An Attempt to Calm Our Passions

The furor over the killing of Trayvon Martin continues in the news and on the Internet. Intemperate comments flow back and forth, usually between people who only know what they have heard at second or third hand. Some people allege that George Zimmerman, who everyone acknowledges shot and killed a juvenile, was a hate-filled prejudiced person who stalked Trayvon Martin as a quarry and callously killed him. Others just as vociferously reply that Trayvon was a hulking gang-banger who attacked Mr. Zimmerman, threw him to the ground, straddled him and was slamming his head into the ground when Zimmerman fired his gun as a last resort to keep from being mauled. They are having a dialog of the deaf.

The local police department and the prosecutor's office are  being whipsawed between people who want Zimmerman charged with premeditated murder immediately and those who feel he is the victim here, maybe even a hero.

Let us see if we can shed a little light on this tragedy rather than contributing more to the heat, already there in too great an amount.

The police will sift the evidence and make a determination whether there is probable cause for  an arrest. They will present that evidence to the state's attorney, who will transmit it to a grand jury for possible indictment. If the prosecutor thinks there is insufficient evidence for a murder charge, she or he still has a duty to bring a bill for a lesser offense, if there is evidence for that.

And what might that evidence be? Mr. Zimmerman claimed he had been knoocked down, and cited grass stains on the back of his shirt to support the statement. He said he was bleeding from his nose and had a cut on his face and the back of his head. His lawyer said Zimmerman had suffered a broken nose.

Since Mr. Zimmerman was seen at the local hospital, it would be easy to verify or contradict these claims. One can only hope the shirt was checked by the police, photographed or taken into evidence.

The police have been appropriately close-mouthed about other evidence. Were there powder residue marks on Trayvon Martin, for example? If there were, it would demonstrate the two men were close together at the time the gun was fired. If not, of course, that would clearly weaken Mr. Zimmerman's alibi. The photoes of Mr. Martin do seem to be of a younger person. His autopsy will tell the police if he had grown enough to overpower a mature man. Once again, the evidence will support or confute the shooter's version of events.

How did the bullet strike Trayvon Martin? The angle of impact also would confirm or contradict George Zimmerman's story. Did the dying juvenile bleed on Zimmerman? Was his blood on the shooter's shirt? If he was truly on top of Zimmerman, wouldn't it be likely that he bled on his killer? If there is no blood, does that mean the shooter's statement is bogus?

Was it fully dark or was it still dusk? The amount of daylight could determine whether the confrontation was a surprise to one or both of them, or an event that was deliberately brought about by one or the other man.

It is my hope and belief that the police department will be professional enough to conduct a thorough investigation, free from bias, and the state's attorney will act fearlessly as an advocate for the people. I also hope and trust that we all will remember that Mr. Zimmerman is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and to a vigorous competent legal defense if he is charged with a crime.

Good night, everyone. Peace be with you.

"Stand Your Ground"

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

from the Florida "Stand Your Ground" statute

In the case of Trayvon Martin, shot and killed by a neighborhood watch vigilante, the question is whether the terms of the law were met. The killer, George Zimmerman, had a right to be where he was. He was not engaged in an illegal activity. (At least until he pulled the trigger.) He will undoubtedly allege that he felt himself in jeopardy of death or severe injury from Trayvon Martin. Although other people heard the shot, there does not seem to have been an eyewitness.

Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He was wearing a hoodie that might have obscured his identity or his age. There is no indication that he did not have a legal right to be where he was.

What is unknown is how the actual confrontation took place. Zimmerman had called the police before he met Martin. Martin had talked with a young woman and said he was concerned about Zimmerman, allegedly told her he would walk away from the man. There might be an indication that Zimmerman followed Martin, presumably to find out what he was up to.

Not being a lawyer, I can only speak as someone who once was involved in law enforcement. The Florida statute says Mr. Zimmerman was entitled to "stand his ground," need not  have retreated from the juvenile. He was authorized to use force, including deadly force, to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.

Therefore, it seems to me his fate will hinge on whether he can credibly say he felt threatened for his life or great injury. Certain things which have not yet been settled will come into play. Did the two know each other prior to the deadly encounter? Was Trayvon Martin approaching George Zimmerman, walking away from him, or doing neither? How big and strong did each person appear to the other to be? Did Martin have his hands in his pockets or otherwise give the appearance of being armed? Did he make any threatening moves, or  say anything intended to threaten or intimidate?

Since no one else witnessed the killing, prosecutors will be obliged to poke holes in Mr. Zimmerman's story if they want to convict him. Forensic and other circumstantial evidence will be used, as well as an attempt to impugn Zimmerman's credibility.

