THIS MUST STOP: An Analysis Why The Law Has Failed George Floyd

Updated on June 2, 2020

A picture is worth a thousand words.  A video of a black man begging for his life while an officer buries his knee in the unarmed nonresistant black man’s neck until the black man dies while onlookers beseech for reprieve provides no words.  The act defaces all sense of rightness and hearkens to the systemic racism which exists and continues to exist in this country; a story seen too many times—an unarmed black man killed by police. Despite the video’s vivid vitriol, Derek Chauvin, the murderous officer, has merely been charged with murder in the third degree and manslaughter in the second degree for the death of George Floyd. Further, his comrades who, in derogation of their duties to protect and serve, acquiesced to the murderous officer’s viciousness currently face no charges.  This can’t be true, but it is: an incongruence between what things are and what they ought to be.  Like an apple which falls from a tree, one cannot understand the reason the apple fell without understanding the rules of gravity.  Similarly, one cannot understand the reason the murderous officer and his compatriot’s face little or no criminal charges without understanding the rule of law. This writing serves to set forth the applicable rules of law which enable injustice.  Unlike the immutable rules of God, the people have the power to change the rules of law.  This power must be exercised or injustice will continue.

With such visceral video which has tugged at the strings of those with even the most brutish of hearts, a charge of first degree murder rings most laudable.  Alas, the murderous officer faces no first degree, let alone second degree murder charge.  Indeed, as will be discussed in greater detail below, doubtless the third degree murder charge survives. Also, while the crime of murder exists throughout the nation (and indeed the world), each state may define murder differently.  These divergences directly impact the viability of murder charges across the various jurisdictions—meaning what constitutes murder in one state may not constitute murder in another.  Here, Minnesota law controls. 

Minnesota law disables any potential for a first degree murder charge. In relevant part, in Minnesota, first degree murder requires a person (in this case an officer) to cause the death of a human being with (1) premeditation” and (2) with intent to effect the death of the person.  Here, neither element can be established. “Premeditation” means “to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission.”[1] Further premeditation and intent to kill cannot occur contemporaneously.[2] Instead, a person “must have formed the intent to kill, and then must have had “some appreciable time” in order to “consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit” the killing.[3]   Here, there is likely insufficient evidence of planning or preparation, let alone “some appreciable time.”  The death resulted from an arrest stemming from an alleged forgery.  

Additionally, while a closer call than the premeditation, there are evidentiary hurdles with the second requirement: intent to effect the death of that person or another. While callous, depraved, and ill-spirited, a knee to the neck, even over the span of eight minutes, may be insufficient to infer an intent to kill based on Minnesota law. In Minnesota, while intent to kill can be inferred by the nature of the killing, the cases which inferred intent typically involved gunshots, and, on more rare occasions, severe bludgeoning to the head, particularly with the use of a blunt force object.[4]. The killing in this case—a knee to the neck—lacks the certainty of gunshot or repeated strikes to the head with fists, legs, and a metal object.  Here, the evidence certainly shows depravity and a reckless disregard for Mr. Floyd’s life.  Reckless disregard, however, does not equal intent to kill. For example, if a person blindly shot a bullet into a building filled with patrons, the evidence demonstrates the person acted in reckless disregard of the lives of others (a foreseeable consequence is the bullet striking someone and killing him or her) but that does not mean the person shot the bullet with the intention of killing another person. Now, this is not to say that the murderous officer had no intent to kill Mr. Floyd. Rather, this analysis merely delves into whether the video serves as sufficient evidence, alone, to support that proposition.  Nor does this analysis foreclose the possibility that the state may amend the complaint to include a charge of first degree murder based upon additional evidence. Rather, this analysis simply posits realistic hurdles standing in the way of such a charge or, if charged, a conviction. 

Second degree murder fares no better than first degree murder.  In relevant part, second degree murder requires a person to cause the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation.[5]. Here, for the same reasons as the first degree murder charge, the intent-to-kill requirement excises the viability of a second degree murder charge in Minnesota. As stated above, states may impose varying requirements for murder.  For instance, second degree murder in California has no requirement of an ‘intent to kill.’ Rather, In California, second degree murder simply means an unlawful killing with malice that doesn't meet the definition first degree murder.[6] Malice can be either express or implied. Express malice requires an intent to kill, but implied malice only requires an intent to do some act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to human life.[7] Patently, the natural consequences of callously digging a knee into the neck of another person for over eight minutes while the person begs for air is death or grave bodily harm. The murderous officer’s actions personify California second degree murder. Thus, if this murderous officer committed this offense in California, second degree murder charges likely awaited him.  

Now, the prosecutor could have brought second degree felony murder charge against the murderous officer, but elected not to do so.  Second-degree felony murder occurs when one causes the death of another, “without intent to effect the death,” while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense.[8]  While in most other jurisdictions the predicate offense for felony murder cannot be assault, i.e., murder by nature is an assault, Minnesota rejects any such limitation.  In 1996 the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded  second-degree assault can serve as a predicate offense for felony murder because it is “a crime against the person.”[9]  Intent is an essential element of the definition of assault.[10]  Thus, as long as a defendant intended to assault an individual, and the assault resulted in death, second degree felony murder applies.[11]  Here, the murderous officer’s knee hold which ultimately killed Mr. Floyd arguably constitutes assault of the highest order--indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already determined that  “bare hands” can administer assault of the highest order  “for example by choking.”[12]  Here, the murderous officer essentially choked Mr. Floyd to death by pressing on his neck for over eight minutes.  Thus, the prosecutor’s refusal to charge the murderous officer with second degree felony murder raises concerns.  As compared to the third degree murder charge, discussed below, second degree felony murder at stands least some chance of resulting in conviction.  

