TRAYVON MARTIN - TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT

Trayvon Martin: a name which will regrettably live in infamy.  On the night of February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.  That much is clear.  Unlike many others, I do not know what happened to Martin.  I do not know why George Zimmerman shot him.  Zimmerman has made the claim that he shot this young man in self defense.  There may be (and note I use the word “may”) witnesses to the event, but the witnesses disagree on what happened.  Unfortunately, the witness statements, which I have not read, seem to disagree and be mutually exclusive. 

I, and most of the rest of the world, only has media accounts to go by, and these are far from accurate in many cases.  The media tends to be more interested in controversy and being firstest with the mostest as opposed to making certain that what they report is factual and accurate.  The media has a vested interest in reporting what they are being told, not whether what they are being told is accurate or the truth.  

The National Inquirer or The Globe and other similar tabloids (and, in my opinion, more and more so-called “legitimate” news media outlets) are notorious for reporting things “they are told” regardless of whether it is true or correct.  They merely report that “we were told”, and this is an accurate statement, they were.  The fact that what they were told was told to them by some mental case or a person with a serious bias, or the information is just outrageous, is ignored, but it makes a really neat headline that sells newspapers in the checkout line at the grocery or convenience store.

Much has been made of this shooting, and rightfully so, but I would argue that we are premature on the condemnation of Zimmerman.  I say this because the facts are not all in and it is kind of important to try to make decisions like this, decisions of guilt and innocence, based on a full and complete investigation.

 We have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world (I would argue it is not perfect, but it is the best we have) and we need to let it work.  First, police investigate and gather evidence.  Once they reach the point that they have probable cause, they have the discretion to arrest, but probable cause is not enough to convict.  Yes, you can beat the rap, but you can never beat the ride [to jail] in most cases, but if we want to do justice, we must be patient.

After the police have investigated they have a certain amount of discretion in whether to make an arrest.  In the case of an expressed self-defense claim, they have an even more complicated investigation (I know.  I did them.) and because it is complicated, the police will often take the case to the State Attorney (SA) to review.  If the SA believes there is probable cause (there’s that term “probable cause” again) the SA has the discretion to issue an Information (a charging document), have a Warrant issued by a judge, based on an affidavit of probable cause and then have police make an arrest.

The SA also has the discretion to take the case before a Grand Jury.  The Grand Jury reviews the evidence presented to it by the SA and they can make a decision as to whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and who is believed to have committed the crime.  The Grand Jury has the discretion to issue an Indictment (another form of charging document) and then the police can go out and arrest the accused person.  The Grand Jury has the discretion to “No True Bill”  a case (a document saying charges aren't warranted) , based in this case on a finding that Zimmerman had a legitimate right to defend himself, and presumably, absent additional credible evidence, Zimmerman goes free.

It has long been said that the wheels of justice grind very slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.  The search for the truth requires it.  It is not to be a knee-jerk reaction to make a group of people, or all the people for that matter, happy.  You will note that there is a lot of discretion involved in his process.  The idea is to try to reduce the likelihood of convicting the wrong man of the wrong crime.  When the police question whether a crime has been committed, they can go to the SA and ask.  If the SA is not sure, the Grand Jury can decide.  It is a check and balance system at work, and generally it works very well.  However, with all the discretion involved, there is admittedly a lot of room for abuse of that discretion, but discretion has not been abused in this case.

The argument has been made that, had Zimmerman been black and Martin white, we would not be having this discussion.  There are those that believe that Zimmerman would most assuredly be in jail as of the night of the shooting, had he been black.  I am not as positive about this fact as some.  I will admit that I do think they might be right, but I am not as certain as they are.  However, I do not think because there may be a double standard, we should impose the wrong standard on either or both.  Quoting a platitude; two wrongs do not make a right. 

At the time I write this, and most certainly at the time immediately following this incident, no one knows what the facts are, other than George Zimmerman.  We are now learning of additional “witnesses” that are coming forward and making statements.  I use the quotation marks around the term witnesses because, as has happened in the past, and particularly to me when I was a police officer, many so-called “witnesses” step forward that never really saw an event happen.  They step forward, and lie, for their fifteen minutes of fame or, in some cases, just because the can.  The agencies conducting the investigations of this incident need to be given the opportunity to do just that, investigate.  They need to be allowed to gather the information, sort through it, determine or assess its credibility and make the best decision they can.  This applies to the State Attorney and the Grand Jury, if that process is used.

I shall risk sounding like a defender of George Zimmerman, I am not.  Police have not completed sufficient investigation to make any valid conclusions.    We are only now learning Zimmerman may have had a broken nose and other injuries.   If he says Martin broke his nose, we have no one to dispute it, yet.   If Trayvon Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose, then an x-ray will likely prove or disprove it.  A review of a less-than-diagnostic video tape of Zimmerman at the police station is not as conclusive as those with an agenda would have us believe.   You might want to look at that video and note that Zimmerman was handcuffed.  I am not sure there is a circumstance in this country in which he was not under arrest at that point, but that is something lawyers have to argue about if a criminal case proceeds.  I think he was arrested and then released without being charged, an interesting legal conundrum for another time.

What we have in the current situation is a group of people, many with a vested personal or emotional interest in the issue of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, trying to accomplish what has been characterized in the past as a lynching.  We have the moral equivalent of a group of people carrying torches and pitch forks demanding that the sheriff let them do vigilante justice.  To Hell with a trial; to Hell with justice, let’s just string him up on the nearest oak tree, because that is what happened to “us” in the past, and now it is our turn.  Two wrongs still do not make a right.

