|
| Matthew Owens was hospitalized with severe head injuries after being brutally battered with bricks, chairs, pipes and paint cans on his Mobile, Alabama, front porch on April 21, 2012. One of the 20 assailants, all described as "African-American," was allegedly heard to remark, "Now that's justice for Trayvon." |
|---|
On 14 May 2011, Nafissatou Diallo, a 32-year-old Guinean immigrant maid at the Sofitel Hotel in New York City, reported that she had been sexually assaulted by hotel guest Dominique Strauss-Khan, a wealthy French economist, lawyer, and politician. Mr. Strauss-Kahn was formally indicted four days later and was ordered to remain confined to a New York apartment under guard. He was arraigned on June 6, 2011, and pled not guilty. After completing a lengthy investigation, prosecutors filed a motion to drop all charges, stating that they were not convinced of his culpability beyond a reasonable doubt due to serious issues in the complainant's credibility and inconclusive physical evidence, and therefore could not ask a jury to believe in it. The motion was granted in a hearing on August 23, 2011.
Mr. Strauss-Khan admitted to the sexual encounter corroborated by forensic evidence, but maintained that it was consensual. Essentially, it was his word against hers, and US law presumed him not to be guilty. In order to have any chance of successful prosecution, the State of New York would have had to overcome that presumption by convincing evidence to the contrary. The only such evidence was Ms. Diallo's testimony. It wasn't nearly enough!
According to sources within the NYPD, Ms. Diallo repeatedly lied to the police, admitted that she lied to a grand jury, and had lied to get her "green card" to work in the United States. Prosecutors said she lied about what she did after the rape, which room she went into and for how long. She lied on tax returns. She lied about a rape in Guinea that never happened. She lied about money deposited in her account by her fiancee. Prosecutors may well have believed that Mr. Strauss-Kahn was guilty, but they simply had no case. Diallo's cheap bleaching face creams, her theatrical interview, the fact that she demonstrably lied about so many things, fairly screamed "liar, liar, liar!" Whatever her language skills, vastly different world view, or culture of melodrama, in the United States, she was completely useless as a prosecution witness!
Was Ms. Diallo forced to perform a sex act? Frankly, I don't know. Being poor, ignorant and black does not make one a prostitute any more than being rich, powerful and white makes one a criminal. Surely a reasonable jury would know that a woman who lies, even pathologically, "can be" a victim of sexual assault. "Was" is another matter entirely. To convict someone, anyone, of anything in a US courtroom requires a conclusion to that effect based on admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that we are so careful to preserve the rights of the accused frequently results in expenditures of huge amounts of money to try a suspect with no guarantee whatever of conviction. Prosecutors who waste taxpayers' dollars prosecuting hopeless cases eventually lose their jobs, while a strong record of conviction is an excellent argument for reappointment or reelection. There are few reasonable arguments for prosecuting a weak case; wise prosecutors bring to court only those cases they are pretty sure they can win.
Given her demonstrated history of dishonesty, the most believable explanation about what happened was that, within minutes of meeting her, possibly by her own suggestion, Mr. Strauss-Kahn perceived that Ms. Diallo was open to proposition and offered to pay her for sex. She accepted, performed the act, and then, possibly prompted by others, thought she could get more money at New York taxpayers' expense by claiming that she was assaulted. To win their case, prosecutors would have had to overcome the presumption that such a scenario was even reasonable. In short, they risked their jobs and professional reputations if they tried to convince a jury to believe a much less plausible scenario in spite of such overwhelming odds. They would have to have been utter fools!
Regardless of what anyone might have wished otherwise, Ms. Diallo herself completely compromised the ability of the State of New York to uphold her civil rights. Her history of unwise, irresponsible, illegal and dishonest activity made her a perfect target for exploitation, however sad and unfair. Blaming others or "the system" for the situation into which her decisions put her only prevents others from learning, and benefiting, from them, and helps Ms. Diallo not at all.
The millions of people demanding "Justice for Trayvon Martin" could profit from her experience. From all accounts, Trayvon, an unarmed 17-year-old African American, was shot dead walking around in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012, by 28-year-old Hispanic neighborhood watch coordinator George Zimmerman. On April 11, after weeks of public outcry, Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder. He voluntarily turned himself in to law enforcement and was subsequently arrested and placed in custody.
