Presto Agitato

Fixing the Headline

Drudge had the headline: Velvety underground spider in Israel named for Lou Reed...

That's Loureedia annulipes to you.

A Clear Case of Self-Defense

Much of the evidence in the George Zimmerman case has been released, from which we learn a few things:

1.  Martin was almost certainly the aggressor, as explained to police that night by multiple witnesses, including one who identified Martin as straddling Zimmerman and punching him ‘MMA-style’.  (I note that the UFC has referees to put a stop to such a beating before it becomes deadly — and also, apparently, some fighters who will wave-over a slow-moving ref.  I'd kiss that guy, but I'm sure he's against the plan and I don't care to piss him off.)  Also:

• When they arrived, Sanford Police Dept. (SPD) officers found Martin face-down on the ground (and turned him over to perform CPR) and that Zimmerman's back was wet and grass-stained.  (Police reports here.)
• Zimmerman had a broken nose and multiple abrasions and lacerations on his face and the back of his head.  I also note, from a photo taken at the station, that the back of Zimmerman's head is dented.  (It's hard to explain all these injuries, nor all the screaming for help that 911 operators and eyewitnesses and that night attributed to Zimmerman, if Zimmerman was brandishing his firearm when he confronted Martin.  Also, as noted at the arraignment, the prosecution can't say that Zimmerman did confront Martin rather than the other way around, only that there was a confrontation.)
• Martin had bloody and abraded knuckles (and Zimmerman apparently didn't) and significant levels of THC (a few hours old) in his system.  (Zimmerman thought the guy was acting like he was on drugs, and apparently knew what he was talking about.  Whether the intoxication had been from drugs or alcohol, it was worth noting.)
• One witness came forth later to say that he had seen a larger man on top of a smaller, and that, based on Zimmerman's old mugshot and pictures of a thirteen-year-old Martin, which the witness saw on TV, he concluded that the larger man was Zimmerman.  But at the time of the shooting Martin was a seventeen-year-old (looked twenty to the EMT), 5'11" (according to the autopsy) football player, and Zimmerman has lost a lot of weight and was several inches shorter, so it's not clear how much ‘larger’ than Martin he would have appeared.  And let's not forget that this ‘witness’ made himself known well after the incident.  As witnesses go, he's not very reliable, especially compared to the people who talked to the police on that night and could speak for certain at the time.  No sane prosecutor would ever put him on the stand.

2. Zimmerman's behavior when the police arrived was perfect.  Yes, absolutely, tell them loudly and clearly that you're armed and let them take your gun from you.  Keep your hands in the open air, preferably outward and upward!  Frightened police are not your friends!

3. The iPhone photos of Zimmerman, seen online a few weeks ago, were apparently taken by an SPD patrolman who ‘responded’ to the scene.  It was not clear that anyone had yet taken pictures of Zimmerman's injuries, so the patrolman made it so.  Indeed, no other photos were taken of Zimmerman until he arrived a the SPD station.  How they were released prematurely is, I'm sure, a matter of some investigation.

4. The Martin family's claim that they recognize Trayvon's screams on audio is not what they told SPD investigators.

5. The alleged audio-analysis experts hired by the Orlando Sentinel (who purported to determine that the screaming voice was not Zimmerman's) were also lying, either about the analysis or about their expertise to perform the analysis.  The FBI's experts could not come to any such conclusion, either way; the best current technology is inadequate to the task.

6. The Washington Post is desperate, dishonest, and sloppy, but at least they're not as bad as MSNBC.

In short, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense survives deep scrutiny.

SPD Detective Serino's desire to charge Zimmerman with negligent manslaughter (not murder!) is unsurprising; it is common for the police to automatically kick such a case up to the state attorney (prosecutor) who can then decide whether to proceed.  As it happened, on the night of the shooting, the prosecutor said: No.  Based on the evidence to date, he was right; with or without ‘Stand Your Ground’, a person claiming self-defense must show reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person, a standard which Zimmerman has clearly, I think preponderantly, met.  Further, under Florida law, the prosecutor must prove that the killer's belief was not reasonable.  The burden of proof is on the state.  Given the evidence above and a reasonable jury, the state's case is beyond hope.  This is well past ‘reasonable doubt’.

