Apr 01 2012
Final Trayvon Martin Post For A While
The scales of justice can move very slow, but then deliberation is a good thing when dealing with highly emotional and tragic situations. When people’s lives are at stake, taking the time to get it right is not a bad thing.
Clearly, the end result in the Tryavon Martin case is going to be one lost life and one ruined life. And almost as clearly, the one at fault is the one who bullishly pushed towards confrontation, dismissing all the off-ramps in front of him to avoid this disaster.
Since my last post we have learned a lot. We have learned (as I suspected early on) that George Zimmerman wanted to be a policeman, and was prone to playing cop (probably for the ego surge it gave him):
Over the years, his scores of calls to police showed he pursued shoplifters and errant drivers with zeal, reporting pit bulls, potholes, children playing in the street, open garage doors and “suspicious” youths – usually black males – loitering in the street.
He peppered his calls with jargon familiar to police. In one case, he chased a reckless driver while calling 911 – the driver later told police he was terrified that Zimmerman was going to attack him. In another case, Zimmerman tailed a supermarket shoplifter until a police officer successfully arrested the thief.
…
However, in December 2008, he applied for a citizens’ police academy with the Seminole Sheriff’s Office. In his application, Zimmerman stressed his background with the law: He wrote that his father is a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate judge and his mother worked as a deputy clerk of courts.
Zimmerman never actually became a cop, but apparently he did attack one once.
Sanford neighborhood Crime Watch captain George Zimmerman has previously been arrested in 2005 for suspicion of battery on a law enforcement officer, but the charges were dropped for an unknown reason.
He also had a volatile, quick temper that turned to violence:
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the man said. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”
Connecting the dots here we see a lot of red flags. Violent behavior, a need to be in positions of power. Red flags a Grand Jury will see and ponder for themselves.
I agree with the lead investigator, who wanted Zimmerman arrested, on the charge I first noted he probably was guilty of:
The lead investigator probing the deadly shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin wanted neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman arrested and charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, ABC News reports.
Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford, Fla. Police Department wanted the 28-year-old Zimmerman behind bars, but the state Attorney’s Office said there was not enough evidence to lead to a conviction, sources told ABC.
If you want to shut people like Al Sharpton up, then arrest Zimmerman. He’ll get out on bail and he can tyehn prove in a court (not the media) he is innocent.
He’s probably not, because he ignored warnings and opportunities to leave Trayvon alone until police arrived. Instead of sitting back, he went behind buildings – armed – to confront a ‘suspicious’ person. Something he was neither authorized or trained to do.
Now to cover up his misjudgement, Zimmerman has to concoct some tall tales. He has to claim victim-hood here. He tried to say Trayvon attacked him, but it is clear the witness on Trayvon’s cell phone (his girlfriend) has already began to challenge that line. Her testimony was taken weeks ago, before this blew up into a national issue. From what little I found on what the girlfriend has said, it sounds like Zimmerman made contact first:
At a March 20 news conference, Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump says the girl hears someone ask Martin what he was doing and Martin asking why the person was following him. The girl gets the impression that there is an altercation in which the earpiece falls out of Martin’s ear and the connection goes dead, according to Crump.
According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after briefly losing track of Martin, the teen approached him. After exchanging words, Zimmerman says, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose.
Why reach for the phone (or something else)? Why not follow the kid to his house and be a neighborhood watch person (what I would have done)? Again, all this defies common sense.
The other tall tale that *may* be out there is Zimmerman being the one screaming for help. If this proves to be a falsehood stated by Zimmerman, he is toast:
Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told the Sentinel that he used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman.
Zimmerman told police that he screamed for help during his confrontation with Martin, 17. He claims the shooting was self-defense.
Here’s a good assessment on how Zimmerman’s story is starting to fall apart.
It really is time for Zimmerman to be charged and go to court. That is the only way to work this out now. If, has his side claims, Zimmerman can prove his innocence then it is time for him do that and clear this up for Trayvon’s family and everyone else. The police in Sanford need to realize that more violence could come of this if the arrest takes too long.
Previous posts:
As Details Come Out, George Zimmerman’s Claims Crumble
New Wrinkle In Trayvon Martin Killing While Leftwing Nuts Go Crazy
Attempts To Make Trayvon Martin’s Murder A Race Issue Will Destroy Obama’s 2012 Election Chances
Layman, the problem is, it’s going to be a bitter pill to swallow and so I think we are all waiting as long as we can to have to swallow it. It’s going to even be worse than it was to have to vote for McCain, a person that himself, didn’t even want to be elected. I’m not sure why Romney wants the job, but we’ll find out soon if he gets it. The way I see it, if he gets it, the country is on hold for 4 years, if Obama gets it, we go severely downhill for the next 4 years. Not much choice, but at least a clear one.