The nature of policing may bar the application of  second degree felony murder predicated on assault.  The law authorizes police to commit assaults.[13]  Thus, the question becomes what standard applies when an officer commits assault, and when does an officer’s assault turn criminal.  Minnesota's assault statutes abscond any answers to these questions.  With no answer in the assault statutes, one must search elsewhere.  Minnesota statute Section 609.43 may provide the answer.  In relevant part, Section 609.43 of the Minnesota statute criminalizes the actions of public officers who intentionally and unlawfully injure another in the other's person, property, or rights.[14].  In relevant part, Section 609.43 also criminalizes actions of public officers who knowingly take actions which exceed their authority or are forbidden by law to be done in a certain capacity.[15] The juxtaposition of Minnesota’s assault laws with Section 609.43 potentially creates stark results.  Where bodily injury occurs, as with the murderous officer here, assault is a general-intent crime which merely requires the defendant commit a prohibited physical act which results in bodily harm upon another.[16]  This means  there is no requirement that a defendant intend to injure the other person.  Conversely, Section 609.43 criminalizes the actions of officers where the officer intends to injure another person and does so unlawfully.[17]  On a core level, these statutes seemingly conflict: Section 609.43 specifically requires an officer formulate an intent to injure whereas Minnesota’s assault statutes impose no such requirement.  

In Minnesota, when two criminal statutes, one general and one specific, conflict because they have the same elements but differing penalties, the more specific statute governs over the more general statute, unless the legislature clearly intends for the general statute to control.[18]  The prosecutor’s decision to forego charging the murderous officer with second degree felony murder may derive from the application of Section 609.43.  The prosecutor may have determined Section 609.43 overrides Minnesota’s general assault statutes.  The prosecutor may have further determined the murderous officer’s knee on neck hold, while callous and depraved, was insufficient evidence of an intent to injure Mr. Floyd.  Indeed, Minnesota characterizes neck restraints as “non-deadly” force.[19]  If the prosecutor analyzed the case in such a manner, then the prosecutor seemingly focused solely on Section 609.43’s intent to injure requirement and ignored the latter provision of Section 609.43 which criminalizes public officers who knowingly take actions which exceed their authority or are forbidden by law to be performed in a certain capacity.  While the murderous officer may ultimately be acquitted of second degree felony murder, second degree felony murder at least has some chance of resulting on conviction.  As will be demonstrated below, the third degree murder charge has almost no chance of success.  The prosecutor’s failure to charge the murderous officer with second degree felony murder will likely lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The prosecutor charged the murderous officer with third degree murder.  In relevant part, a person is guilty of third degree murder if he or she, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.[20]  Determinatively, third degree murder in Minnesota “excludes a situation where the animus of defendant is directed toward one person only.”[21] Indeed, in 1979 and again in 2003, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to submit third degree murder instructions to the jury where there was “no rational basis for a conclusion that [the defendant’s] actions were eminently dangerous to more than one person as is required for an instruction of third-degree murder.”[22]  Glaringly, Minnesota law seemingly precludes the imposition of third degree murder for this exact type of case—a case where a defendant directs his animus toward one person.  Like the 1979 and 2003 Minnesota Supreme Court opinions, there appears to be “no rational basis for a conclusion that [the defendant’s] actions were eminently dangerous to more than one person as is required for an instruction of third-degree murder.”  Specifically, the officer burying his knee into Mr. Floyd’s neck endangered no one other than Mr. Floyd.  It is unclear how the prosecutor can circumvent this impediment. 

 Nevertheless, if prosecutors can navigate around this fatal impediment (which seems doubtful), third degree murder may represent a viable charge. While there may be some kerfuffle regarding whether the officer perpetrated an eminently dangerous act by utilizing a knee-on-neck-hold—a hold unauthorized by his own department but which may have been authorized in other police precincts, this argument obfuscates the issue.  While a knee on the neck may pose no eminent danger in the abstract, where an officer drives his knee into a compliant suspect’s neck for over eight minutes without abatement while the suspect begs for air, the abstract becomes reality.  An argument that the knee on neck hold was not eminently dangerous strains the credulity of the credulous. Finally, the officer unequivocally acted with depravity evinced by his utter disregard for Mr. Floyd’s safety.  Thus, apart from the insurmountable requirement that the defendant’s action must be dangerous to more than one person, which alone disposes of the third degree murder charge, third degree murder works.

As to manslaughter, the actions cannot constitute to first degree manslaughter.  Nor did the prosecutor charge the murderous officer with first degree manslaughter.  In relevant part, a person commits first degree manslaughter if he or she “intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation.” Here, as described above evidentiary hurdles obstruct the ability to establish any intent  to kill. Further, this situation cannot constitute a heat of passion.  Nor is there evidence Mr. Floyd or anyone less provoked this murderous officer.  