Second degree murder in the state of Florida is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual..." Thus, a finding of guilty would require proof that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin by an "act imminently dangerous" and which, in addition, evinced a "depraved mind regardless of human life." To get a conviction, the prosecutor, State Attorney Angela Corey, will have to prove all of these things beyond a reasonable doubt. So far, it doesn't look like she can do that. She didn't seem to be sure that a grand jury would agree to an indictment either, given the evidence available. The police who investigated the shooting didn't think they had reason to arrest Zimmerman, which is why they didn't do it.
Zimmerman has admitted that he shot Martin, and there doesn't seem to be any doubt that Martin is, in fact, dead. From there on, the facts of the matter, as in the alleged assault on Ms. Diallo, are in dispute. The most popular theory among the "Justice for Trayvon" crowd seems to be that Zimmerman deliberately targeted, and ultimately killed, Martin because Martin was African American and Zimmerman wasn't. This scenario has all the required elements; unlawful death of the victim, an act imminently dangerous, and a depraved mind regardless of human life.
Zimmerman's story is very different. His claim was that he was engaged in neighborhood watch activities when he noticed Martin, whom he didn't recognize, acting suspiciously. An altercation developed after he followed and confronted Martin, who subsequently attacked him, knocked him down, and beat his head against the ground, screaming, "You're going to die tonight, [expletive deleted]!" Fearing for his life, Zimmerman reluctantly drew a pistol he was legally allowed to carry and killed Martin with a single shot. To get a conviction, Ms. Corey will have to prove to an unbiased jury of Mr. Zimmerman's peers that this scenario is not even reasonable, let alone that it didn't happen.
The defense attorney, Mark M. O'Mara, a board certified criminal trial specialist, doesn't have to prove anything. His client is already presumed to be innocent. Ms. Corey will have to prove that he's not. That might be difficult to do, given all the doubt raised by public outrage, media misrepresentation, general preconceptions and outright lies. Regardless of what the truth is, the doubt is always in favor of the accused, not the victim. That's how we do things in the United States. As in the case of Ms. Diallo, the fact that the victim is black and the accused is not has led many to the conclusion that this case is obviously one of prejudice against a black kid in favor of an adult who is, to their way of thinking, mostly white. Even Oprah, surely one of the most level-headed black people on the planet, was, in her words, "infuriated."
I would appreciate it if someone would email me the reference to any published report of Oprah's reaction, or that of any other black celebrity, to the murder by a black woman on April 17th in Spring, Texas, of white Kala Marie Golden and the kidnapping of her 3-day-old baby, Keegan. I haven't been able to find one. Is this "Justice for Trayvon?"
In an apparent effort to "level the playing field," there has been a persistent effort to obfuscate the truth about the Martin shooting. Martin has been portrayed as a respectful, law-abiding, childish-looking high school student incapable of harming anybody, who was quietly and lawfully going about his business when he was "racially profiled" by mean-spirited, drunk-looking, racist Zimmerman, the "neighborhood vigilante." Various "witnesses" have violently conflicting testimony, in many cases about which they could not possibly have actual knowledge. At least one news media producer was fired for doctoring exculpatory voice recordings to make Zimmerman sound like a racist. A great deal has been made about Florida's "stand your ground law," but the only way it would apply in this case would have been if Zimmerman had chosen not to not to retreat if he had been able to do so if and when Martin attacked him with deadly force. Not even Zimmerman is suggesting that scenario.
Zimmerman has reportedly received death threats and had to move out of his home and away from his job and school in the wake of the controversy (and his wife subsequently divorced him). The New Black Panthers offered a $10,000 reward for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, although they didn't show that they actually had the money and Zimmerman never resisted police. Black film director Spike Lee sent his 200,000 Twitter followers a phony address for Zimmerman, forcing the family who lived there out of their home to avoid harassment after they received hate mail and unwanted visits from reporters. Rosanne Barr reportedly did something similar. Why didn't they just call the police? Sign makers, hoodie manufacturers, and even candy vendors have found it lucrative to cater to the "Justice for Trayvon" trade. Reportedly, his parents want to trademark the phrase. Somebody is making a lot of money!
None of this helps Ms. Corey's case. Doubt and uncertainly are required by law to work to the benefit of the accused. If Zimmerman can't get a fair trial, the case stops there and he goes free. If prospective jurors are found to be biased, they are not allowed to sit on the jury. If they are found to be later, the judge can declare a mistrial. Tainted evidence is inadmissible. That's the law. It may not be fair, it may not be just, but it is the law that will ultimately apply.
