TeaPublicans: Give Us What We Want, or We'll Pick Up Our Ball and Go Home !

We live in an admittedly politically polarized society.  However, I would submit that the Left (note capital ‘L’) has remained where it always has been, at least since the Roosevelt administration, while the Right (capital ‘R’) has moved toward an ever-increasing conservative position on the political continuum.   This has resulted in an unfortunate set of situations that I believe have become quite obvious.  However, there are other, significantly less obvious, unfortunate situations that have resulted.

The unfortunate situation is the requirement for split loyalties within the Republican Party.  It goes like this.  The Republican Party has been taken over, in part, by the ultra-Conservative, neo-fascist, Right Wing of the Party.  I refer to them as TeaPublicans.  However, this takeover is not country-wide.  The TeaPublicans are very important to Republicans when it comes to primary elections.  A Republican cannot get re-elected without the support of TeaPublicans, so he or she is beholden to them to keep his job.  If he does not toe the line, he ends up with competition in the primary where the TeaPublicans can defeat the less conservative and, I think, more reasonable and rational of the two.  So TeaPublicans can control the vote of any individual Senator or Representative at the local level.

However, the interests of the Republican Party, as a whole, may be more country-wide.  Yet if an individual elected official votes with these National Interests of the Party, they vote against the demands of the TeaPublicans.  To do what is good for the Republican Party in general, but they have to vote in a way that the local interests perceive as wrong and, in some cases, as literally traitorous.  The TeaPublicans hold the individual members hostage.  You get to choose whether to do what’s good for the whole Party or what’s good for you to get re-elected.

Let us examine the debt ceiling issue.  TeaPublicans demand that the debt ceiling be held hostage to an effort to defund ObamaCare.  Most legitimate polls indicate the Republican Party will suffer incredible losses in poll numbers, as high as 79%, if the Party forces a government shutdown.  However, individual Senators and Representatives will suffer horribly at the polls in their individual districts, if they do what is in the best interest of the Republican Party as a whole and vote not to shut down the government.  This would require the unfunding of ObamaCare provision to be dropped from the Continuing Funding Resolution as it is currently proposed.

Current estimates are that almost 80% of the electorate will hold the Republican Party directly responsible for a government shutdown.  This will translate into a near inability to win the Presidential election in 2016.  It is possible the TeaPublicans may maintain control of the House of Representatives based on this semi-suicidal tactic, but it brands the Republican Party as weak and helpless against this neo-fascist, ultra-conservative Right Wing of the Party. 

A shutdown of the Federal Government is certainly not an unheard of event, but the shutdowns of 1995-96 and 2011, as a result of extreme partisan bickering caused the credit rating of the United States to be taken now a notch; leaving us in about the same place as Belgium, but below Great Britain and Australia, known as the “AAA Club.”  The political bickering and enduring partisanship caused Standard and Poor’s to doubt the stability of the U.S. Economy and took away a valuable asset, that AAA-rating.  This has had an enduring effect on both the Economy and financial markets, and is likely to have a deleterious effect on the fragile economic recovery currently underway.

Unfortunately, the TeaPublicans, like bullies playing ball on a schoolyard, will pick up their ball and go home if they don’t get exactly what they want, the consequences be damned. Then they will try to blame the Democratic Party (yes, that’s Democratic, not Democrat…use the language correctly morons), but very few people are going to buy into it and it just may guarantee a Democratic President in 2016.  Naaahhhhh, it still ain’t worth it.

We Don't Need Gun Control in this Country, We Need People Control

I have written many times about guns and gun control, and I will not bore you with more of the same here.  Review the index of this blog and you can find them easy enough.  However, once again, we have had a shooting that appalls the greater world and, as usual, there have been a multitude of comments.

I believe this incident, yet again, proves the point that "gun control" is an unfortunate battle cry of my brethren Liberals that, in the end, will not accomplish much.  This horrific shooting incident is an example of something that would have happened in spite of the most stringent gun controls that have been proposed in this country.

Each and every time we have a shooting anything like the one at the Navy Yard, or Newtown or Aurora or any number of other so-called “mass” shootings, people, most of them Liberals like me, come out of the woodwork to tell us, “See, I told you so…  We should ban guns!”  The Conservatives, and especially members of the NRA, and the NRA itself, also come out of the woodwork to tell us, “See, I told you so… If someone had been carrying a lawful concealed firearm, they could have stopped this.”  I do not believe either of these positions is correct.  Allow me to go through a few facts, as we know them right this minute (note:  The matter is still under investigation.  The facts have already changed…a couple of times.  They will change again, I am sure.)

