Juror B29 States, Zimmerman "got away with murder"

This morning on Good Morning America, Juror B29 spoke with Robin Roberts. During the morning interview Juror B29 stated that Zimmerman "got away with murder" and expanded on that by saying, "You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty. We had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence." Juror B29 this is how our justice system works. We don't get to add assumptions or bring our prejudices into the case; rather we are to focus on the facts presented.

Juror B29 rationalized here confusion and ultimate not guilty determination which pundits are seizing on by framing the jury instructions the fault for not coming back with a guilty verdict. Juror B29 said, "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it, but as the law was read , if you have not proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

Here is a link to the jury instructions: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

After jury selection at the start of the trial a lot was made that all six women were white. Ironically now the narrative being pushed is that the only minority, Juror B29, on the jury originally thought Zimmerman guilty. Why do we need to invoke race when the race of the juror's had no factor in discussing the facts of the case and applying jury instructions? Remember, the excuse was laid out if Zimmerman was found not guilty it had to be because there was no minorities on the jury. Now, Juror B29 is found out to be a minority!

But I digress. Sybrina Fulton issued a written statement in response to Juror B29's comments(http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview/index.html): "It is devastating for my family to hear the comments from juror B29, comments which we already knew in our hearts to be true. That George Zimmerman literally got away with murder. This new information challenges our nation once again to do everything we can to make sure that his never happens to another child."

While I agree that our Nation is challenged with preventing senseless death, but I don't agree that with the narrative of Martin being this innocent child. The challenge that really faces our Nation starts with media bias and the lack of investigative journalism. As I write this, KARE11 just had a story on a vigil that took place today in Minneapolis in a neighborhood that recently experience a killing of a child by unknown assailants.

When it comes to violence and senseless death of anyone, let alone a child, it starts in our neighborhoods. We need to assert ourselves and let it be known that criminal activity will not be tolerated and the senseless death knows no boundary. Regardless if you feel Zimmerman "got away with murder" or it was justifiable on August 6th get out and meet your neighbors. August 6th is National Night Out. If there is not one planned in our neighborhood then pony up and make it happen. The actions that lead to Martin's death could have been prevented by both Martin and Zimmerman.

President Obama hits and misses today

President Obama interrupted the daily White House Press Conference to say a few words about the fallout from the Zimmerman not guilty verdict. Below are the words spoken by President Obama along with some commentary by myself.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/president.obama.trayvon.martin.speech.video.transcript.full.text.george.zimmerman.verdict/33281.htm

Well, I -- I wanted to come out here first of all to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is -- is very much looking forward to the session.

Second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks there are going to obviously be a whole range of issues -- immigration, economics, et cetera -- we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week, the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave an -- a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last week I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.  

First of all, you know, I -- I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle's, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they've dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they're going through, and it's -- it's remarkable how they've handled it. Hey Mr. President - I know it is not politically opportunistic for you but what about Zimmerman's family? The question begs asking while belittles the tragedy none.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there are going to be a lot of arguments about the legal -- legal issues in the case. I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.

The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a -- in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury's spoken, that's how our system works. Amen Mr. President.

But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling. You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son.Actually you said that "if I had a son it would look like Trayvon Martin."  Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African- American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African- American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn't go away. Mr. President, I completely agree.

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

And there are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often. While I recognize that the examples are reality they are also generalized and stereotypical.

And you know, I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. Mr. President, you mentioned context above - but now we lose context in Florida?

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. Now we are back to context but the issue in Florida lacks context. Mr. President, why are you not giving this speech or working into this speech the senseless bystander deaths in Chicago and Los Angeles as gangs shoot at each other?

We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history. At what point does the next or even the current generation take accountability for themselves?

And so the fact that sometimes that's unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain. Perhaps the reason why Black youth are believed to be violent is the role models the black community chooses to emulate. Hip Hop and Rap perpetuates the stereotypes of black youth and society. We all should emulate role models that stood for principle and held themselves more accountable to their actions than others as the standard bearer. Some examples of yore are John Adams, Fredrick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Abe Lincoln or MLK. Recent examples could include - Bill Gates, Oprah, Daymond John, John Tillman, or the late Steve Jobs.

I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. Agreed Mr. President but the media attention on this issue doesn't sell newspapers or get people elected - that is the real tragedy.

So -- so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there's no context for it or -- and that context is being denied. And -- and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different. By lacking context in ones life is not an excuse to lash out because of frustration. Mr. President, let's examine why the white male teen might have seen a different outcome. Yes, one possible reason in the case of Martin/Zimmerman is that Zimmerman may not have followed after learning the teen was white. Another possible reason why the outcome may have been different is the white male teen more than likely would have been less confrontational with Zimmerman - because us White Fathers tell our kids that if a person in authority asks a question, no matter how ridiculous it may be, to answer in a polite manner. Now, I am generalizing to be fair but so are you, Mr. President.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think, for a lot of folks is, where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? You know, I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. Amen Mr. President!