Mr. O'Mara could attempt to cast doubt on the allegation that Zimmerman killed Martin. His best tactic, however, seems to be to cast doubt that the killing was "unlawful," or that Zimmerman evinced a "depraved mind regardless of human life," or both. He is going to be asking some tough questions. What evidence was there that Zimmerman was a racist? What did he ever do to or for black people. What did Martin do to or for whites? What did either of them do to or for anybody? Who involved had what injuries? Who witnessed what? Who were Martin's friends, and what had they been doing recently. Why wasn't he doing high school homework at his home? Why was he wandering around at night with candy in a neighborhood full of little girls? If he was visiting his father, where was his father? Why wasn't Trayvon with his mom instead? To what extent was anyone in the Martin family involved with previous crimes in the neighborhood. Whom did they know and why? What reason is there to believe he was not a gang member? Could he have been casing the neighborhood for somebody else? Why did he call his girlfriend? Why did he run when he was first spotted? Have his fingerprints been matched with any others? Which ones? Why did his father and his father's girlfriend just happen to be somewhere else creating an alibi when they had every reason to know that Zimmerman would be out and about on the neighborhood watch and Trayvon was alone? Did they warn Trayvon, or did they arrange the confrontation that got him killed? How? Why?
On the other hand, one witness testified to hearing two shots. How many shots were fired from Zimmerman's gun? How many bullets were in Martin? Could Martin have been the one who pulled the trigger during their scuffle? Who knows for sure? Did the shot that killed Martin definitely come from Zimmerman's gun? How do we know? Could someone else have shot Martin? Who? Which shot killed him? How much life insurance did Trayvon have? From what source? Who is the beneficiary? Who, otherwise associated with Trayvon, had a gun? Where is it now? When was it last fired? By whom? At what?
There have to be good and reasonable answers to all these questions, backed up by hard evidence, to convict Zimmerman of murder, and anyone who provides such answers will be aggressively cross-examined by the defense, you may be sure. "I heard" is fundamentally different from "there was," and liars will be found out! Juries are pretty good at ferreting out the truth, and they are very good at not convicting unless they have good and sufficient reason.
Benjamin Crump, the attorney publicly representing Trayvon's family, has made much of the outright lie that Zimmerman was told to stay in his vehicle. That's one piece of evidence that has been available for review at the outset. What the police dispatcher said was "We don't need you to do that!" That is immeasurably less incriminating than "Don't get out of the car," or "Get back in," and you can be sure that Mr. O'Mara will aggressively point out the disparity if the matter comes up at trial. Mr. Crump doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything more useful than he did in the Martin Lee Anderson case. All defendants were exonerated in that case, largely because of questionable evidence that not even the prosecution finally accepted, the same situation as the Nafissatou Diallo case. The statements and opinions attributed to Trayvon's parents, whether true or not, portray them as intent on financial profit from the death of their son. There doesn't appear to be much justice there.
Mr. Crump has been replaced on scheduled TV interviews lately by the more photogenic, feminine and definitely "hot" Jasmine Rand, one of his law firm's partners. She doesn't appear to be any less racist, but she is easier on the eyes. Like Crump, however, she definitely has her mind made up. I find it interesting to watch her squeeze, distort, mutilate and manipulate new information to fit her preconceived conclusions. I hope she gets a chance to appear in court; a frequent method used to keep the audience interested in a circus is to exhibit attractive women between the animal tricks and clown acts, and Mr. Zimmerman's trial is sure to be a media circus!
It seems to me that "Justice for Trayvon" requires that he be remembered as someone more than "a black kid who got shot." Black kids get shot all the time; it's probably happening in Somalia right now. Wouldn't it be better for him to be remembered as a person? In an attempt to do that, I contacted the NAACP on their website on March 27, 2012. I asked what I thought were appropriate questions about a 17 year old high school student: What honors did he receive in school? On what sports team(s) did he play? What positions? What were his hobbies? Was he a cub scout? Boy scout? Explorer? Was he a radio amateur? What was his call sign? What clubs or organizations did he belong to? How often did he attend church? Was he active in the congregation? Choir? Other church activities?
I have yet to receive a reply. I know they received my message. I can't believe that they've never heard of him! Is this "Justice for Trayvon?"