Finally, the prosecutor also charged the officer with second degree manslaughter.  This charge fits.  In relevant part, a person commits second degree manslaughter through a person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.  “Culpable negligence” is “gross negligence coupled with the element of recklessness.”[23]  

Here, using a knee on neck hold for over eight minutes without abatement certainly displays gross negligence, recklessness, and creates an unreasonable risk.  Further, ignoring the pleas of Mr. Floyd and the onlookers certainly supports both the culpability and consciousness requirements necessary for a second degree manslaughter charge.[24]  In terms of potential problems,  the state performed autopsy report which purportedly revealed no signs of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation may pose some issue.  The defense attorneys may argue against causation.  For the state to prove culpable-negligence manslaughter it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the acts of the officer were the proximate cause of Mr. Floyd’s death.[25]  The defense may argue Mr. Floyd died from an unforeseeable underlying comorbidity which may have been exacerbated by the knee on neck hold. Even if that argument were true, the distinction likely creates no difference. The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that a defendant “causes” death, for proximate-cause purposes, if “the defendant's acts were a substantial factor in causing the death.”[26]  Whether Mr. Floyd died solely due to knee hold induced asphyxia or whether the knee hold exacerbated an underlying condition, the officer’s callous action remain a substantial factor in causing the death. Of the two charges against the murderous officer, second degree manslaughter has the best chance of resulting in conviction. 

The world lay witness to George Floyd’s execution.  The officer’s heinous actions speak for themselves. Yet, as described above, the murderous officer has merely been charged with a disposable third degree murder claim and second degree manslaughter. The third degree murder charge faces doom since the officer’s actions only endangered George Floyd. Regrettably, it appears at best this heinous act elicits a second degree manslaughter conviction; a conviction which carries a maximum ten year sentence, although guidelines recommend merely 3.5 to 5 years.[27] Again, how can this be: an incongruence between what things are and what they ought to be. While we march and protest against the results of systemic racism—the death of another black man, we cannot neglect the soil which fosters these results. The law favors law enforcement in ways which cultivate brutality.  Repeatedly we march to impending disappointment when a brutalizing officer receives no criminal charges, the criminal charges are dismissed, or the criminal charges result in a conviction which pales in comparison to the gravity of the offense. [28]

Emmett Till’s death inspired a civil rights movement which ultimately led to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.  George Floyd may be today’s Emmett Till: a death so visceral, horrific and reflective of the infirmaries of the legal system that it invokes a movement which inspires policing laws which account for structural and racial inequality.  The truism rings true: All lives matter.  But black lives are the lives historically put at stake.  That’s why black lives matter.  We have the power to make change. We have no option but to make the change or else more lives will be lost without justice.  The law has failed George Floyd.  Let’s work to stop the law from continuing to fail others. 

---

[1] Minn.Stat. § 609.18 (2014)

[2] State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 734 (Minn.2011)

[3] Id 

[4] State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Minn. 2001)(gunshots); See State v. Ferguson, 729 N.W.2d 604, 617 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. June 19, 2007)(determining evidence sufficient to support second degree murder when defendant/appellant purportedly gunned down decedent); State v. Wilson,  2008 WL 570280, Minn.App., Mar. 04, 2008 (determining sufficient evidence of intent to kill when defendant/ appellant beat the decedent to death “with punches, kicks, and a metal rod.”)(unpublished)

[5] Minn.Stat. § 609.19

[6] Cal. Penal Code §§ 187(a), 188, 189

[7] Id

[8] Minn.Stat. § 609.19

[9] State v. Cole, 542 N.W.2d 43, 53 (Minn.1996)

[10] Minn.Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10  

[11] State v. Gorman, 532 N.W.2d 229, 233 (Minn.App.1995) (stating that to establish felony murder, state must prove defendant intended to assault victim), aff'd on other grounds, 546 N.W.2d 5 (Minn.1996); State v. Werman, 388 N.W.2d 748, 750 (Minn.App.1986) (stating conviction for felony murder with underlying felony of second-degree assault requires finding of intent to assault), review denied (Minn. Aug. 13, 1986). (1998);

[12] State v. Ortiz, App.2001, 626 N.W.2d 445, review denied

[13] Minn.Stat. § 609.06. (authorizing the use of force) 

[14] Minn.Stat. § 609.43

[15] Id.

[16] State v. Dorn, 875 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. App. 2016); State v. Wilson, App 2012, 814 N.W.2d 60, 64

[17]  State v. Shane, 883 N.W.2d 606, 610 (Minn. App. 2016)

[18] State v. Kalvig, 296 Minn. 395, 398, 209 N.W.2d 678, 680 (1973)

[19] https://kstp.com/news/police-training-expert-speak-on-fatal-minneapolis-incident-may-26-2020/5741911 (last visited June 2, 2020)

[20] Minn.Stat. § 609.195

[21] Stiles v. State, 664 N.W.2d 315, 321(Minn.2003)

[22]  State v. Stewart, 276 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Minn.1979); see also Stiles v. State, 664 N.W.2d 315, 321(Minn.2003)

[23] State v. Beilke, 267 Minn. 526, 534, 127 N.W.2d 516, 521 (1964); see also State v. Grover, 437 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Minn.1989)

[24] The actions may also align with Section 609.43 which criminalizes actions of public officers who knowingly take actions which exceed their authority or are forbidden by law to be done in a certain capacity.  Here, the murderous officer knowingly exceeded his authority when he ignored the protestations of Mr. Floyd and others and also performed an act forbidden by law to be done in a certain capacity: unauthorized knee on neck hold.