Of Fear and Reason

I saw, on TV a few nights ago (I forget the cable channel), a show about the disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi (tr. ‘Number One’) nuclear power facility and the consequences of that disaster for the nuclear power industry ‘going forward’, as they say.  (Consequences usually don't happen in the past….)  I don't know why I expected a thoughtful, balanced, and honest representation of reality, but I was thoroughly disappointed.

The narrator mentioned that a Japanese nuclear engineer (working for TEPCO, the company that owns the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility) predicted, a few years ago, a one-in-ten chance of a serious nuclear accident, somewhere in Japan, in the next fifty years.  I have no idea, since no one seems to want to report the details of his reasoning, whether he was right or just some lucky Chicken Little, so I predict a high probability that we will have a 3.0-or-greater earthquake in Minnesota, causing structural damage and moderate loss of life, because, um, I hate broccoli.  If it happens, I expect everyone to declare me a geological genius and an ignored prophet of doom — and please, when reporting my prediction and my pending sainthood, please omit the details of my reasoning.  They aren't relevant, you understand, because I was right!

So, having reported the fact that this engineer predicted as he did, the narrator intoned: Would you cross the street if you knew there was a one-in-ten chance you'd be run over?  Um, you mean a one-in-ten chance that I will be run over sometime in the next fifty years?  Yes I would.  And then I'd be careful, knowing that such statistics are averages of the consequences of prudent behavior with those of imprudent, damn-the-Freightliners behavior.  Duh.

Beside the Point

More from Reason Magazine on the irrelevance of Florida's ‘Stand Your Ground’ law to the Zimmerman-Martin case:

Even if Zimmerman started the fight (by pushing Martin, say), Florida law still allows him to argue that the response from Martin was such that he feared for his life and that he had no realistic opportunity to escape.  Sean Bugg sums up that possibility this way: ‘Did you start a fight and get your ass kicked?  Bang bang bang!  Problem solved.’  Not quite, because you have to reasonably fear ‘death or great bodily harm’, and you have to exhaust ‘every reasonable means of escape’ (or, alternatively, you can disengage from your opponent and make it clear you no longer want to fight, only to be attacked again).  That is the old ‘duty to retreat’ standard, and ‘stand your ground’ does not enter into it.

As it happens, Zimmerman told police that he had lost sight of Mr. Martin and thus returned to his vehicle, where he was attacked.  That would certainly qualify as ‘disengagement’ even if there had been a previous scuffle.  (Not that there's any evidence that there had been.)

Also in the news today was police video that clearly showed (when news producers permitted the relevant clip to be shown) Mr. Zimmerman with a large — 5" to 6" — gash on the back of his head.  Dan Riehl has more video, on which he notices what he thinks might be a bandage on Zimmerman's nose (he's probably referring to the 4m 20s point of the video).

However you might interpret Riehl's video (I interpret it as ‘too grainy’), it is clear that Zimmerman had a head injury that was consistent with eyewitness testimony and Zimmerman's claimed fear for his life, and would also seem to preclude an attempt to flee.  It doesn't, of course, answer the question of who was the aggressor.  In most states, getting your ass kicked as a result of your own damnfool aggression presents a sucks-to-be-you moment; starting the fight extinguishes your claim of self-defense no matter what happens after.  (So don't!)  Florida may be different, as noted by Reason, but only slightly.

Notes on the Death of Trayvon Martin

Much is being made of Florida's so-called ‘Stand Your Ground Law’ and its effect on the Sanford, Fla., police's ability to charge George Zimmerman with the shooting murder of young Trayvon Martin, but I think this is a red herring; whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was justified in firing his gun, as he says, in self-defense, his right to stand his ground rather than to flee as the first resort is irrelevant to his future as a free man. 