I personally don’t understand all this reluctance. Romney has embraced cut, cap, and balance and for two years in a row he has endorsed the House budget (the Ryan plan). Give him a Senate to go with the House and he’ll sign that budget into law. Hardly seems like a country on hold for four years.
Maybe it will be easier to talk about where we all are now. I have *never* been much of a Romney supporter, I think he’s a horrible politician. BUT… 2 1/2 months ago, I looked at the relative support levels, and the way the GOP primaries were set up to be mostly proportional, AND the way that Gingrich and Santorum were bleeding support from each other, and I came to the conclusion that it was inevitable that we would come to the point where we are today, where Romney is the nominee. This wasn’t an *emotional* conclusion at all, it wasn’t made because I “liked” the outcome. It was just a flat, logical conclusion based on overwhelming evidence, with emotion left out of it. And given that conclusion, then it was not very much of a stretch to say that the sooner we all got here, the better for the fight against Obama, which is all that really matters.
Romney hasn’t gotten to this point because he’s a good candidate; he got here because Santorum and Gingrich were so extraordinarily bad at campaigning. Proof of that: Santorum, in a race of Republicans, lost to Romney? How could he ever hope to beat Obama if he couldn’t beat Romney first? Just like the NCAA finals we’ve been watching, you’ve got to win your bracket before you get to go to the final, and Santorum and Gingrich lost their bracket – Gingrich miserably so. I could go on and on about the specific mistakes Santorum made along the way; he had a chance to win this thing and blew it because of a series of extremely bad message and bad campaign management decisions he made. (Rick, voters want to talk Economics, not social issues this cycle!!!)
My antipathy towards Gingrich came not because I was against his ideas (many of which were brilliant!) but because I’ve met the man personally and known people who’ve worked for him at various times. His ex-staff members (and there are a LOT of them) are unanimous when they discuss their time with him – he is brilliant and visionary, but also a destructively chaotic man incapable of sticking to any organized plan for more than a few hours at a time, a man whose management decisions are so notoriously inconsistent that they are frequently reversed several times a day. And a man who then privately blames his staff, and everyone else around him, for the damage which he personally causes.
He’s a man I would love to spend an evening with – he can be a jovial, entertaining, and brilliant conversationalist. (unlike Obama or anyone in this current administration) BUT – I would never work for him for any amount of money, and I would never hire him to work for me. He has the type of self-centered destructiveness in his nature which eventually destroys every organization he’s a part of, unless they kick him out. He’s the kind of man who needs to work for himself, and be by himself, and his life history bears that out. Now that personality combined with a powerful intellect can go far, but he will still always come to the same end, as he has in this race.
So we’re left with Romney, the professional manager, not so much by choice as by default. It’s up to us what to do with it now – make the best of a less than optimal situation, or give Obama another 4?
(and btw, since I mentioned the NCAA finals, Hurrah for the Lady Bears, and for Baylor’s best sports year ever! Been a long time coming. I’ll give away my age and let you know I was a junior there the year Rand Paul was a freshman.)
WWS, well said. maybe a little different if I had written it, but the message would have been the same. We all definitely have to back Romney, assuming he will be the nominee. The country absolutely won’t survive 4 years of Obama. It’s hard for me to believe that the country, the Congress and law enforcement has allowed him to violate the law in so many ways. This ‘amnesty’ by decree is not legal, but will anyone do anything about it? No. Now, apparently, it comes out that Chelsea was threatened if the Clinton’s used the eligibility issue and the News organizations have been threatened by thugs not to bring it up. My thoughts about the Dims boycotting Walmart. Good for them. since they are 50% of the population, that means Walmart won’t be nearly as crowded, the remaining customers will be much happier, the Dims won’t have any good places to shop (except more expensive places). since I’m a Repub, I will now be able to shop in a less crowded store where people will be happier and Walmart will probably lower prices even more to try to get the Dims back.
We need either Ryan (first choice) or Palin on the ticket.
Layman
I have to concur, that people’s animosity/reluctance towards Romney perplexes me as well. Maybe it can be traced back to a quirk of human nature, where it’s difficult to transform the first impressions people have of others — even if some of it may be fed by misinformation or unrealistic expectations.