The NAACP can perhaps be forgiven for the racial spin they put on news reports involving, um, "colored people;" that's what they do. However, the same cannot justifiably be said of agencies such as ABC News, upon which The People rely to report TRUTH! In one NIGHTLINE episode, for example, I noted the headline "Return to the Scenes of the Crime." Without even making a statement, the report presented the assumption that the Trayvon Martin shooting was a crime, which is the exactly the decision to be made unanimously by the jury. Basically, ABC News has destroyed its credible objectivity by already convicting Zimmerman in the public media. I don't know, of course, but if such innuendo is employed by the procession, the defense surely seems justified in replying with something like, "It has never been a crime in the State of Florida for an upstanding citizen to defend himself against an unprovoked attack by a vicious teenaged high school suspendee thug high on crack," and then see what happens.
One aspect of this matter which has had little public discussion is the impact on neighborhood watch programs if Mr. Zimmerman is found guilty. Such a finding is almost sure to have a chilling effect on neighborhood watch volunteers across the Nation. Will criminals become bolder as a result? If Zimmerman is acquitted, will Trayvon's supporters place their faith in the justice system and accept the jury's decision, as they claim, or will they become self-appointed vigilantes, brutalizing and killing other people based solely on the color of their skin, as did the 20 blatantly racist goons who targeted Mr. Owens because he was white? Will residents arm themselves and/or be quicker to shoot a suspected threat?* Will more people die?** Which ones? Will Trayvon's only lasting legacy be violence and death? Is THIS "Justice for Trayvon?"
The word "justice" appears 29 times in the King James Bible, whereas "mercy" appears 277 times. Bible readers recognize that mercy, not justice, is the foundation of a Christian society, yet nobody that I know is advocating mercy for anybody involved in the case. There may be confusion here between "justice" and "revenge," which are not the same things at all. "Revenge for Trayvon Martin" involves simply lynching Zimmerman, regardless of who's guilty of what, or of beating up Matthew Owens, who doesn't have a thing to do with the case. Justice isn't "for" or "against" anyone. Justice is justice, period. Justice is a blindfolded woman holding a scale who doesn't see anything, certainly not somebody's color or race or ancestry. She seeks a perfect balance between what everybody gets and what he deserves. Whatever happened, Trayvon is undeniably dead. One has to wonder how George Zimmerman, or Trayvon Martin for that matter, is going to get justice, or Trayvon's parents, or the people whose addresses Spike Lee and Rosanne Barr released, or Matthew Owens, if people lie about things.
Trayvon is dead! Whether he is going to get justice or not depends on what he deserved, not what happens to somebody else! There's still a chance for mercy and for justice for George Zimmerman (as well, it must be admitted, as one for revenge), but the only way Trayvon is going to get justice is if it is shown that George Zimmerman should go free because Trayvon Martin deserved to die.
His supporters might want to think about that!
Predictably, having thoroughly obfuscated this particular Florida case, the "Justice for Trayvon" crowd have demonstrated their utter contempt for Florida law by claiming that the jury was "wrong" and publicly committing assaults, including threats to murder him, in the public media. They are also circulating rumors clearly intended to discredit or demonize him, claiming that he is suing Trayvon's parents, that their rallies are supported by the government, that his legal fees were paid by a huge megacorporation, that he won the Florida Lottery, and that federal charges have been filed against him.
In addition, several TV news reports have indicated public interest in a reevaluation of the Florida "Stand Your Ground" defense. (The celebrity currently known as "Jay-Z" publicly speculated about how "stand your ground" might have applied to Trayvon, clearly indicating, once again, that he doesn't have a clue about what "law" means!) The only mention of this concern during the trial was in regard to why Trayvon didn't simply run home if he thought he was being "stalked." Dorking with a law that allows people to defend themselves in a deadly confrontation is rarely a good idea. Besides, any law that allows somebody to kill somebody else, for whatever reason, is surely likely to work in favor of those who are demonstrably 4.3 times as likely to be convicted of capital murder.
Regarding the federal charges issue, over 400,000 people, including several celebrities, have called upon Attorney General Eric Holder to indict (and convict!) Mr. Zimmerman under federal hate crime statutes. Given that the jury found that he did not commit any crime, it would seem unwise for Mr. Holder to waste federal taxpayers' money to prosecute him for a hate crime. One juror, identified as "B29" told ABC News that George Zimmerman "got away with murder," but voted to aquit anyway because she felt that the evidence did not support a conviction according to Florida law. Another juror, "B37," stated in a CNN interview that the jury never thought that race was an issue, and, in fact, was surprised that so many other people did. Anyone who wants to open that bag of worms may want to consider whether the well-documented threats against Mr. Zimmerman, and at least one additional attempted murder obviously related to the case, constitute prosecutable hate crimes. There is a potential here for a very large number of people going to federal prison for a very long time!