In a larger sense, however, the Constitutionality of the Florida law will be on trial. Is it sufficient for an individual merely to think he might be attacked for him to use deadly force? Should a citizen in a public place have to retreat from an assailant, to "beat feet" as we used to say, to prove he is under attack before defending himself? Is there good reason to think the "stand your ground" law has led to additional cases of justifiable homicide? Is the law being used to target racial minorities?

In fact, the number of killings that have been ruled self-defense in Florida has tripled since the law was passed in 2005.

In my own humble opinion, the law muddies cases like the Zimmerman-Martin tragedy. Without a witness, the state of Florida will have a difficult time proving that Mr. Zimmerman is culpable. It's a law that lets people get away with murder. It's also contrary to the Judaic-Christian concept of righteous behavior.

By the way, another provision of the act mandates that if there is a civil action against Mr. Zimmerman and the case is dismissed, the plaintiff will be obliged to pay all the defendant's legal fees. This can't help but have a chilling effect on any civil liability claim.

Re-elect the President

It's time for presidential endorsements. Candidates are piling them up, and I'm sure they've all been waiting, hoping to win my support. Better than Blagojevich, better than Weiner, better than that congressperson from Florida who was propositioning pages, my endorsement has been known to sway entire families.

So here it is. I'm for President Obama.

The president has managed to get a health care bill through Congress and signed into law. It's by no means all we could have hoped for, no single payer, not even a public option, but still millions of people now can buy coverage who could not before. The insurance companies cannot refuse benefits because of a "pre-existing condition." Young people can remain on their parents' policies longer, so  they can get a better start on their own careers without being hamstrung by huge premiums, a benefit of especial help to those young people trying to start their own businesses.

It seems ironic that the Republican opposition derides something that truly does help small business.

GOP candidates also take the law to task because it mandates private health insurance or a tax surcharge. That requirement doesn't bother me at all. After all, what alternative is there if we don't want people absconding on their medical bills, and don't want the public option?

We are moving away from our addiction to fossil fuels - once again not nearly as fast as might be hoped, but still we're no longer just kicking the oil can down the road. Solyndra notwithstanding, encouraging alternative energy production is the right thing to do. We will be a stronger more independent nation once we're no longer sucking petroleum from other countries. In addition, reducing the amount of coal we use will  help preserve our landscapes and environment. President Obama will acquiesce in the Keystone pipeline fiasco, but politics is about making choices and the president has to choose to get re-elected if he hopes to do anything else.

The economy is growing, after the severe contraction a few years ago. We're on the verge of a boom, brought about in significant part by the auto bailout and "cash for clunkers" programs. Does anyone truly want to contemplate what would have happened if GM and Chrysler had gone out of business?

If things are no better, at least they aren't any worse, which they almost certainly would have been with President John McCain.

We've rid ourselves of the rigid "no child left behind" albatross. College loans are more readily available, and despite what Rick Santorum says, it's all to the good if more people are attending college.

In foreign policy, President Obama has ended the Iraq intervention and is winding down the Afghanistan imbroglio. America enjoys improved relations with most of the nations of the world. He acted boldly to kill Osama bin Laden and has resisted calls for an attack on Iran, while not  bending on our position of no Iranian nuclear weapons.

President Obama has not yet laid out his ideas for the next four years, but I'd say that building on what has been done since January 2009 seems good to me. I trust this man's judgement more than any other president's in my adult lifetime.
The president has been civil and reasonable with people who are determined to be rude and unreasonable. The vituperation that his opponents have heaped on him would have staggered a lesser man, or infuriated him into responding in kind. The president has done neither.

The case for re-election shouldn't depend on the lack of quality among his potential challengers, but I can't resist calling the reader's attention to the Etch-a-Sketch candidate and Savonarola: Mitt Romney, whose core value is his desire to get elected and Rick Santorum, who would like to make America into sixteenth century Italy, complete with the Inquisition. Has there ever been a weaker, less appealing pair of presidential hopefuls?

I'll be voting happily for Barack Obama. I think you should too. The president deserves another term.

Governor Rod

So, yesterday I was sitting in the radiology waiting room at a hospital in Aurora Colorado, waiting for my mother-in-law to have an IV procedure. Local television was on, and suddenly the news department broke into whatever entertainment had been playing to cover the arrival of Rod Blagojevich (And aren't you all just impressed that I can spell "Blagojevich?") at the Denver airport and his travel to the federal minimum security prison in Jefferson County where he will serve fourteen years or less.  "Blogo" as the newspapers dubbed him, was convicted on corruption charges after he tried to auction the senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, after Mr. Obama resigned to become president.