Initial reports regarding the shooting would have had us believe Aaron Alexis, the shooter, was armed with the dreaded AR-15 assault rifle.  He was not; he was armed with a Remington, Model 870, 12- gauge, pump-action shotgun.  I suspect that the anti-gun-side of the issue desperately wanted it to be the AR-15 so they could scream “assault weapons ban” at the top of their lungs.  I am intimately familiar with both of these weapons and happen to own both.  You are about to learn more than you ever wanted to know about a particular shotgun. 

The Remington 870 is, as I said, a pump-action shotgun.  The shooter must pull the trigger to fire the shot, and then pull the forearm back to eject the fired shell and then push it forward to load another live round, then, as they say, lather, rinse, repeat.  The gun is not an automatic weapon, nor is it a semi-automatic weapon (sorry, you will have to use Google for the differences).  The Remington 870 shotgun was designed in 1951 and there have been over 10 million produced.  There is a saying, said in jest by members of the gun-owning community, every male over the age of 25, if they own a gun or guns, will own a Remington 870.  In the firearms-owning community, they are virtually ubiquitous.

The 870 comes in various types and styles; The Wingmaster, Express, Marine, SPS, SPS-T, XCS, TAC, Super Mag and MCS.  Suffice it to say that there are variants of the weapon from bird-shooting models to tactical combat versions.  In the military, in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, a seldom understood place), I carried an 870 shotgun in addition to the ubiquitous M16-A1 assault rifle, for close encounters with the enemy.  As a police officer, I used the 870 “Riot Gun” version of this shotgun (supplied by the police department) and own both the "Wingmaster" for bird hunting and “Deerslayer” model for hunting small to medium-sized game animals.  The point of all this is, with just a few changes, the same shotgun can be adapted for hunting, police or military combat uses.  Just FYI, the model 870 can hold anywhere from six to eight rounds (“shots”).  This is not a high-capacity magazine by anyone’s definition.

Mr. Alexis was able to use this commonly available firearm to go on a shooting rampage and kill 12 people.  He did not need the now-reviled assault weapon or high-capacity magazine to be a very effective killing machine.  Before you start using this as a justification for banning all firearms, check out my previous blog post on why that will not work  (GUN CONTROL IN THE U.S. – KINDA LIKE BEING JUST A LITTLE PREGNANT?, March 16, 2012).

Now that we know what kind of gun he used, let us look at the tactics.  He took up a position four floors above what amounts to a food court/dining area and started blasting away.  At some point, police and armed security in hot pursuit, he shot an armed security officer and took his gun.  He used his Navy combat training to know to scavenge another weapon from the “downed” enemy. I would argue that he could have just as easily approached an unsuspecting security officer or police officer with a concealed knife, stabbed him or her, and taken their firearm.  The element of surprise was the most effective weapon he had to arm himself, not necessarily the firearm (See my blog post: TRAYVON MARTIN’S DEATH….THERE ARE THINGS WE MUST LEARN, April 10, 2012, especially No. 3, for more relevant information about armed encounters).

Let us review:  Anti-gunners, Alexis used one of the single most commonly available shotguns on the planet to kill a significant number of people. This was a hunting shotgun that no one has proposed banning. He did not use an assault weapon, nor high-capacity magazines to inflict these casualties.  Under the most stringent gun control regulations  proposed in this country, this weapon would have been available from any gun shop. This shooting occurred in Washington, D.C., where, arguably, the most stringent gun control laws in the country exist.  It is not possible to ban all guns in this country and you don’t need an assault weapon to kill a lot of people.  Using a shotgun, Alexis did not even need to be a good shot.  They call it a scatter-gun for a reason. Personal note: As a cop, I always said I would rather face a man with a pistol because I had a chance that he might miss.  If gun control eliminates pistols, bad guys will use shotguns and then they don’t even have to be good shots to kill me, but that is just me.

Pro-gunners; Alexis used deadly force to kill and disarm an individual, a security officer, carrying a legal firearm.  He then turned this stolen firearm on others.  It can be argued that an individual with a concealed firearm might have been able to use the element of surprise against Alexis and shoot him before Alexis knew the individual was armed, but that engages in a series of “what if’s” that are pretty far-fetched.  Anyone with a gun, concealed or otherwise, would have it drawn and at the ready, even if they were carrying it concealed to begin with, and this man was killing indiscriminately. Police and security brought weapons to the fight; once they got shot and/or killed their guns could be used against them or others.

As I started this blog post, this incident would have happened in spite of even the most stringent gun control legislation ever proposed.  The only thing that will stop gun violence is people control.  This guy was nuts.  Everbody knew he was nuts, inclduing the police, but he was able to buy a shotgun, in spite of a so-called "background check."  While the background check makes us feel better, it is a false sense of security as currently implemented, and is is worse than useless.