It seems to me that Romney’s past — originally an independent, not politically driven by ideology, governor of a liberal state, capped off by collaborating with a democratically-led legislature in passing it’s (still popular) state HC plan, which is now linked to a vastly expanded national version known as Obamacare — is just too much of a juggernaut to some, and/or potential threat for others, to gracefully process. For, along with Romney’s moderating appeal to a broader base, he is abhorred by a conservative base for not being enough like them. Consequently, both the left and right have joined forces parroting similar ‘talking points’ about not trusting Romney. The irony of it all —> not to support someone who just might be able to pull off being president of all the people, for a change!
The last man who was able to be such a president was Ronald Reagan. He too originated from different political roots, being a democrat. He also was a governor of a ‘moderate’ state who approved/signed into law moderate to liberal legislation while in office (including an abortion bill). Did he become an outstanding president despite these flaws? Or, was it because of them that he was more well-rounded, better equipped temperamentally, in his governance to be able to constructively get things done without all the alienation we see today?
WWS
I just read your post above, and want to differ with you on one point. To me Romney is becoming less and less a candidate by default, as you describe him to be.
The very problems you point out about Gingrich and his organizational problems, are assets in the Romney camp. He has had a long relationship with his staff, most of them sticking with him from his 2008 run for POTUS. Almost unanimously they rate him as a great employer, someone they like working for, and someone who they continue to be loyal to. This is a rare quality in people. Most of the other candidates could not summon this kind of appraisal. Bachman, for instance, had constantly rotating and disgruntled staff. Santorum was considered arrogant and difficult to work with by former staff members — one who I know, and another who is currently a reporter in PA. You’ve already accurately defined Gingrich.
Unlike ‘normal’ run-of-the-mill politicians, Romney is not a chest puffer. He is a self-deprecating, private man who would rather praise others than himself. He has been called a ‘problem-solver’ by business associates, other politicians, and his own family. He is also a guy who is willing to collaborate with others to come up with workable plans and compromises in order to solve complicated problems. Romney has also accrued a diverse and extensive list of endorsements spanning the political spectrum. And, once on board with the Ryan budget plan, he has not wavered in his support of it, despite the cat-calls from Obama and the left.
In my eyes this rather underestimated, unassuming man is growing in stature and is far from becoming the ‘default’ nominee.
Getting back to the Trayvon Martin case:
Source: George Zimmerman not likely to be arrested
“In my eyes this rather underestimated, unassuming man is growing in stature and is far from becoming the ‘default’ nominee.”
Totally agree, Jan. Romney is becoming a HUGE contrast to obama, imho…in a VERY GOOD way: measured, no-nonsense, no hollywood. Just get the job done.
Romney has a big chance coming up to sell himself – his VP pick. Like Redteam, I think Paul Ryan would be a fantastic pick, not just because he’s so articulate and forward thinking, but also because I’ve always thought that the Midwest swing states are the key to this election. (wisconsin, minnesota, ohio, indiana, michigan) I think a VP pick from one of those states would be a huge boost in this election.
remembering ’88 – there were so many good candidates out there, why oh why did Poppy Bush pick Dan Quayle? He was a total nobody at the time, and it only went downhill from there. On the other hand, I thought GW’s pick of Cheney was brilliant, and in spite of the fact (or maybe BECAUSE of the fact) that the left thinks Cheney was Satan incarnate, I think he was one of the strongest and most effective VP’s the country ever had.
Although I guess Biden proves that you can park a potted plant in the office and it really won’t do too much harm. Well, I take that back – a potted plant only has an IQ of zero, not a negative number like Biden has. What do I mean by a negative number? Biden isn’t your average moron, he is instead a black hole of imbecility who makes everyone who listens to him stupider with the intelligence-sucking power of his idiocy. It’s a rare talent, congrats to Obama for finding the stupidest man on the planet to serve as his insurance policy.
WWS
Ryan has become my 1st choice for VP, followed by Rubio.
Ryan and Romney are said to have good chemistry with each other, which seems important to Romney to have a wingman he feels comfortable with. Besides, it is becoming almost a slogan of the dems to attach the two of them side by side because of Romney’s enthusiatic support of Ryan’s Budget plan, which the dems look at as a weak seam in Romney’s push for the presidency. IMO, it could be just the reverse — the two of them together could do a commanding selling job of the importance of deficit reduction while on the campaign trail together — it could be defined as teaching a course on fiscal prudance while on the road!