FOR-PROFIT LAW ENFORCEMENT – HOW POLICE STEAL MONEY FROM PEOPLE

Law enforcement has engaged in a legalized form of theft for many years.  Admittedly, in most cases, it is the seizure of ill-gotten gains (IGG) that are the profits and proceeds of some sort of illegal operation; drug dealing, fraud and such.  However, the police have also gotten into the law-enforcement-for-profit business by seizing just about anything, regardless of whether it is IGG or not.

In the last several months, a married mother of five, while working as a waitress in Moorhead, Minnesota, was left a “tip” by an unknown and unidentified woman.  The police took it, although they call it a “seizure”.  The unknown woman left a box on the table after the waitress had served her.  The conscientious waitress followed the women into the parking lot and tried to give the box back to the woman, but was told to “keep it.”  The waitress had no idea what was in the box at the time, thinking it was just a “doggy bag” sort of thing.  Imagine her surprise when it had cold, hard cash in it.  It contained $12,000 in cold, hard cash.  You know $12,000 in coin of the realm kind of cash.

The waitress, being an honest individual, and believing that the woman must have been mistaken in giving such a large amount to a stranger – a reasonable assumption – called police.  Police initially took the money, advising the waitress that she could come get the money in 60 days if it went unclaimed.  When she went to the police department after 60 days to claim the money, she was told she had to wait another 30 days, for a total of 90 days.  When, after 90 days, she went to reclaim the money, she was told it was being seized.  The police told her it must be drug money!  They said it smelled of marijuana and a drug dog alerted on the money, so it must be IGG of the drug trade.  They decided to seize the money and - wait for it – keep the money themselves.

I am not sure how to express how indignant I am with this incredibly arrogant abuse of authority; because it exists on so many levels.  Thus, in no particular order of importance, allow me to explain.

The police are sending an incredibly bad message to the greater world.  They are telling people, if you do the right thing, if you call the police and report an unusual circumstance that involves money, we will take the money from you.  We will take the money from you, and give it to ourselves.  The clear and unmistakable lesson here is, if you don’t have to, don’t call the police.  They will take your money if they can.  This woman was given a gift, a tip, if you will, and had no reason to need to call the police, but for the fact that it was a lot of money.  She had no idea where the money came from and had no way of knowing.  She is an innocent.  The police apparently think they have the magic crystal ball of truth and determined that this money just has to be IGG?  Do the police get to make the presumption it is IGG and make you prove it is not?  Not in the America I have fought to protect and defend.

The presumption that it is IGG is nothing more than just that, a presumption on the part of police.  They have nothing more than the fact that a drug dog alerted on what they believe was money that smelled like marijuana.  Are we to ignore that a study by the University of Massachusetts in 2009 determined that 90%, yes 9 out of ten, pieces of paper in this country contain traces of cocaine?  I dare you to find money in this country that has neither been used to snort cocaine, nor been folded up with money that has.  If the standard is “it has been in contact with drugs”, then every piece of paper money that has been in circulation for, what (?) hours (?) is able to be seized by police?  Puhleeeze!!!   Yes I know they say it was marijuana, but does a drug dog alert differently for pot than coke; and what difference does it make if the money has been in contact with marijuana?  Do the police get to seize every dolar bill that smells like marijuana??  I think not!

What makes the Moorhead Police think they have a greater right to the money than the woman to whom it was given?  The woman is a waitress, raising five kids for crying out loud.  She is not into drugs by all accounts, so why do the police seem to think she has no right to the money?  I’ll tell you why, because they think they can.  If the police “seize” (read: steal) the money, they truly believe that they can get away with it.  It is a belief born of arrogance and impunity that “we are the police, we can’t legally steal, we seize.”  I invite my friends of the wing nut, neo-conservative, right-wing, fascist persuasion to defend this one.  Oh, and while you are at it, consider the IRS collection process for a minute and defend that too…but I digress.

I have actually been involved with the legal representation of individuals who have had their money seized by police.  The sole rational for the seizure was that it was too much money for a single individual to be carrying around with him.  He got it all back, by the way, but only after he took the police to court.  What the hell gives the police the right to determine how much money I am allowed to carry on my person?  I am not saying it is the brightest thing in the world to do, but if I decide to carry around several thousand dollars in cash, or several hundred thousands of dollars for that matter, what gives the police the right to say it is too much money?  Who gives them the right to take my money and make me prove it is not IGG?  My answer is no one!  It is the opinion of a petty police officer who thinks he gets to decide.  Having been a police officer, I can assure you that what is a lot of money to a cop is very often not a lot of money to someone else.  Thus, I use the term petty to describe a decision often made as a result of jealously.

The woman in Moorhead, MN has had to sue the police to get her money back.  I have no doubt that the police will start making offers to return a portion of the money.  They will threaten to draw out legal proceedings that will use up any money she might get back if she does not settle for less than the full amount.  Remember, the police legal fees are being paid by the taxpayer, you know, you and me.  It is no sweat off their backs if the case drags out for months, or even years.  I suspect that the woman, if she does not “go along” will also become the subject of increased police “scrutiny” (read: harassment) until she agrees to “do the right thing” as defined by the police.  Finally, the cops will make absolutely certain that the IRS is made aware of this woman’s good fortune in an effort to further harass her.  Trust me, it is not because they want to make sure she declares the money on her Form 1040 because it is the right thing to do, they do it as a punitive measure just to “make her pay.”

Police corruption comes in many forms.  In this case it is systemic corruption that benefits and is supported by the police.  It is not a rogue cop abusing his authority in a violation of the law.  It is the police using the law to commit what is morally, ethically and principally wrong.  It is an abuse of the law to commit a theft, period!!  They should be ashamed of themselves.