God, I Hate Bigots With Rights

Pastor Terry Jones, the pastor and shepherd of the small flock of The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL, has been caught, yet again, making an effort to burn the Quran.  Exactly 2,998 Qurans, to be exact.  I am not sure if he thinks this number is somehow Divine or if the good reverend just can't count for beans.  In either case, he is a complete moron.  As I graduated from the University of Florida in Gainesville, fortunately a long time before Jones arrived in town, I feel a certain embarrassment at what he says, thinks and does.  It is personal to me in a way.

Let there be no doubt, I strenuously object and otherwise abhor what this nutball thinks and says of another religious group.  Unfortunately, I defend his Right to say what he wants, think what he wants and engage in acts that express that thinking.  I have to go back to the school-age rhyme that starts "sticks and stones..."  Contrary to what we see in the movies, we don't get to smack a guy in the mouth for saying something objectionable.  I will make one personal exception to that, insult my sainted mother and I'll break your jaw.  Call it a claim of personal privilege.

Jack asses like Pastor Jones are one of the many prices we pay to live in a free society.  He is the exception that gives the normal people the Right to be normal.   The expression of his obvious hatred of Muslims, by burning their Holy Book, does have limitations, however. 

At the time he was arrested in Polk County, FL, with 2,998, kerosene-soaked, Qurans, Pastor Jones was on his way to burn them at a location where he had previously been denied a permit to do so.  I am not absolutely sure what the rationale for the denial was, but I can think of one, public safety.  I cannot burn waste paper in my back yard without a permit and the county will not issue me one.  My relatively modest amount of flammable trash would not compare with the fire created by almost 3,000 kerosene-soaked Holy Books.  I would object to the pollution caused by such a burning, and this is based on their paper content, not their designation as Holy.

The above scenario represents a subterfuge to prevent this man from making a statement.  I shall leave it to the lawyers to argue over which value prevails; that is why we have Courts and lawyers.  My preferred way to deal with it is to just brand him the nut job he is and ignore him.  If he held a massive Quran burning and nobody came, nobody wrote about it and the Muslim World embraced his Right to do this stupid and pointless thing, he would eventually just go away.  This man wants to shout at the top of his lungs a position I would spend a lifetime opposing, but I will defend his Right to do it, within limits.  I just wish the Muslim World could see the point.

I do not see Muslims doing nothing and my fellow Liberals will, no doubt, engage in their Right to protest.  In this case and others, I like what my parents taught me, "If you just ignore him, he'll go away."

TEA PARTY Sounds So Much Nicer than Mob of Racist Homophobes

Recently the Tea Party held a political event on the grounds of the Arizona State Capitol.  A reporter came to the event to document the speeches being given, but he was recognized as an individual that might not see it exactly the way the Tea Partiers would have liked it reported.

Their reaction was at first, to just try to make it difficult for him.  They somehow came to the conclusion that the State Capitol grounds had somehow become private property when they got a permit to gather; it had not.  They also apparently thought that they got to approve, authorize and accept who was going to be there and that they could limit access; they could not.  All of these erroneous thoughts left them with the idea that they could make the man leave; and they could not.  There was no legal justification for these Tea Party Members to prevent a new media person, or just a citizen on public property, from video-taping their speeches, and yet they thought they could.  I would identify the problem as being related to the fact that these people were Neanderthal morons so often times associated with the Tea Party.
 

In this case, they were clearly “biker-types.”  These individuals had long, unkempt grey beards, long grey head hair, jean or leather jackets with numerous motorcycle “club” patches on them.   They used words like “Motherf**ker” this and “Motherf**ker” that.  This language was more indicative of the complete lack of sophistication the people had.  They also lacked anything resembling “class.”  OK, they had class, but it was all low class.  These Tea Party members had all the class one would expect of a wanna-be motorcycle gang; big soft bellies, on both the men and women; hugely sagging breasts suggestive of softballs in sweat socks; too much make up, ratty grey hair.   Oh ya, they were classy folks alright, and the acted exactly consistent with their appearance.
 

They engaged in the usual tactics of the school-yard bully.  They approached the man, first trying to block his view and spewing their tripe about it being private property.  These morons thought the State Capital Grounds could be private property, a blunder of monumental proportion, but these gentlemen, and ladies, had no interest in what was right or true, they wanted to do whatever they wanted to do.  What they wanted to do was make this man leave, and it became clear that they would use force if necessary, those Second Amendment remedies, but the reporter stood his ground.  Even the speaker tried to point out to the crowd that the reporter had Rights under the First Amendment, but this did not deter our group of troglodytes, no way.
 