[25] State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 517, 44 N.W.2d 61, 64 (1950)

[26] State v. Smith, 835 N.W.2d 1, 4–6 (Minn. 2013)

[27] https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/what-is-third-degree-murder-and-second-degree-manslaughter-in-minnesota/89-605c84d4-dfc2-4bb9-a09b-4a0063c079ad (last visited on May 31, 2020)

[28] This paper does not discuss the legal doctrine of qualified immunity which further increases the difficulty of charging law enforcement with criminality.

In Defense of Trayvon Martin’s Killer: The Deadliness of Skittles

The police are and remain more than justified in not arresting the 28 year old man, George Zimmerman, after he shot and killed the 17 year old boy, Trayvon Martin.  In fact, I believe the police should be applauded for their efforts in not arresting a grown man who shot and killed a child with a .44 caliber gun when all the child had on him was some skittles and iced tea.  Now, I know some may think that there is disconnect between someone having skittles, and another person having a gun, but I am here to assure all that it connects perfectly.  A disconnect is only in the mind of fools, and I’m glad there is not a single fool in that Sanford police department. 

First of all, I get angry at people who try to downplay the significance of these skittles. Little David meek and mild vanquished a 20 foot tall behemoth, Goliath, with nothing but a few measly pebbles.  George Zimmerman is not Goliath, therefore it logically falls that skittles are more than a deadly weapon to him.  Have you ever been hit in the head with a skittle? Have you ever tasted that rainbow? I assure you that it is quite deadly.  Zimmerman’s  .44 caliber gun was necessary to thwart the danger of those wretched skittles.  To buttress this point, I’ll give an example of the violent disposition of colorful skittles. If I, unfortunately, was positioned to fight another man to the death, and we were given a list of weapons to choose from such as a rifle, a battle axe,  a bag of skittles, a dagger,  a chainsaw, a sword, a grenade, and a machine gun, then I’m sure both of us, without hesitation, would first reach for those skittles.  In fact, fearing the dangerousness of the aforesaid skittles, I assume that we would probably pre-negotiate that neither of us could use those ferocious skittles in battle. Skittles are manufactured by the Wrigley Jr. Company;  I have already sent numerous letters to the Wrigley Jr. Company  insisting that they put a disclaimer on skittles.  I won’t be satisfied until every pack of skittles has the disclaimer, “Sweet and Lethal.”  Skittles should really be named Deadly Colorful Black Mamba candy, but for now I’ll settle for at least a disclaimer.

Second of all, my anger intensifies when people try to claim that Trayvon was not suspicious.  He was beyond extremely suspicious.  He was walking around wearing a hoodie for Christ’s sake.  In this day and age, where people have motorcycles, cars, and trucks, there is and remains nothing more suspicious than a person who chooses to walk. Think about it, if someone had the option to drive a vehicle, isn’t it suspicious that he would choose to walk instead.  Further, even if they lack the means to drive, there are bikes, scooters, and skate boards available. My heart always skips at least two beats when I see someone walking on the street. Man was simply not meant to walk that is the very reason we have cars in modern day and rode horses in ye olden day.  Further, Trayvon wore a hoodie. Even though it was winter and even though it was after sunset and even though the air was chilly, Trayvon should have known that a hoodie raises ones suspicion, and rightfully so.  So, the follow up question to the fact that a hoodie is suspicious is, “Well, then what should he have worn instead of a hoodie?” The answer to this is quite obvious.  He should have worn no shirt.  Indeed, he should have embraced the frigid sunset air and smiled a warm smile as he welcomed the goose bumps along his thin body.  It is more reasonable to suffer the rancor of hypothermia than to ever be suspicious.  I am seeking a prohibition on all jacket hoodies, I hope that others join my petition to ban hoodies. Hoodies are simply too precarious in making a person look suspicious.  George Zimmerman’s suspicion was justified; other reasonable minds would have behaved similarly.  If I saw a person with a hood on who was engaged in the activity of, god forbid, walking, then I must confess that I would probably have thrown some skittles at him or her.

Third of all, I propose that those who call George Zimmerman a racist be banned from speaking.  I think that it is ludicrous and disturbing the peace that many insipid insidious insects have labeled Zimmerman a racist.  I only call them insects because I don’t know them all by name, and because they truly bug me.  Zimmerman is not a racist. Zimmerman’s father, who of course has no interest in trying to paint his gun toting son in a good light, said that his son had some black friends.  Even though not a single one of these black friends has come to Zimmerman’s defense, I’ll take the obviously unbiased words of Zimmerman’s father over any the silly racist speculation spewed by those slithering insects.  Obviously, if a person has even one friend of the opposite race, then it is impossible for such person to be racist or prejudicial in the slightest.  This is why not one single slave owner in the post civil war South or white supporter of Jim Crow or white supporter of South African apartheid ever had one black friend, or, better yet, a third party who claims that such person had a friend after such person was labeled a racist. Zimmerman wasn’t a racist; he just saw a black person who happened to be acting suspiciously by having the audacity to walk on his feet while contemporaneously wearing a hoodie. Yes, America is a free country, but that doesn’t give a person, even a black person, the right to engage in such unquestionably suspicious behavior.  It isn’t like Florida, or the Southern United States for that matter, has a history of racial injustice.  For example, the 12 year old Floridian black child given life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for killing his cousin while performing wrestling moves on her completely deserved to rot in prison for the rest of his life.  Moreover, the case of Casey Anthony would have come out the same way regardless if Ms. Anthony had been white or, god forbid, black.  Further, the police love black people, black men especially, that is why police officers stop black drivers all the time.  It’s because they love them.  That is why police officers arrest black men at disproportionate rates. It’s because they love them.  That is why black men make up a disproportionate amount of the jail system.  It’s because police love them so much, and desperately want to keep them around.  I, for one, can only hope that a police officer will stop me while I’m driving, claim that my taillight is busted even though it is complexly fine, and then subsequently  ask me if I’m on drugs or if I stole my own car.  Such action shows true love.  Since Zimmerman was the self appointed neighborhood watchman, which is not a cop but in my eyes is close such that I should even respect Zimmerman’s view of what articulable reasonable suspicion means, I think it is safe to assume that he loved black men just as much as police officers do.