Besides the two R’s look good together on campaign posters — could even be visually pasted up as a railroad symbol showing the “track back to prosperity” when you vote for this ticket.
Hey, that’s good!
jan, please stop saying Rubio, HE IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and is NOT ELIGIBLE. I will not vote for any ineligible candidate, that means Obama, Rubio, Jindal. Please stop ignoring facts and US constitution. I know some are not gonna agree, but EVERYONE knows that you have to be born of US citizens to be natural born and no amount of saying otherwise is going to change that fact. Rubio has other serious problems also, such as backing the Libyans. Libya is now in the hands of terrorists, at least under quadaffi they were just bad to themselves, now they’re starting to export it. Just go ahead and pick a totally non controversial candidate that will actually help the nominee. Rubio on the ticket would guarantee that millions of people will not vote if they have to vote for an ineligible person, who ever that may be. (just as a technical point, I would never vote for Santorum until I know for sure if his father was a citizen when rick was born)
WWS, excellent assessment of Biden and Quayle. I just think it is unfortunate that the best we could come up with this year is someone that lost to a real loser (McCain) last time.
I don’t know if Romney is becoming the candidate by default or not, but all I know is that most people that I see comment about him, either on here or on many call in shows, etc, he seems to be ‘the lesser of two evils’ He seems to be basically seen as ‘not a good candidate’ but then there are no ‘good’ candidates running. If I had my pick, I could name a few that would be far superior to anyone running, but I don’t get my pick, so I’ll just have to go with who is opposing Obama (unless he picks Rubio).
jan, please excuse the way I sounded in that comment. I just re-read it and it sounded a little harsh. I didn’t intend that, but only to emphasize that I can’t understand why Rubio and Jindal are still being touted.
Redteam,
Thanks, but I didn’t take any offense. Besides, to me, you sounded more exasperated with my mention of Rubio as VP, than harsh.
In the meantime I am going to refrain from a response to your ‘natural born citizen’ concerns, as to this having bearing on disqualifying Rubio from being VP, until I look into this more.
Redteam
Have been digging around trying to find a standard definition of ‘natural born citizen,’ as a starting point. What I have discovered is that there are a lot of differing opinions on the matter. According to Wikipedia, though, they say the following:
Biographically, Rubio was born in the United States in 1971, to parents who finally became naturalized in 1975. If one were to follow the construct of the darkened portion of the excerpt provided above, Rubio would qualify under the ‘natural born citizen’ provision.
However, I will continue to look……what sources can you provide, other than a personal interpretation? Just curious. I know WND is behind much of the rhetoric out there who is contesting Rubio’s qualification for VP, let alone POTUS. However, they do not always base their commentaries or opinions on solid evidence, IMO.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/04/lawrence_odonnell_mormonism_is_an_invented_religion.html
And so it begins.
http://mediacdn.disqus.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/243/2674/original.jpg
More of the same.
“. In fact, unlike the states, there is nothing in the Constitution or any Act of Congress which suggests that the English common law continued to have any effect on the national level. I have shown that in that connection, we adopted the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as provided by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he tells us:
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The definition that the law of nations provides, a definition that has been incorporated into American common law and recognized by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, and thereafter, is a child born in a country to citizen parents. ”
Here’s a link to that whole story:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/04/attorney-apuzzo-faux-claims-of-john.html
Not a single person that I ever heard define ‘natural born citizen’ before it became a ‘birther’ issue EVER defined it as anything other than a US citizen born to two US citizen parents. Since Obama, it has become the ‘in thing’ to accept him as eligible even though he was born of a British citizen. It has only been an issue in one Supreme Court case. No news organization will touch the question, the MSM because it would hurt Obama, Fox News because it would hurt their feelings to be called ‘birthers’ by the MSM. If it were clear cut that Obama was a true ‘natural born citizen’ then it would have been thoroughly discussed on all news outlets and put to rest. Clearly the true interpretation is not in Obama’s favor or they would be very willing to discuss it.
jan, I responded, but my response disappeared.
I’ll try again without the link:
“. In fact, unlike the states, there is nothing in the Constitution or any Act of Congress which suggests that the English common law continued to have any effect on the national level. I have shown that in that connection, we adopted the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as provided by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he tells us:
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The definition that the law of nations provides, a definition that has been incorporated into American common law and recognized by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, and thereafter, is a child born in a country to citizen parents.
I had added another paragraph, but i’ll just send this and if it clears, I’ll add the other paragraph again.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/04/attorney-apuzzo-faux-claims-of-john.html