The next action was to push the reporter with their rather large beer-infused bellies.  While doing so on video tape, they narrated how the reporter was pushing them, in spite of the video tape showed them belly bumping the reporter, in an effort to move the reporter out of the way.  I was reminded of a grade-school bully who would grab another weaker kid’s arm and start hitting him with his own arm, the whole time saying, “Why ya hittin’ yourself?”  Huh?  Why ya hittin’ yourself?  It was just pathetic on so many levels.  It was an embarrassment is what it was, and I was appalled.
 

This group clearly thinks they have all the rights to the First Amendment to the exclusion of all others.  When this reporter stated he had his First Amendment Rights, the crowd was reduced to calling him a “COMMIE,” because we all know that Communists don’t have Free Speech Rights in the United States, right?

This Tea Party group exhibited every hypocritical and abusive behavior for which they have become the brunt of jokes and for which they are reviled.  Hell they did elect Jan Brewer as their Governor.   They deserve to be the brunt of jokes with a Governor like that.  They have clearly found the least common denominator to represent them in Arizona, a fellow moron!

Tea Party sounds so much nicer than hypocritical, moron, racist, homophobes, but be afraid, be very afraid...They serve on juries, they drive, they breed and they vote!  How do you protect the country from moron citizens?

PERSONAL PRIVACY – I WAS WRONG….BUT, I TOLD YA SO !!

Yes, I admit it, I was wrong in my May 23, 2011, blog post regarding personal privacy and the threats to personal privacy.  I was wrong because I so incredibly underestimated what the government of the United States, and specifically the National Security Administration (NSA),  was and is doing to compromise the security and privacy of…of…well EVERYTHING !
 

The NSA has adopted a policy that everyone is suspect, until proven otherwise, and then, in all probability, that one time they prove otherwise applies only until the next time they suspect you.  They have adopted a policy of collecting everything and then they get to figure out who was naughty and who was nice, only Santa they ain’t.  This policy has likely created the largest dragnet of personal information of innocent people the world has ever known.

Thanks to the revelations of Edward Snowden, we now know that the NSA has been collecting pretty much every communication between every United States citizen and anyone else on the planet inside or outside the United States.  This includes email, telephone calls, radio calls (okay, that was always pretty open anyway) and the United States Mail.  We now know, in fact, that the NSA has done its level best to compromise, by hook or crook, any kind of communication security in which we engage in this country and probably the world.
 

The NSA has worked to compromise the security of communications using requests, begging and pleading and finally, conniving, threats, coercion and force.  Every company and designer of security software has been asked to put a weakness in their encryption software or install a “back-door” that allows the NSA to circumvent the need for a password to de-encrypt an otherwise coded message.  Those that refused found themselves “under investigation” and their top-level executives threaten with prosecution and jail if they failed to comply.  Many companies just got “hacked” and the back-doors installed without their knowledge.

As more and more information becomes known, we find the NSA reeling.  Why?  Because they never thought they would ever get caught.  They never thought they would have to explain, to a previously unsuspecting citizenry, why they need to read our mail and listen to our phone calls.  They are having a huge hard time of it. 
 

It seems that when they have screwed up in the past, the so-called FISA Court, has admonished them.  What has been the result?  Greater secrecy!  The NSA is not about doing what the Courts tell it what it should be doing, it is about figuring out how to make things ever more secret; make it harder to get caught.  When the NSA and the government get caught with their hands in the information/intelligence cookie jar, they just add a few more layers secrecy so no one can figure out how they are violating the privacy of the people.  It is that simple. 
 

Nothing healthy grows in the dark.  The kind of growth you don’t want is what thrives in secret.  The NSA has become a mold on freedom and all it wants is more secrecy, more darkness so it can flourish at the expense of us all.
 

Edward Snowden will be forever reviled in the intelligence community.  As a result of what he has released, and what he continues to release, We The People, have figured out what our government is collecting on us, but this is not about Edward Snowden as much as it is about what the government is collecting on each one of We the People.

I do not understand why people are not standing on very tall soapboxes, screaming at the top of their lungs, to whoever will listen, that this is wrong.  We are being raped of our privacy and the NSA’s response to getting caught, in addition to trying to make it harder to catch them next time, is to tell us it is necessary and for our own good.  The government is engaged in the moral equivalent of combining “Trust Us” and “It is inevitable, just lay back and enjoy it.”
 