Zimmerman truly is an honorable man, and he should be commended instead of abhorred for standing up and trying to protect his neighbors from the deadly skittle carrying nightwalker.  How could you arrest a guy like him? He graduated from college and took a criminal law class. He selflessly appointed himself as the head of the neighborhood watch. He is and remains undoubtedly an upstanding citizen. This is evidenced by his 2005 arrest for suspicion of battery on a law officer. It is also evidenced by complaints made by one resident to the Sanford police about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home. Moreover, it is evidenced by the numerous complaints made by several residents of George Zimmerman and his “tactics” in his neighborhood watch role.  As the story unfolds, it becomes more and more apparent that Zimmerman was not simply a loose cannon.  To the contrary, Trayvon was the loose cannon for, as previously mentioned, wearing a jacket and hoodie while carrying skittles.    Indeed, Trayvon is lucky that Zimmerman did not know he had those skittles “sweet and lethal” on him. 

Although it is clear that Zimmerman was not a racist, seeing a black man with skittles strikes fear even in those with the most unwavering of hearts.  With crips wearing blue, bloods wearing red, black disciples wearing blue, and orange gangs wearing orange, an abundance of clarity arises manifesting that skittles can be nothing less but vitriol filled black gangster candy.  Skittles are so very precarious because, since there are so many colors, one does not know which color to associate to the black insubordinate who dares to eat such candy.  Trayvon must have been in a dangerous gang that associated itself with the colors: green, orange, red, yellow, or purple.  Moreover, since there has been no specification on the kinds of skittles, one cannot even assume that Trayvon was carrying the original skittles, he may have been carrying sour skittles, tropical skittles, or even chocolate mix skittles.  With each different kind of skittles pack that Trayvon may have carried, the color that he and his gang associated as gang bangers grows exponentially.  Trayvon also carried a can of Arizona Iced tea. It is not coincidental that the rapper Ice-T made the song cop killa.  I do not want to speculate as to what activity Trayvon planned to engage himself into that night, but all logical signs point to the fact that he was up to no good: he was walking, he was wearing a hoodie, he was black, he had skittles in his pocket, and he was carrying some “cop killa” ice tea.

Since Trayvon clearly was dangerous, it is unconscionable to think that Zimmerman did anything but engage in self defense.  Trayvon Martin stood 6 foot 3 and weighed a whopping 140 pounds.  To better put it, he stood as tall as rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg but weighed at least 30 pounds less than Snoop Doggy Dogg, and we all know how big and buff Snoop Doggy Dogg is.  Undeniably, the 17 year still-developing-boy Trayvon must have been a pillar of strength and mightiness.  Zimmerman who only happened to be a grown man at 28 and who only happened to outweigh Trayvon by 100 pounds, give or take, could not have possibly outdueled a barely-past-prepubescent Trayvon in a match of fists. Killing Trayvon by shooting him in the chest was the only rational and reasonable thing for Zimmerman to do.  In a battle, one is allowed to fight back with reasonable force.  Obviously, the emaciated punches of the barely post prepubescent 17 year old Trayvon were more than formidable; they were as deadly as his skittles.  Zimmerman, obviously, and I repeat, obviously, had no other option as a 28 year old man, but to shoot 17 year old Trayvon Martin dead.  The only possible way to defend himself was to kill Trayvon Martin.  Luckily, gun laws in Florida are so relaxed that a law abiding citizen like Zimmerman can easily acquire a pistol.  I urge others to acquire pistols as well because if someone punches a person and then may reasonably slap or punch such person again, then the person that has been punched has the right to shoot the puncher in the chest in the name of self defense.  If the person who punches is a black man with skittles and iced tea, then, luckily, I believe under Florida Law that the black man is not even required to throw the first punch before the aforesaid person has a right to shoot that boy dead.

Further, it is clear that Trayvon initiated the whole confrontation.  When Zimmerman called the police to report about Trayvons’s suspicious and, likely, criminal activity, the police told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon. Indeed, when Zimmerman reported to the police that he as the self-appointed neighborhood watchman was going to accost Trayvon Martin, the 911 dispatcher said, “we don’t need you do that.” Thus, if Zimmerman disobeys direct police orders, and confronts a dangerous 17 year old emaciated 140 pound black kid who has equipped himself with skittles and “cop killa” ice tea, then any subsequent confrontation must be self defense.  Foolish people say that a person should not be able to claim self-defense when such person was the one who initiated the confrontation in which he had to defend himself, and when such person disobeyed direct police orders not to initiate such a confrontation.  I, for one, am very thankful that none of the police officers in that Sanford police department are complete and utter fools.  To the contrary, their wisdom permeates higher than Solomon’s.   This is so transparently a case of self defense that standard procedures like alcohol and drug testing of the shooter did not and does not have to be taken.  The only thing that needs to be taken is triumphant killer’s words, and they are undoubtedly truthful.  So, all the neighbors and other firsthand witnesses speaking against Zimmerman clearly are the ones lying or mistaken.