The tv cameras and reportage documented Blogo's last meal as a free man at a burger joint and his arrival at the prison. They speculated that he would be processed into the prison during the early afternoon. By that time, my mom-in-law was finished with her blood-letting, so I couldn't stay with the news report, riveting as it was.

But I imagined what Rod must have been going through. After a warm welcome by the warden, the ex-governor would be measured for his suit of day-glo orange, very becoming, and his pairs of prison shoes. The prison doctor and dentist would be summoned to give the new guest of the federal government a complete diagnostic exam.

There would be a tour, featuring the library and recreational facilities, and then Blogo would be escorted to his suite. It would have to be explained that there is no maid service in the big house, the inmates are expected to do their own dusting and tidying, but there is a plumber on call in case there are any problems with the toilet, sink or jacuzzi. Then our boy would be left alone for the afternoon, with only a menu for the evening meal to occupy his time until cocktail hour.

It isn't really like that, of course. Though Blogo hasn't gone to a "federal pound-you-in-the-ass" prison, like the ones mentioned with dread in the movie "Office Space," I'm sure his accomodations will not be luxurious. The jailers are disinclined to be polite. There is not a whole lot to relieve a prisoner's boredom.

As it happens, when I was chief ranger at Richmond National Battlefield Park, I made a visit to the Petersburg Federal Minimum Security Prison in search of volunteer labor for the park. The prison had no walls, no guard towers and no armed guards that I can recall.  The inmates were described to me as doctors incarcerated for defrauding Medicare, and lawyers, accountants and brokers of various sorts who had been unable to tell the difference between clients' money and their own.

I asked the warden if there would be an escape problem and he claimed there had not been a walk-away for years. When I wondered why not, he said the inmates all knew that if they left and were caught they'd be re-sentenced to the medium security prison in Saint Louis - a much tougher house. Prisoners are prohibited from doing any professional work. Instead, there is manual labor at absurdly low wages.

Blogo, and the other convicts won't suffer privations in Colorado. Nor will they be in much danger from the guards or each other. But it isn't camp cupcake either. Good-bye, Governor Rod, it's wrong to try to sell a senate seat, as you probably know by now. Hope you can put some kind of life together when you're eventually released.

By the way, my mother-in-law is feeling a little better today.

Protest in Richmond

Saturday, a demonstration took place in Richmond, Virginia, where I used to live. The protestors were motivated by a bill that had been under consideraton in the Virginia legislature that would have required intra-uterine probes for any woman seeking an abortion.

The probes are not necessary for medical reasons, as everyone agrees. Their purpose is to persuade the woman not to abort the embryo. Undoubtedly, the legislature wanted to shame women into carrying the pregnancy to term. Governor McDonnell had said he would sign such a bill into law if it reached his desk.

At about two p.m. the demonstrators, mostly women, but augmented by a kind of "men's auxiliary," arrived at the grounds of the state Capitol and entered, where three state police officers tried unsuccessfully to stop them. By 2:15, many of them had bypassed the officers and were on the Capitol steps, chanting and singing. Additional officers arrived within a few more minutes and began to move the demonstrators back.

Most of the protestors allowed themselves to be herded away from the steps, but about thirty sat down on the steps and refused to leave. They loudly asserted their First Amendment rights of free speech, free assembly, and petition.

Police officers began to remove the members of the sit-down protest, presumably under arrest, though the videos don't show any handcuffs or anyone being loaded into police wagons. It was now 2:30.

The state police SWAT team arrived, and moved into position between the Capitol and the demonstrators. Helmeted and shielded, they slowly advanced on the crowd, forcing them off the Capitol grounds. The SWAT team was buttressed by four officers armed with automatic rifles who remained on the steps. By 3:00 the protest was over.

Judging by the videos being made at the scene, I thought the police behaved well, once the decision to call in more officers was made. Officers trying to remove the protestors from the Capitol steps did not use any force I could call excessive, and the SWAT team moved people back professionally. I do doubt any charges could be made against the people removed, since it did not appear that sufficient care was being taken to prepare documentation of the arrests.

What bothered me was the decision to call in additional officers at all. There did not seem to me to be any compelling reason to boot non-violent citizens off the Capitol grounds their tax dollars pay to maintain. The few officers present at 2:00 could have fallen back to the doorways and blocked them. It was a Saturday, so no business was being conducted inside, certainly nothing that was liable to be disrupted. The demonstrators would have gone home when it got dark anyway. Why confront them?

And now a word about the contemplated legislation. It is abominable to force an unnecessary medical procedure on any woman for political purposes. Abortion still stirs deep intense emotions, but the way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide sex education to our younger population, make contraception available, and see to it that any woman who is pregnant and undecided about continuing it knows there is a loving supportive nation around her, ready to nurture her and the child she would have.