle requiring a separate pull of the trigger for each bullet to be fired.

But let's get back to the argument that there is no real use for lookalike weapons.  Not true.  Take the AR-15 that everyone is so upset about.  It is one of the most accurate rifles ever made out to about 500 yards.  It also has almost no recoil to speak of, making it an ideal choice for serious competition shooters throughout the country.  And its light weight makes it a good choice for hunters who must carry a rifles for many hours in the field.  So don't tell me it has no legitimate value in the hands of a law abiding citizen.  People who say that simply don't know what they are talking about.

By the way, did you know that the law proposed by Dianne Feinstein would make illegal any handgun that uses a detachable clip or magazine.  That would make all pistols illegal, leaving only revolvers for public consumption.  It would also make illegal any gun that had one or more "military" style functions, whatever that means.  How about expulsion of a bullet from the barrel.  That could be said to be a military style function. 

And did you know that the Feinstein bill also provides an exemption for federal officials?  (This according to Daniel Halper, The Weekly Standard, "Feinstein Gun Control Bill to Exempt Government Oficials," Jan 25, 2013, also confirmed by The Huffington Post).  How about that.  She's saying that she can continue to have a gun to protect herself, but you and I can not.  What a hypocrite!!

Finally, I also have to ask who is the greater threat to the public and general welfare -- the law abiding citizen who legally owns a gun, or the criminal element of society that doesn't care about our laws?  Or maybe it's our politicians.

Well what-do-ya-know! It's December 22nd 2012, and the world has not come to an end. Now that the end of the world has not come, what will the doom sayers have to say about that.  What will they come up with as an excuse for their failed prophesies and what will their next cause will be.