As Zimmerman said, it was Trayvon who started the fight and it was Zimmerman that was begging for his life.  This makes perfect sense.  Of course that high pitched child like sounding desperate wailing could only come from a 28 year old fully developed grown man who outweighed his  17 year old emaciated attacker by 100 pounds and who reasonably feared for his life even though he carried a .44 caliber gun.  For this reason, the blood curdling screaming stopped as soon as the gun shot fired.  It only makes sense that the person begging for his life also happens to be the one who is carrying the gun just like it only makes sense that the blood-curdlings screams for help would immediately cease after the shot that rang through the treacherous heavens fired.   It only makes sense that the gun toting 28 year old man that disobeyed police orders feared for his life, and not the skinny 17 year old high school boy who was confronted by a stranger as he was walking home from buying candy.  This is so clear, apparent, and undeniable that undoubtedly the Sanford police could not at all arrest George Zimmerman.

I am thankful to live in a nation where a 17 year old skinny black child walking back from the candy store can be shot dead by an assailant who disobeyed direct police orders, and that this assailant can then be given the benefit of the doubt that such actions were in self defense. Trayvon Martin clearly engaged in shady behavior by wearing a hoodie, walking, being black, and carrying lethal skittles and “cop killa” ice tea.  When someone obviously suspicious like Trayvon gets himself killed by engaging in suspicious behavior, I appreciate cops that don’t even arrest lawful assailants like Zimmerman.  Zimmerman clearly was acting in self defense, and the brilliant ingenious cops of Sanford rightfully believed him. There is a silly petition going on to have poor George Zimmerman arrested for killing this deadly-skittle-carrying-skinny- 17- year- old- black-gangsta-bandit.  The petition is irrational and unsound.  Instead, as mentioned earlier, I propose a petition to ban all jacket hoodies.  Please sign my petition so that another poor soul like Zimmerman won’t have to face this horrible ordeal of people at least wanting him to be arrested when he too takes the law in his own hand and decides to confront and kill a black 17 year old child under the guise of self defense.  If this petition is successful, then the next petition will be a ban on walking after sunset.  If that ban is too vague, then it can be changed to a ban of walking while black after sunset.

Sincerely,

Supporter for George Zimmerman

PETITION FOR THE BANNING OF HOODIES:  100,000 Signatures needed!

___________________________________

The Injustice of Justice: The dense fog surrounding Troy Davis

I still remember September 21st, 2011. Sometimes an event happens that leaves a lingering feeling. Yet, unlike feelings of happiness or sadness or pain or triumph, it lacks a finite categorical description. Thus, one feels a strong feeling, but does not know what such feeling means or what to make of such a feeling. For some, days, months, or years may pass and such a feeling may not leave. Its uncertainty nags like a dark cloudy day interspersed with rays of sunshine. These moments are, from time to time, strongest when the nation stands polarized on a single event. Two sanctimonious sides galloping towards one another like a medieval joust, but the terrain is covered in fog, dense dense fog. Then one realizes that beyond that, circumventing the dense fog, lays a raging pool of vitriol hatred and pacifistic confusion. Yet, the two sides remain galloping forward as the grooves of their horses cause the sand to escape the ground and swirl into the fog creating a sandstorm. They cannot see, nevertheless their speed only increases. Finally, the lance reaches through the dense fog. The lance is sturdy, powerful, and thirsty for blood. And, although its target lies there with dark opaque eyes hiding a more opaque face and his whispers of liberty crescendo, his being and words are covered by the opaqueness of the fog. The jouster reaches its target, and the lance licks its lip from the sweet blood that he has thirsted for over twenty years as though it were divine nectar. Then, the fog disappeared; likewise, the pool of vitriol hatred and confusion disappears as well. The jousters left not a footprint in the sand, and the lance’s only trace is the body of its victim. Indeed, the sand daily buries the body more and more. Soon, there will be no trace of the body at all. Troy Davis was executed September 21st, 2011 for his conviction in a 1989 murder. His last words were, "I'm not the one who personally killed your son, your father, your brother." He breathed his last breath at 11:07, and they declared him dead at 11:08. I tried to see past the dense dense fog, the pool of hate and confusion, and the sand storm. I’m not sure what to feel. I’m not sure how to feel.

Amidst the fog, I heard that there was reasonable doubt as to the murder of which you were convicted. Indeed, of the 9 witnesses that testified against you in your 1989 trial, a trial lacking direct evidence such as DNA or a murder weapon or video, seven recanted his or her testimony. Further, some of those whom recanted against you signed affidavits, sworn statements purporting to the veracity of their statement of recantation. Thus, with callow chants from out the fog screams ring out. REASONABLE DOUBT! REASONABLE DOUBT! The words perforate through the fog and tenaciously attempt to build a resistance against the jouster. Yet, it is an old folk tale that one should not attempt to build on sand. Reasonable doubt is a standard that applies only before a conviction. Every man that takes trial in a criminal court must have his or her guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, this is the very foundation of the adversarial system that has existed in America for over 200 years and, further, a vestige of the Common Law. However, the reasonable doubt standard does not apply after a person is convicted. Thus, if a person has been found guilty by a full-fledged trial, then the reasonable doubt standard no longer applies. Therefore, one cannot simply wave a magic lasso that holds the words “reasonable doubt” after a person has already been convicted. While I agree that 7 out of 9 witnesses recanting testimony raises major red flags, bellowing “reasonable doubt” is erroneous. Once a person has been convicted, they are no longer presumed innocent; reasonable doubt applies only to those presumed innocent. It is the burden of the prosecution before conviction, not some mantra after a conviction when a witness changes up his or her story. The burdens and standards change drastically after one has been convicted. Thus, it is a gross mischaracterization and misunderstanding to say the conviction is wrong because reasonable doubt exists. With that said, 7 of 9 witnesses recanting should definitely mean something.