But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do? I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government -- the criminal code. And law enforcement has traditionally done it at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels. The Jury spoke and verified what the local police originally thought - Zimmerman was justified. 

That doesn't mean, though, that as a nation, we can't do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I'm still bouncing around with my staff so we're not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus. Fair enough.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it'd be productive for the Justice Department -- governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists. No one will deny that the police in many areas in the United States have an image problem. Once we start nationalizing this - where does it stop? Wasn't the notion of bringing diversity into the police force to help improve the mistrust? Then again, the juries not guilty verdict verifies the assessment of the officers on the scene the night Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

You know, when I was in Illinois I passed racial profiling legislation. And it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing. Will need to check into this before passing judgement but from what I hear it sounds like a good program.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way, that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and in turn be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously law enforcement's got a very tough job. Yet, Mr. President - the black youth of Chicago continue to kill each other with no end in sight. 

So that's one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And -- and let's figure out other ways for us to push out that kind of training. Code for another layer of public union employees and red tape.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations. Mr. President, the Tampa Bay Sentinel already did that and found that if we took away Stand Your Ground laws it would have a disparate impact on blacks in Florida.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.

On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see? Mr. President, while Zimmerman didn't use the defense, when his head as hitting the concrete there wasn't a way to exit but death. Other cases that have invoked Stand Your Ground defense were very similar - see the Tampa Bay Sentinel article. 

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? If Martin felt his life was in danger with threat of death; yes. Let's remember though, Martin was seen atop Zimmerman throwing punches toward the ground. 

And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three -- and this is a long-term project: We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys? And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them? Mr. President, America can reduce its bias in all manners of life. By doing that it will help all children not just black boys. The justice system, the police scrutiny, the guarded mentality of non-black society stems not solely from a racial bias but a bias reinforced by hip hop, rap and other modes of entertainment. I am not naive to the fact that we are all a tinge racist while others are a lot more than a tinge. Those feeling frustrated or with more than a tinge, I'd venture come from a home with a single mom, dad or are being raised by a single grandparent. We need to promote, in all communities, the importance of the family unit. Studies have shown that children in a family unit are better members of society; in general.

You know, I'm not naive about the prospects of some brand-new federal program. Thank God!

I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as president, I've got some convening power. Oopps, I spoke too soon.

And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that -- and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- you know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. How about we gather their parents first! 

And then finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. You know, there have been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. I agree - keep the politicians, the haters, the gin factory workers all away from the conversation of race. Let's start the conversation of race in our backyards around a fire pit. Let's get out and talk to our neighbors. 

On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's a possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy. Amen, Mr. President. We do need to look at the content of our character. Let's get the ball rolling. Let's go through all the laws this land and strike out laws that call on race for justification of a law and insert character. We have made a protective class, we have made a second class, we have made lessor class of people through our legislation. A crime is a crime - murder is murder - torture is torture - it is no more egregious if it done between races, by the same race, sex, or sexual orientation.

And let me just leave you with -- with a final thought, that as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. I doesn't mean that we're in a postracial society. It doesn't mean that racism is eliminated. But you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they're better than we are. They're better than we were on these issues. And that's true in every community that I've visited all across the country.

And so, you know, we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues, and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days I think have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long, difficult journey, you know, we're becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

All right? Thank you, guys. Amen, Mr. President.

Cain wins an upset victory in Florida presidential straw poll - The Hill's Ballot Box

Cain wins an upset victory in Florida presidential straw poll - The Hill's Ballot Box


WOW! Cain has been regulated as a token player in the Republican primary has perhaps broken the glass ceiling. The win will definitely make things interesting especially if he is able to parlay the straw poll win into a GOP nomination. Granted that is several months away, can Cain carry the victory onto the next debate and contest unlike Bachman?

Burning the Koran: Freedom of Speech?

Terry Jones, a preacher in a small Florida church, is making a name for himself as he plans to burn the Koran on September 11^th. General David Petraeus warned, in an e-mail to the Associated Press, last week that "Burning copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops and Americans worldwide." Americans already, especially our troops in the Middle East, have targets on their backs. Terry Jones is simply exercising his American born right to freedom of speech to send a message to the Muslims that America will not cower to Islam. I do not see why people are raising a fuss over this. If the media had not given this event the coverage it has then only the people in the 50 member congregation would have known about it. Instead the media blows this up and demonizes an American by using the military as its foil; how ironic is that?

When the dust up erupted over the Mosque being built so close to Ground Zero the same media zealots and White House stated emphatically that it was the Imam's Constitutional right to build. Why then are the same people going after Terry Jones for exercising his Constitutional right? Are Constitutional rights's only applicable to non-white, non-christen, non-male members of society? General Petraeus and President Obama, are you serious when you feel that after the book burning that our troops will have bigger targets on their backs? Really? Will the burning of the Koran enrage the radical elements of Islam? Of course it will but not any more or less than the existence of the Imperial West does already. Will other Muslims be irked by the burning? Probably but they too should understand the context of the burning as well. Just as many that I speak of are looking for the Tea Party to call out the fringe elements of the movement so should non-radical Muslims denounce the radical elements within their midst.