I know the response of most of my Conservative friends, “Well, I don’t care who knows what I am doing.  I am not doing anything wrong.  Let them look.”  As I have said before, that is fine, you are welcome to give up your Right to Privacy, but you are not entitled to give away mine.  Sit down right now, draft a letter to the NSA and give them the authorization to read every letter, email, text message, note and memo you write.  Give them the authority listen in on every conversation you have, tap your phones and hell, while you are at it; let them take a peek at your medical records.  Why would you care if they know you aren’t sick or maybe you are?  What difference does it make?

It is when you start to try to give away MY right to privacy that I take great exception.  Remember, some of the worst oppressions on the planet came at the hands of a majority against a minority.  Just ask African Americans (You remember, slavery?), Native Americans (does Wounded Knee ring a bell?  Reservations?  The Trail of Tears?).  The world is rife with examples of uncaring majorities allowing the rights of minorities to be compromised or eliminated altogether.  The Jews in Nazi Germany were just such a minority and now we hear that prolific cry, “Never Again.”  Where are those cries now, in light of the massive violation of our privacy at the hands of the government?
 

Since it is a Right (note the capital R) as defined by the Supreme Court as being guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I do not have to justify why I wish to invoke that Right.  It is my Right to do so, and I am not required to explain it to anyone.   Ask a Conservative to justify why he wants or needs to keep and bear arms, they will routinely tell you, “Because it is my Right.”  Oh and one of the justifications for why the government cannot require you to register your firearm(s) is because you have a Right to Privacy.
 

By the way, all you so-called “Constitutionalists,” the word “privacy” never once appears in the Constitution, but it comes from an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the Supreme Court.  Does that reviled term “judicial activism” work for you here, or would you argue that in the United States we have no Right to privacy and the government can act with impunity and disregard to anything related to personal privacy?  You better watch out because without a Right to Privacy, gun registration may not be far behind.  Is there anything at all that is just none of their business?  I am afraid the American People have a strange way of deciding what is and is not anyone’s business for themselves, but then there is that pesky majority rules, minority Rights argument.
 

This issue is becoming less and less about Edward Snowden and more about the abuses of power and technology in which the U.S. Government is engaged.  We are finding out that the Government views us as little children who have no idea what is in our best interests, but as good parents, our government thinks they can tell us.  This does not, in my opinion, square with government by the people, but most certainly fits within their definition of government of the people.

Snowden: Hero or Traitor? Maybe a Little of Both

In this digital age, when Edward Snowden released information related to the NSA gathering of telephone and email information on what can only be described as a massive scale, there was the digital age rush to judgment.  We have, as a society, been increasingly immediate gratification oriented.  The digital age has replaced that with instantaneous gratification orientation.  Anything less than light speed is just to slow.  Such is the case with Edward Snowden.

I figured something was seriously wrong when the U.S. Government tried so hard and so fast to get out in front of the Snowden situation.  By that I mean, they were right there, out front and center, condemning this guy in unequivocal terms.  It was too much and too fast for my liking.  I am a very much a let’s wait and see what all the facts tell us.

The government knew exactly what Snowden had access to and what he could possibly release well before he released it.  They had to do whatever was necessary to discredit him, immediately, if not sooner.  For the government it was initially pure damage control.  Edward Snowden was a traitor, thousands of lives were placed in jeopardy and the Cardinal sin of intelligence, revealing sources and methods, would destroy us.  Terrorists would launch attacks, nuclear weapons would be required, millions would be killed and other such tripe was issued forth.  They had to poison the well, so to speak, and make Snowden the single least credible person on the planet.  They had to make sure the people did not believe anything he said and trust them, in spite of the disclosures.

I have personally had access to secret materials, the content of which I will not reveal, but I can assure you that the single most often used reason for classifying material, at whatever level, is to prevent some moron who did something stupid from being exposed.  It rarely has anything to do with revealing sources and methods or keeping national secrets nor maintaining national security.  It usually has everything to do with someone in power or position, in the military or the government, who has done something illegal, immoral, unethical or just stupid or fattening and might be embarrassed if anyone finds out.  Poof, it becomes classified and no one is the wiser, problem solved.

The problem with this is that it makes for an incredibly non-responsive government.  How do you complain if you have no idea who did it?  Hell, how do you even know to complain if you don’t even know that something went wrong?  That is the problem with secrecy; it limits and often eliminates accountability.  We live in a country based on a system of checks and balances.  This system, as implemented by our Founding Fathers, in my humble opinion, is divinely inspired.  I am not a religious fanatic, but I do not believe that human beings are that smart, and God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever you happen to believe in, helped us out.  Of course, in keeping with the religious concepts, we have free will, and we are screwing it up, or more accurately, our leaders are leading us down the primrose path to Hell.  We are following the leaders as they tell us over and over again, “Trust us; we’ll take care of everything.”  The problem is they are lying to us, either actively by just making statements that are not true, or passively by just not telling us anything at all and doing everything behind our backs in the name of protecting us.