It's always a good idea to be careful what you wish for; you may just get it!
The complication arose from the failure of the jury to reach agreement after 30 hours of deliberation with respect to Ms. Corey's charge of premeditated murder of Davis. A charge of second degree murder might have been a "slam dunk" for the prosecution, since, by all accounts, **Davis definitely died as the direct result of having been shot intentionally by Dunn without the slightest unbiased evidence of justifiable use of deadly force. There didn't appear to be any indications of premeditation, either. By "going for the first," however, Ms. Corey increased the number of jurors from six to twelve, thus proportionately increasing the chance of a mistrial. This includes the obviously greater opportunity for one or more of them to insist on sentencing "the cracker" to death, regardless of the facts, possibly before he dies of old age (or is murdered) anyway during the 60 years he's likely going to spend in prison for the other convictions.
*As it turned out, according to a news interview of "Juror Number Four," at least one of the "extra six" jurors believed that there may have been justification for shooting Davis, making the whole question of premeditation academic. Dunn stated in his testimony that he saw what appeared to be a shotgun and heard Davis say, "I should kill that motherfucker... I should fucking kill that motherfucker... This shit is going down now... Yeah, I'm fucking going to kill you... You're dead, motherfucker!" Somebody, perhaps several somebodies, on the jury thought that the possibility that the incident went down that way was at least credible. Given the prosecution's failure to present mitigating evidence, and what happened to Matthew Owens, the possibility that Davis simply lost a gunfight because he was talking instead of shooting, giving Dunn time to draw his own weapon, seems reasonable. Juries are required to acquit if there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendant.
Numerous news articles by, and interviews of, "Justice for Trayvon" advocates have put great weight on the testimony of the three other teenagers in the car, and the fact that the police failed to find any weapon. Would those witnesses dispose of a weapon and lie about it to avoid being themselves indicted for felony murder in the death of their friend? At least one juror thought it was reasonable to assume so. Why did he or she (or they) think that? Besides, police fail to find things all the time, such as the remains of Jimmy Hoffa, for example.
I have to admit, I feel empathy for both Davis and Dunn. Having won every single gunfight involving people who I thought were trying to kill me (in Vietnam), I have perhaps become "quicker on the trigger" than the average old guy. I have also definitely lost the "natural trigger lock" that most civilized people cultivate in their formative years. I once saved myself from Dunn's (and Davis's) situation by choosing, at the last second, not to shoot somebody just because I was angry at him for threatening somebody else with a Bowie knife. In recent years, I have well armed myself against people who, with apparent malice aforethought, have publicly threatened all people of my color, whatever their real intentions might be. The likelihood is that if I ever feel myself or my loved ones threatened, I will be the guy facing the jury, not the dead one!
Ms. Corey has vowed to retry Dunn for first degree murder (with a jury of twelve instead of Zimmerman's six), to spend enormous amounts of Florida taxpayers' money to satisfy her desire to put him on death row. She seems not to have considered the possibility that he will be found "not guilty" in the subsequent trial! He's almost certainly going to die in prison either way, but Ms. Corey will be a big hero, among the "Justice for Trayvon" crowd anyway, if she gets a conviction that provides Dunn whatever protection death row inmates receive against being violently murdered by prisoners in the general population until (if ever!) the state can find its way clear to execute him by painless lethal injection. The consequences of a "not guilty" verdict on the premeditated murder charge, given that Davis is definitely dead, is left as an exercise for the student. Why would any sane prosecutor do this? Maybe Nancy Grace knows.
Update: In Dunn's retrial, opening statements of which took place on September 25, 2014, Dunn was found guilty on October 1. He was given a sentence of life in prison without parole plus 90 years, not death. His conviction was appealed to the First District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida. On November 17, 2016, his appeal was denied. Hopefully we have heard the last of this!
Before erecting a statue in Ms. Corey's honor, her admirers might want to investigate the relative racial composition of the convicts she has sent to prison, and how she managed the prosecution of those cases. Black kids are getting themselves killed in her jurisdiction, and she doesn't seem to be doing anything about it except losing cases against their killers. If she is getting support from the black community for conspicuously trying, but consistently failing, to convict white folks accused of killing black ones, something is very, very wrong!
Is THIS "Justice for Trayvon?"