Much like the Mosque fiasco, no one can argue that Constitutionality of the event planned by Terry Jones instead the focus is on whether it is right or wrong. And if we don't want to send the wrong message to the world then either doesn't report it at all or report the event as one American exercising a freedom granted every citizen of the United States.

Dr. Cassell sparks debate over health care with signage

An urologist in Florida is sparking debate over a sign posted outside his office door. Jack Cassell posted, "If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/jack-cassell-doctor-refus_n_523076.html). At first glance one may think that Cassell's sign is unethical as it goes against the Hippocratic Oath that medical professional uphold. In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel Cassell explained that "I'm not turning anybody away -- that would be unethical. But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it" (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401,0,658649.story).

Many, including Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), question the behavior of Cassell. William Allen, a professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine, sees Cassell's sign as "pushing the limit" as patients cannot be refused based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability. In an interview with MyFoxOrlando.com, Cassell responded to the potential unethical situation his sign created with, "I do not see why, as I am not denying care. I have an opinion."

I came across this article from a Facebook friend that commented, "this doctor is being allowed to continue his practice based on a political view. In fact, this is almost as bad if he had a sign that said "whites only" on his door." Does putting a sign outside the door, as Cassell did, resonate in the same manner that "whites only" signs did? Or is it okay for the doctor to air his views in this manner? My question to the Facebook crew was, "Okay, we still live in the USA right? I think it's a bit short sighted by the Doctor but he has every right to provide his service to who we wants to. Is so far as long as we still in the USA where freedom of choice reigns." I recognize that in a free society, a truly free society, discrimination will exist to varying degrees.

Does Cassell's sign discriminate? Has political ideology or affiliation become a protected class? As Dr. Cassell stated in his interview, he is not denying care to those that enter his office; rather he is simply protesting health care. A lot of interesting facts have come out since the Senate and House "fix it" bills were signed into law. A number of new taxes have been created, constitutional objection has been raised and companies are reporting the effects of these changes. All of this has President Obama campaigning again to "inform" the nation of what is really in the bill.

Senate Save America!!!

After Fridays House of Representatives vote on Climate Control Bill which passed 219-212. A group of reporters conducted an interview of President Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and White House coordinator of energy Carol Browner. President Obama stated (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/politics/29climate-text.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics), in regards to the passing of the bill, “I think this was an extraordinary first step.” While I watched the debate on the House floor on Friday, deals were being cut on the House floor for future consideration and even leaving an open line in the bill if were to pass to insert a place for an earmark for a Florida research center on hurricanes.

The bill that passed was written to emulate Spain’s efforts to create “Green Jobs” while controlling carbon emissions. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, PhD, published a report on Spain’s outcomes of their “green” jobs initiatives called Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources. http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf In the Executive Summary, the “study’s results demonstrate how such “green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil.”

President Obama, and others in Congress, touts the Climate Control Bill as a job creation bill. Yes, it will create jobs in the new “green” sector. The bigger question is will the bill have a net positive in jobs. According to Dr. Alvarez’s study, Spain has seen “9 jobs lost for every 4 created” in the energy industry while leading to an additional “2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created” elsewhere in the economy.

Many on the House floor on Friday argued that it “taxes” Americans. Now there is not straight out tax on consumers but there is on the producers of energy through the permits they will need to purchase. In every business model I have seen, not one has it where the company will absorb the price of purchasing carbon permits. The cost will passed along to the consumer in rate hikes. Some companies are already trying to get ahead of the curve by raising rates now.

While everyone agrees that America’s dependence on foreign oil promotes security risks to the future of the United States, the question is Congress prepared to pass a net-job loss bill that will drive up energy costs (total amount is up for discussion) and drive industry to countries, China or India, that do not have the same emission standards. Now to help level the playing field the Climate Control Bill does provide for tariffs of goods from countries that do not meet the new U.S. standards.

During the group reporter interview on Sunday with President Obama, a reporter asked, “One of the provisions that got added very late to this bill that senators had expressed some reservations about was the one that puts tariffs on goods imported from countries that don’t have these sorts of restrictions. What do you think of that revision and would you like to see the Senate strip it out?”

President Obama responded by saying, “At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there. “ One of the Obama’s campaign promises was to keep jobs in the United States and penalize companies that ship jobs overseas. An argument against the Climate Change Bill was that companies will move their factories to countries with lower energy costs.

This argument is echoed in Dr. Alvarez’s study as Spain saw several companies, Ferroatlantica and Grupo Celsa, move parts of their operations to other countries. The two mentioned went to France where nuclear power is the prime energy source. While America will see an increase in “green jobs” mainly because the industry doesn’t really exists. The trouble, as demonstrated by Dr. Alvarez’s study, is the net is a job loss and increases costs to lower and middle class.