There is something to be said for the leaking of information by Edward Snowden.  We are now engaged in a national discussion as to whether the NSA should be doing what it is doing.  There are a very significant number of people, myself included, that are asking, “Exactly why do you need to know who I call, who calls me, how long we talk and where I am when I am talking to them?  This is, among other things, exactly what the government is gathering when it collects so-called “metadata.”  In law enforcement, we used this information to discover the organization of drug dealers in the county in which I lived and it worked.  We developed a chart of circles and arrows that would have made Amway proud.  We got this information on specific individuals through the use of a “pen register,” and you could tell a whole lot about a person with just this information.  It was actually scary.

Now we have the NSA collecting the same class of data on every American in the world.  Ya, I know they have said they only get it for foreign contacts, but we are just now learning that they gathered this information on residents of Washington, DC and New York City, “by accident.”  In their net, the NSA says they inadvertently captured “inappropriate data” on not hundreds, not thousands, but tens of thousands of American Citizens in our nation’s capital and our most populace city.  Accident my ass!  I am not a big believer in conspiratorial thinking, but you do not have to have to be Michael Moore to turn this into a conspiracy worthy of a movie.  If I were a betting man, I would bet that Edward Snowden had access to this information and the NSA figured, before he leaks it, we need to get out in front of the disclosure ourselves.  The NSA thinks they become the white knights because they ratted themselves out.  See, you can trust us.  BULSHIT!!

We have another reason for asking whether we want to view Edward Snowden as a hero or a traitor.  The disclosure of information has opened a discussion the likes of which we have not seen since Nixon’s Watergate Affair.  Remember, the scandal that eventually brought down a President?  August 9, 2014 will be the 40^th anniversary of Big Dick’s resignation, by the way.  People all along the political continuum in this country are starting to ask the same questions about the NSA’s various programs.  Conservatives, Liberals and everyone in between are asking questions, and the NSA does not like it.   They should not like it and aren’t supposed to like it; it is the nature of a system of checks and balances.  They want to do something and another branch of government says, “No you can’t do that.”

 In this case, the people themselves are starting to ask the questions.  The politicians, who ostensibly represent us, in spite of their best efforts to convince We the People that we have nothing to worry about are seeing the political winds shift.  As a result, the politicians are beginning to see the convergence of doing their jobs and keeping their jobs.  Usually they consider these events not to be cause and effect as they should, but as nearly mutually exclusive.  The result is an inertia that is nearly impossible to overcome.  The ball cannot be moved, or once it begins to roll, it cannot be stopped and the direction cannot be changed.

Allow me to describe the idiocy of some of the bureaucrats in the intelligence field in this country, the people we entrust with our national security.  While in a government position, I received a memorandum and a bunch of attachments from the chain of command above me.  I reviewed the material and with the scrunched-up-nose look you get when you don’t get it, I asked, why the Hell would this get sent to me?  I signed off that I had received and reviewed the materials as indicated on the memorandum and shrugged it off. 

A couple of days go by and another memo comes in.  This is about the previous memo and materials.  Someone screwed up and sent the stuff to the wrong distribution list.  I was requested to sign the memo telling me I had reviewed the memo sent in error, had made no copies, and had received and reviewed the memo telling me about it having been sent in error.  Okay, I get it; if they could have used an MIB “Nuerolyzer” (You know the “flashy thing” that ‘K’ and ‘J' used to erase the memories of people.), they would have.  Okay, so I sign the new memo and send it down the chain of command.  Problem solved….but wait, there’s more.

A couple of days later, I get another memo.  Attached to this memo is the memo with my signature on it saying I reviewed it and the previous memo.  They want me to initial my signature.  WTF?  Okay, I initial my signature on the previous memo as instructed by the most recent memo.  The people that put this system of memos in place and had people initialing their original signatures are the people we entrust with our national security, God Help us!!  Otherwise, we are truly doomed.

George Zimmerman - He Is Not A Criminal, But That Doesn't Make Him Right

I am finally going to weigh in with an opinion on Trayvon Martin, as to whether George Zimmerman committed a crime when he shot him.  My answer is, no, George Zimmerman did not commit a crime and I do not think the jury got it wrong, as many allege.  While I do not believe that George Zimmerman committed a crime when he shot Trayvon Martin, I do not believe he was right in doing so.  The two are different.  Allow me to go through the facts as they have been brought out.  I also want to address some of the responses I have gotten, particularly on Twitter, from people that quite frankly, haven’t got a clue.