More noise rips from out of the fog. The noise fights amongst its posse like a radio surfing the waves of different frequencies. It is full of static. The noise says that clemency should be granted. The noise says life imprisonment should be given instead of the death penalty due to the recantation. The noise says the death penalty racially prejudices minorities unfairly. The noise says the original trial was unfair such as to suggest that death penalty should not be given. Sometimes noise can drown out simple truth. Even if the noise may be true, sometimes there is no reason to be so noisy. The issue is neither clemency, life imprisonment, nor the death penalty being unfair. The issue is guilt versus innocence. The 7 of 9 witnesses recanting did not point to putting Troy in prison for life rather than putting him to death, it pointed to not putting Troy in prison at all. Is it merciful to put someone in prison for murder if they are innocent of the murder? Is it morally right to give someone life imprisonment for a murder instead of death when 7 of 9 witnesses recant saying that Mr.-soon-to-be-in-prison-for-life did not commit the murder? Lastly, is it necessary to say that the death penalty is unjustly racially distributed when the concern should be whether, after the recantation of nearly all the witnesses, a murder conviction [the precursor to the death penalty] should still be warranted at all? I think that it is not necessary. As stated before, noise being right does not mean that the noise is necessary as to the case at hand. I believe it morally wrong to have life imprisonment given to an innocent person, and I think that’s all that matters.

The last bit of noise from the dense fog is intriguing. As stated before, the noise said that the original trial was unfair such as to suggest that death penalty should not be given. Once again, the concern should first be put on the murder conviction and not the death penalty. A conviction of first degree murder in this instance was a necessary condition for the death penalty to be given. Therefore, it should be the proper focus. In most states, first degree murder is the unlawful killing of another person committed in willful and/or premeditative manner with malice aforethought [indeed, malice aforethought may be seen through willfulness and premeditation]. So, was the testimony of 9 witnesses given under oath stating Troy Davis as guilty in a fully adversarial trial sufficient to prove guilt? Well, one cannot look at hindsight to answer such a question, one must look at the time of the trial when no hint that there would ever be a recantation existed. So, the proper question would be, ‘if one was a juror relying on 9 witnesses who gave testimony under oath purporting to a suspect’s guilt and there was no reason to expect that the jurors would lie under oath or later recant testimony, would such testimony be sufficient as evidence in a murder trial?’ If the answer to that question is no, then the problem is not the recantation of witnesses, it is the belief that witness testimony, in and of itself, is not reliable or, at the very least, not reliable as the primary form of evidence in a criminal case. The original trial was fair in the sense that the jurors properly relied on the  testimony given to convict Troy Davis of murder. If the same trial occurred today or a similar trial, it is likely that a murder conviction would, once again, be given. The issue is not whether the original trial was unfair, the issue is what should happen after a person is convicted in a fair trial when the witnesses whom were relied on as evidence for the conviction later recant their testimony. Perhaps the answer is never to rely primarily on witnesses for this very reason, but such an answer 1) exceeds the scope of the case and 2) will likely lead to a parade of horribles since it is rather unreasonable to always expect to find a gun or DNA evidence at a murder scene. Indeed, as the late Michael Jackson would say, such a supposition would be the antithesis of a smooth criminal.

Thunder and conflagration can be heard within the fog. Lightning normally precedes thunder, but here there is no lightning at all. Eureka! Out the fog and bathed in vitriol hatred chants ring and marching can be heard. Fists of fury dance with raging tongues across the sandy fog. They chant, ‘Kill him! Kill him! He’s had his chance for appeal, all the courts rejected it. Kill him. Kill him. Kill the cop killer! The courts all rejected his appeal. Kill him. Kill him!’ Their words sound like a brooding dark symphony played with a heavy tuba that scintillates to the ominous beat of the bass drum and the eerie high strings of a violin. Their words makes me shudder. Life is so precious; I could never be so bloodthirsty. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Well, this is not Rome. Therefore, one should not treat death as though he were watching a gladiator spectacle. If I were Caesar, I would give such a view a thumbs down. If ever one’s life had to be taken, I would hope that it was beyond certain that such person, to the very least, committed the crime alleged (indeed, I am not a proponent of the death penalty at all). Yet, how can there exist such zest for blood when 7 of 9 witnesses recant testimony; not one, not two, not three, but seven. Indeed, that would make me, at the very least, want to get to the bottom of why they recanted their testimony. I, more or less a pacifist, am opposed to an eye-for-an-eye, but, the recantation makes me question whether an eye was even taken at all. As stated before, how can one be so bloodthirsty in such a scenario? I agree that the loss of an innocent life is a terrible thing. Further, I agree that the death of the undercover cop was a tragedy. Moreover, I feel for his family to the extent that I know that it must have been of great sorrow. Nevertheless, I lack confidence in the killing of a man if 7 of 9 witnesses recanted their testimony of him.

