THE MURDER OF TRAYVON MARTIN AND JUDGE DEBRA NELSON: ANOTHER CASE OF WHITE RACISM AND WHITE JUSTICE IN AMERICA; AND, WHY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MUST PROSECUTE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN FOR VIOLATING TRAYVON MARTIN'S CIVIL RIGHTS AND JOHANNES MEHSERLE FOR VIOLATING OSCAR GRANT'S CIVIL RIGHTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO PREVENT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S FURTHER NEGLECT OF BLACK MALES

Los Angeles, California



December 23, 2013
(Today's date)

August 26, 2013
(Original date)

*(Denotes change or new information added to original blog)

**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to blog after publishing of original blog)

***This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California, and it is especially dedicated to Christopher Dorner, the first leader of the WRD. It is also dedicated to Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant.

****This blog is also submitted in recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington, and to that extent is dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., A.Phillip Randolph, and all of the others that made that day in 1963 happen.

*****This blog will be published weekly until a decision is made by the Justice Department to prosecute or not prosecute George Zimmerman and/or Johannes Mehserle for violating the civil rights of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, respectively.

NOTE: It is my understanding, based on my viewing of a U.S. Senate hearing on Stand Your Ground Laws this past week, that Attorney General Eric Holder has decided not to prosecute George Zimmerman for murdering Trayvon Martin (and I assume that the decision also applies to Johannes Mehserle for the murder of Oscar Grant). Near the end of the hearing, Senator Lindsay Graham stated that Attorney General Holder had decided not to prosecute George Zimmerman. And, he asked a Black Harvard law professor (who was a member of a panel discussing the stand your ground laws) did he (the professor) believe that Holder's decision was the correct decision. The professor stated that he believed that it was the right decision. Of course, I disagree with him. But, if Senator Graham is correct, and I must believe that he is, then Holder has made the decision to not prosecute Zimmerman in cognito, which I believe is a cowardly way of doing it. I believe that there should have been a public announcement, through a press conference, so that the American people could hear it coming from Holder's mouth, with an explanation. If it was done publicly, and I missed it, then I would owe Holder an apology. So, if the decision was made public, I would appreciate someone identifying the time, date , and nature of the announcement in the comment section of this blog. I never heard it via television or newspaper.

NOTE #2: Since I have received no indication that Holder made a public announcement that he was not going to prosecute Zimmerman or Mehserle, I conclude that he didn't do so. Therefore, I maintain that it was a cowardly act for Holder not to announce publicly that he was not going to prosecute either Zimmerman or Mehserle.

In any event, relying on Sen. Graham's statement, I will discontinue publishing this blog weekly, since it appears that Holder has made a decision regarding the prosecution of George Zimmerman for violating Trayvon Martin's civil rights (and I assume that it applies to Johannes Mehserle as well), and the purpose of the weekly publication or re-publication, was to operate as a reminder until a decision was made.






After the not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin murder case, there was, as expected, various comments and opinions as to why the not guilty verdict was reached (as opposed to a guilty verdict of at least manslaughter). Of course, those who supported the not guilty verdict felt the system worked as it was supposed to, and the proper verdict was reached.

Those who opposed the verdict naturally felt that the system did not work properly, and therefore, the correct verdict was not reached (they felt, at minimum, that a manslaughter conviction should have been brought). For the opposition, there were various theories that abounded, and one of the most controversial was the so-called "stand your ground" law in Florida. Many people, and I believe most lay citizens (i.e., non-lawyers or other legal professionals) felt that it was the stand your ground law that caused and/or allowed the jury to find George Zimmerman not guilty. I'm not going into a detailed discussion of the stand your ground law here because I believe that it has been throughly discussed and most readers are aware of it by now. Generally, it is understood as allowing a person to use deadly force, without retreating, to protect himself when faced with serious, and usually, imminent, bodily harm. The opposition people taking the stand your ground position, believed that the law and the judge's jury instruction on the law, requiring the jury to rely on it, caused the not guilty verdict for Zimmerman. But I believe that most legal professionals, e.g., lawyers or legal commentators, in opposition to the not guilty verdict, centered on the prosecution or the prosecution team. There were those who simply came out and called the prosecution team incompetent or less than competent; and they pointed to the prosecution team perhaps "overcharging", that is, charging second degree murder when it should have charged manslaughter, or playing all of the various videotape and audio confessions of George Zimmerman (they claimed that if the prosecution had not played all of Zimmerman's statements, Zimmerman would have been required to testify himself in order to get the statements in).