 George Zimmerman possessed a properly licensed and permitted concealed firearm.  Yes, the Neighborhood Watch Program he was part of had rules against carrying firearms by its members, but this did not make it illegal.   The Neighborhood Watch Program probably terminated him from the program for violating their rules.  This is the most severe thing they could do, and while it is a violation of their rules, it is not a crime.  Zimmerman carrying a gun was not illegal.

 George Zimmerman was not engaged in any illegal activity at the time he followed Trayvon Martin.  While incredibly annoying and disconcerting, Trayvon may have even felt threatened by the action, but Zimmerman was not doing anything that rises to the level of an assault and made no threats, at least none were ever alleged in the trial. Zimmerman did not violate any laws by following Trayvon.   A person can follow any other person they wish, at pretty much any time, barring the ladies or men’s restrooms or locker rooms, stalking, etc.  Believe it or not, you can even video tape them if you wish, because they are in a public place and they have no expectation of privacy.  Trayvon had to have reasonable grounds on which to feel threatened.  Again, while it is annoying; it is not illegal to follow someone, and Trayvon did not have a reasonable fear.

 If you are following someone, they are welcome to confront you and ask you what the hell you are doing.  They can even call you vile names, but they cannot threaten to do you violence.  This is the crime of assault.  They cannot strike or touch you.  This is the crime of Battery.  Trayvon was on a cell phone with a girlfriend; he could have easily hung up, dialed 911 and told the police, “Hey there is this guy following me.”  He did not do this.  Instead, he chose to confront George Zimmerman and hit him.  Trayvon  Martin committed a crime, the crime of Battery, on George Zimmerman.  More on that in a minute.

 There are those who have stated that George Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon Martin.  He may very well have done this and, again, this may be a really crummy thing to do, but it is not illegal, especially for a civilian.  There has also been a misrepresentation of what Trayvon Martin was doing at the time all of this was occurring which makes the allegations of “profiling” even less credible in my opinion.  Trayvon was not, as popularly represented by his supporters, just walking down a sidewalk.  He was walking through the back yards of the homes in a residential neighborhood.  In an area where sidewalks are provided, walking through the back yards of neighborhoods can easily be construed as “suspicious.”  As a police officer, I certainly would have thought it suspicious and I would have stopped Trayvon and asked him what he was doing there.

George Zimmerman did not stop Trayvon, he followed him, and he had called the police.  By all accounts, Trayvon could have stopped, waited for the cops and dealt with them and George when they got there.  The accounts at trial lead most to believe that Trayvon instead chose to confront George and at some point hit him in the face.  The pair went to the ground and, again, by the only account available, that of George Zimmerman, Trayvon began to bounce George’s head off the pavement or the concrete.  George had the physical evidence indicative of taking such a beating; the broken nose and the cuts and bruises to the back of his head.  George Zimmerman did not break his own nose and pound his own head on the ground.

 Now this is where things get a little more complicated.  I recommend you review my previous blog entries on this topic (“Trayvon Martin - Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Right,” April 6, 2012 and “Trayvon Martin’s Death…There Are Things We Must Learn,” April 10, 2012).

Trayvon Martin is beating a man, but Trayvon does not know that man is armed.  Trayvon thought it was a fist fight, but, much to his surprise I imagine, it turned into a gunfight, and Trayvon did not bring a gun.  When George started to lose the fist fight, he had a reasonable fear that Trayvon might discover his gun and use it against him.  One woman Tweeted me with, “How do you know Trayvon knew how to use a gun?”  I don’t, but I can assure you I am not going to bet my life on whether Trayvon could or would shoot me after he takes my own gun away from me after I am unconscious.  The testimony from George was that Trayvon, in fact, tried to take the gun from him.  George was in a really bad situation and, based on the facts developed in Court, George started to fear for his life.  He drew his gun and eliminated the threat by killing Trayvon.  George Zimmerman was legally, the key word being legally, justified in using deadly force to stop Trayvon from beating him, taking his (Zimmerman’s) gun from him and killing him with it.  The jury decided this was the case and I happen to agree with it.

The people to whom I take exception are those who are willing to start making wild assertions that have no basis in fact.  In response to blog entries I made in 2012 and Tweets I posted, I have a number of responses that all amount to “What if….”  In the words of my father, God rest his soul, “What if cows could fly?  Would we all need steel umbrellas?”  I can take any situation and “What if” it to death.  We do not make decisions of guilt or innocence in a criminal trial based on “What if’s….”  “What if’ing” is the last bastion of the losing side in an argument.  It amounts to assuming as fact things that have not been proven and/or don’t exist to disprove the concrete, provable and arguable facts we have available to us.  It defies logic and I answer it with, “Ya, but that didn’t happen.”