Eureka! Eureka! Callooh Calllay! Cannons and thunder! The vitriol chants, once again ring, ‘The fact that the courts did not take his appeal is proof of guilt! Kill him Kill him! He had over 20 years to get it changed! Kill him kill him! The courts knew about the recanted testimony! Kill him kill him! They did nothing because it doesn’t change the fact that he’s guilty! Kill him kill him!’ I shudder once again at such bloodthirsty statements, goose bumps spread across my body. To these wreathing blood thirsty chanters, the court denying appeal combined with the plus 20 years of opportunity to do so equaled vindication to take Troy’s life. First of all, one does not always need to look at the court to see that something may truly be wrong. If, for example, the court said that black people were property and could never be citizens, does that mean the court is right? Indeed, the Supreme Court said that very exact thing in the case Dredd Scott. Yet, today, we view that decision as clearly wrong. One should not need a court to guide ones moral framework on every matter if at all. If a person is convicted based on the testimony of only witnesses, and, after conviction, the vast majority of the witnesses against him, for a variety of reasons, recant their testimony of him, then does it seem morally tantamount to put that man to death just as if the recantation had never happened at all? Now, it is true that recantations can be for a variety of reasons and these recantations came after these witnesses had already testified under oath. Nevertheless, shouldn’t the recanted statement at least be examined as to why it was recanted? Secondly, as illustrated by Dredd Scott, courts have and do make mistakes. The mistakes continued: Plessy , Ozawa, Korematsu, Bowers v. Hardwick, Buck v. Bell, the Slaughterhouse cases, Bush v. Gore, etc. Further, all the cases that I’ve mentioned are from the United States Supreme Court. If the United States Supreme Court makes mistakes, then I give even less credence to the state courts and appellate process of way-south-of-the-Mason-Dixon-line Georgia. It is already undoubtedly true that Georgia has had a history of racial injustice. Thus, if one places his or her infallible certainty on the appellate court process, then one must also realize that these courts, themselves, are not infallible nor always certain and do make mistakes. It took over 50 years for the United States Supreme Court to recognize the error it made in Plessy v. Ferguson. It was just as much a mistake 50 years later as it was the day it was adjudicated. The passage of time does not add vindication to decisions that themselves are erroneous. The Courts failing to grant Troy Davis’ appeal does not mean that the courts were correct in doing so.

The fog grew densest at its epicenter and the horse galloping created a sandstorm maelstrom as the lance reached for its target. Right before the galloping horse reached it last stride and right before the jouster extended his arm and right before the salivating lance finally reached its target, I saw an imperial court standing high above the fog as though they were the Grecian gods of mount Olympus. There were nine of them. With nine huffs, and nine puffs, they could have blown the fog away, but they did not. Exhibiting traces of callous indifference, they did and, moreover, said nothing at all. Like the gentle nymph that knows the meaning of life but remains quiet and does not share, the nine of this imperial court, with all the power to, said nothing. Of everything involving Troy Davis, I was most uncertain as to why the Supreme Court of the United States of America denied his last dying appeal of stay. Of everything involving Troy Davis, their action, or, better yet, lack thereof, left me with the strangest and most lingering of feelings. Why did the Supreme Court deny the appeal? Further, why did it not give its justification for doing so? The question ran through my mind for days. More amazingly, it seemed to never tire as it ran and ran. While some may say it is just another apocalyptic sign of the reality of Black America, I remained curious. Yes, I agree that racism still exists today, but this was more than just that. This was the life of another person after 7 of 9 witnesses recanted. Thus, why would the Supreme Court, the champion of liberty, deny the appeal? Perhaps, as briefly noted earlier, the Supreme Court saw that this case threatened the evidentiary justification of witness testimony. If witness testimony taken as evidence for conviction can be simply undone by recantation, then that would open up the possibility of numerous past, present, and future cases to, too, be undone. Witness testimony would then come to mean a banality of sorts. Perhaps, the Supreme Court felt that it needed to put its authoritative stamp behind the testimony of witnesses. Thus, the veracity of witness testimony as evidence for a murder conviction remains untainted even if it is later recanted. Perhaps by taking such action the Court hoped to strengthen witness testimony while contemporaneously preventing potential collusion to recant. Yet, a variety of other possible reasons exist too.

 Above all, I wish I knew why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. It’s supposed to be the champion of liberty in the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Still, seven of nine witnesses recanted testimony. Troy Davis is dead now and the witnesses against him said he was not the killer. He is dead. Life is so precious, and his is now gone even though 7 of 9 of the witnesses against him recanted their testimony. It just seems so very very wrong to me; leaving a lingering feeling that I cannot make out. Troy Davis, I do not know if you were truly guilty or innocent, but, at least, I would have liked to have known why your witnesses recanted and the basis of the recantation as it pertained to your innocence. I feel the absence of such, which is what occurred, was a denial of liberty. Patrick Henry’s famous quote during the founding of America was, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” As Troy Davis lies dead, I do not think that this was what Patrick Henry had in mind.

The fog is now gone, so is the jouster, so is the lance, so is the thunder, vitriol hatred, and confusion, and the body is slowly being lost to the sands of time. Troy Davis and the cold imperial court are but an ever fading memory. A lingering feeling that I cannot describe persists in me. I still reminisce of the fog, the dense dense fog that surrounded Troy Davis.  The dense dense fog that left justice to injustice.