Recently in Minnesota, a man snatched a purse from a lady in the parking lot of the Cub Foods — a warehouse-style grocery store — at 26th and Lake Street in South Minneapolis.  (This is not the worst neighborhood in town, but it is not a place I like to visit at night.)  A ‘Good Samaritan’ pursued the snatcher into an alley at which point the snatcher pulled a knife and Mr. Samaritan pulled — and used — his legally-carried  firearm, to the fatal end of the snatcher.  Minnesota does not have a stand-your-ground law and in fact the burden of proof is on the person who claims self-defense, but the Hennepin County prosecutor, who is a left-leaning Democrat (this is Minnesota!), declined to prosecute.   What mattered was not the ‘Good Samaritan's’ decision to pursue even though he was armed, but the fact that he did not initiate the violence, either in the parking lot or in the alley.  Rather, he responded with deadly force only when suddenly confronted with an imminent and unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily injury to himself.  He had a duty to retreat had such been feasible, but in the event it wasn't.

Although Florida's stand-your-ground law could hypothetically strengthen Mr. Zimmerman's case, the pivotal legal questions are really, as in Minneapolis, whether he was the assailant or the victim and whether — here we go again — he reasonably felt that he was in imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily injury.  And here is where the case becomes interesting:

The protests come the day after an anonymous witness to Martin's death claimed that he [Martin] may have attacked Zimmerman before the shooting at a gated community in Florida.

The witness, known only as John, told Sanford police that he saw Martin on top of George Zimmerman shortly before the fatal shot that has led to a national outcry….

I had heard previously, from a news source I evaluated as reasonably reliable (I now wish I'd noted the source for the record), that Mr. Zimmerman was found on the ground, next to young Mr. Martin's body, bleeding from the head.  If this is true (and ‘John's’ testimony is certainly helpful here), then Mr. Zimmerman has a clear case for self-defense no matter any questions of ‘standing his ground’ or the burden of proof.  (Update 3/26/2012: News today strongly supports the police's decision not to arrest or charge Mr. Zimmerman.)  As the neighborhood watch guy, he certainly was within reason — the advice of a 911 operator notwithstanding — to look into the presence, in his gated neighborhood, of a hooded someone he didn't know.  If that person — Mr. Martin — then attacked him so violently that he — Mr. Zimmerman — had reasonable cause to fear for his life or even grave bodily injury, then even with the burden of proof on Mr. Zimmerman, he is in the clear.  (This assumes that Mr. Zimmerman did not wield his firearm before he was attacked.)  Bashing someone's head into the ground counts, legally and in reality, as deadly force and thus, if he can't escape, the bashee may respond with deadly force, even with a gun if necessary.  (And, from a non-technical standpoint, I'd much rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.  I'm sure the six would prefer this, too.)  The Stand Your Ground Law is beside the point.

But if Mr. Zimmerman doesn't show any signs of such an injury and Mr. Martin was otherwise unarmed, then Mr. Zimmerman is in a world of trouble even if the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.  On these facts, the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law is no help to Mr. Zimmerman.  Again, it is simply a red herring, a bauble to amuse journalists and other anti-gun activists.

(No I am not a lawyer.  My advice: Before you carry a gun in public, take a proper class including instruction on the laws in your state.  Trust me: Even if your state doesn't require it, you want to take that class.)

Statistical Nonsense

Maggie Gallagher at NRO butchers both orthography and statistics:

In spite of a less then impressive [sic] debate performance by Santorum and an avalanche of negative ads like these, new polls this morning taken after the CNN debate show it’s still a statistical tie: Romney up by three, within the margin of error.  The ad campaign is making some difference: Tea-party voters are now split.

Contrary to popular journalistic parlance and understanding, a poll that is ‘within the margin of error’ is not a ‘statistical tie’.  In truth, if the Confidence Interval for the poll is high (it's usually well over 90%) then the percentage-leader is almost certainly the actual leader.

Now you know.