My other despised argument starts, “Is it possible…”  The answer is always, “Yes.”  I don’t even let the rest of the question get asked, because it makes no difference what it is.  Is it possible the sun will come up in the west tomorrow?  I believe that all things are possible, so the answer is always yes.  The people of the opinion opposing mine have been reduced to “What if’ing… and “Is it possible…” arguments because they do not have any facts.

Among the unsubstantiated allegations is that George Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon Martin.  Folks, people profile other people every day.  The presumption is that it is bad.  Not always, in my humble opinion.  As a police officer, I came to recognize that there were situations we referred to as “crimes” that were never on the books.  One of these was “White Boy in a No-White-Boy Zone.”  There were neighborhoods in which we were pretty sure the white guy (or girl) cruising through at 3:00AM was not there delivering peach cobbler.  We had a reasonable suspicion they were in the neighborhood to buy drugs.  We stopped them and, as often as not, we found they were there to buy or had already bought drugs.

 There were neighborhoods where a black guy walking through the neighborhood, usually late at night, was also “suspicious” because we knew who lived in the neighborhood and we knew they didn’t live there.  We would stop and ask them what they were doing there.  If they said something like, “Walking home from my girlfriend’s house,” we generally took some information, checked them for wants and warrants, and sent them on their way.  As a rule, we rarely arrested them.  Most of the time, we would do a pat down search to make sure they didn’t have any weapons and, occasionally, we would find “contraband” or a weapon.   Then we would make an arrest.

 Change the situation slightly, the guy is white and has a bulging pillowcase over his shoulder, walking through a neighborhood late at night.  We would stop him and ask what was in the pillowcase.  We had a suspicion that they might be carrying stuff stolen in a burglary.  Was it a “reasonable” suspicion?  I am not sure, but it was a suspicion and we would make contact with them, ask questions, and assess their responses, demeanor and actions.  Based on, as the attorneys say, the totality of the circumstances, we would move from a hunch to suspicion to reasonable suspicion to probable cause for a search and then probable cause for arrest.  At any point during the encounter, a person could give us answers that made sense, allayed our suspicion(s) and we would then thank them and let them go on their way.

 No, George was not a police officer, but he still did nothing illegal.  George saw a guy he thought suspicious and reported him to police.  He followed him so he could tell police where the suspicious person was when they got there.  Unfortunately the situation turned ugly real quick.

 Many people have pointed out that George did not obey a “police order” to stop following Trayvon.  Actually, the man on the phone with George was a dispatcher, not a police officer.  Regardless, he said to George, “We don’t need you to do that [follow Trayvon]…”  First, a dispatcher in a communications center does not have the legal authority to issue an enforceable order to anyone.  Second, the so-called “order” was equivocal.  George was not instructed, “Stop following him.”  At best it was a suggestion, maybe a request?  George chose not to comply, admittedly with tragic results, but he was not legally obligated to comply and did nothing illegal.

When you boil all this down to its basic elements, George Zimmerman did nothing criminal.  Whether he did something for which he can be held civilly liable is another matter.  What we have going on is people who want to make George Zimmerman a criminal for mostly emotional reasons.  They want or need to make this about race.  They want or need to make this about a bad law.  They want or need to make Trayvon an innocent victim, and most of these people have a vested interest in the outcome, whether it be emotional, political or financial, but Trayvon was anything but innocent.

 As much as I hate to make the comparison, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in the murder of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman, but in a later civil suit, he was found liable for the death and forced to pay money damages to the Goldman family.  In the State of Florida, civil suits allow a jury to assess what percentage of responsibility the parties to the suit hold in a case.  If there were to be a civil action, the jury would get to determine how much at fault George was and how much at fault Trayvon was in this case, but I don’t think we will ever get this determination because the same Florida Law that let George stand his ground also gives him immunity from civil suit, his having been acquitted.  Take a look at:

 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

 I am not sure this isn’t the real problem with the self-defense law in Florida.  George Zimmerman did any number of things wrong, but they did not rise to the level of criminality.  The gun lobby effectively got the Florida Legislature to prohibit civil suits in cases of self-defense.  The idea is that if the act was in self-defense and the person gets acquitted, then why should they face a civil lawsuit?  Well, the rules of evidence are different in a civil suit, so the jury might have heard things they did not hear in the criminal trial.  The standard of proof is different and the fact that a crime may not have been committed does not mean that, in this case the shooter, did everything right.  However, in a civil suit, in a “Court of Equity,” I am pretty sure George Zimmerman would have been found partially responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death.   The fact that we will probably never see the case judged in this manner is the real shame.