Correcting the Record

A couple days ago, I posted about the phony ethics case against Newt Gingrich.  Thanks to the excellent work of Byron York, I see that I need to make an important correction: The House did reprimand and fine Gingrich based on the conclusions of a ‘special counsel’ hired by the House Ethics Committee; the special counsel concluded that Gingrich had ‘clearly violated tax laws’ because a course he taught in his home state, and for which he was paid, was ‘clearly political’ in nature.  (I'd also forgotten the role Bonior's buddy Cooter played in all this.) 

Hilariously, though (if you have a perverse sense of humor), the IRS investigated the matter and concluded that the course was clearly not political in nature and was also clearly not in violation of any tax laws.  Not only was the IRS report a complete vindication of former-Speaker Gingrich, but it was a very thorough indictment of the inexcusably shoddy work of the committee and their ‘special counsel’.  Newspapers buried the story of Gingrich's exoneration and broadcast TV news (e.g., Mr. Brokaw) spiked it completely.  No word of any apologies, nor of a refund of the fine Gingrich paid to the House.

No wonder Mr. Brokaw is ‘uncomfortable’; the facts of NBC's coverage of this case completely demolish Brokaw's pretense of journalistic integrity.

All of which raises the question again: What the hell is Romney thinking?  That Republican voters can't remember how utterly and irredeemably biased the press was on this case?  That voters won't notice that Gingrich was screwed (and not just by his prettier staff-babes), and hold Romney's naked dishonesty against him?  I would imagine that, if Romney doesn't pull that ad immediately and, by tomorrow (Sunday) morning announce that he's firing the campaign staff that came up with this shit, voters will hold it against him.  I certainly do.

God I hate these candidates!

Compromised

Mitt Romney is running an anti-Gingrich television ad in Florida, featuring a clip of Tom Brokaw from NBC's World News Tonight.  Brokaw is unhappy, but for all the wrong reasons:

NBC News and Tom Brokaw are loudly objecting to the Mitt Romney campaign's use of footage from the 1990s in an ad blasting Newt Gingrich over his House ethics charges.

Brokaw, whose statement noted he was speaking on his behalf, said, ‘I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad.  I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.’

He should be more concerned that the clip was (at best) taken out of context and is grossly misleading.  But, of course, that's the last thing on his mind.  What mystifies me, though, is how the Romney campaign could imagine that Republican voters will take seriously an anti-Newt news story from the late 1990s.  Hello?  Anyone home?

(I did laugh, though, over that bit about not wanting to be ‘compromised for political gain’.  Shit, we can't have that!)

Space Balls

From Agence France-Presse:

A large metallic ball fell out of the sky on a remote grassland in Namibia, prompting baffled authorities to contact NASA and the European space agency.

The hollow ball with a circumference of 1.1 metres (43 inches) was found near a village in the north of the country some 750 kilometres (480 miles) from the capital Windhoek, according to police forensics director Paul Ludik.  Locals had heard several small explosions a few days beforehand, he said.

With a diameter of 35 centimetres (14 inches), the ball has a rough surface and appears to consist of ‘two halves welded together’.

Really, this isn't much of a mystery, even without the picture.

That's a fuel tank from a rocket, pretty standard stuff going back at least to the Mercury days.  And clearly, if the locals are calling NASA and the ESA about it, someone has already debaffled this mystery.

God Damn It

Christopher Hitchens is dead.  Alas, only his words were immortal:

Christopher Hitchens — the incomparable critic, masterful rhetorician, fiery wit, and fearless bon vivant — died today at the age of 62.  Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in the spring of 2010, just after the publication of his memoir, Hitch-22, and began chemotherapy soon after.  His matchless prose has appeared in Vanity Fair since 1992, when he was named contributing editor.

Sigh.

Update: More here from Joy McCann, with links to others.  But her first comment is best:

This one is very, very hard; I’m trying to remember the last time I cried at the death of a public figure.

I'm not there, yet, nor am I able to say much now.  The pit in my stomach holds the floor.