However, neither the supporters nor the opposers raised an issue with the trial judge, Debra Nelson, with respect to the not guilty verdict. Of the discussions that I was privy to (through the airwaves), the closest that any commentator came to mentioning the judge's role in the outcome was a black female former prosecutor stating that the judge ruled the issue of race was "inadmissible", as if the ruling was just another court ruling with no significant implications. Maybe other commentators on other television stations that I wasn't watching raised the matter more in depth, but I didn't see or hear it. In any event, I think the judge's role and rulings were absolutely significant to the case and most especially, to Trayvon Martin receiving a fair trial, which he did not receive.

Further, in addition to judge Nelson's rulings, I believe that there were other aspects of the Zimmerman/Martin case that points to another case of white racism and white justice, which lead to the outcome of the case (a not guilty verdict for George Zimmerman). As a lawyer, I don't believe the stand your ground law was either the controlling factor nor an instrumental factor in the outcome of the case.

I believe the main factor in the outcome of the case was race. Before proceeding any further, as a matter of full disclosure, especially for any new readers of my blogs, I am African American or Black. Although I didn't arrive at my views on the case simply because I'm Black, it is likely that my experience as a Black man in America does in some way help form my views. However, I honestly believe my views are simply those of an American citizen who happens to be Black (with a black experience of course).


WHITE RACISM

First, I will begin my discussion by stating what should be the obvious : Black Americans and white (or Caucasian) Americans are different, both as a people, and especially as a culture. They, generally (though not always) see or view things differently. That's just the way it is. And, whenever a certain issue arises, especially if it involves race, where different views might produce different outcomes, the ultimate outcome will likely depend on the race of the viewer. This is what happened in the Zimmerman/Martin trial and outcome. The same black former prosecutor that I mentioned above gave a clear illustration of what I'm saying. She stated, in paraphrase, "If I would have presented this same case (Zimmerman case), in all relevant respects, to a (black) District of Columbia jury, I would have gotten a guilty verdict." I agree. And this reinforces my view that the main factor in the outcome of the case was race, not the particular facts or the law. Another example is the O.J. Simpson murder trial and civil trial. In the murder trial, with a majority black jury (and black view, which I also believe was a "fair" view as well), Simpson was found not guilty (with a white jury, and white view, and with the same facts and case, he would have been found guilty); in the civil trial, with a white jury(and white view), Simpson was found liable for a money judgment (while, with a black jury and black view, with the same facts and case, he would have been found not liable). So, this viewpoint provides the basis of my viewpoint and discussion about white racism and white justice, or race, determining the outcome of the Zimmerman trial.

Next, I'll proceed to show why white racism and white justice determined the outcome of the Zimmerman trial. The initial demonstration of white racism was perpetrated by judge Debra Nelson with her ruling that race or "racial" profiling could not be a part of the case. It wasn't necessarily invidious white racism, but rather, innate white racism. That is, "I'm white, my view of the Zimmerman/Martin case is that race was not a factor in the case, rather it was simply a death that occurred during a fight between Zimmerman and Martin; and because I'm white, I believe my view is the correct view, notwithstanding that there may be another and opposite view,i.e., that race was a factor; moreover, the defendant (who for this purpose, I(Nelson) view as white--notwithstanding the defendant's assertion that he is Hispanic) also agree with my view and has stated that allowing the issue of race into the case would prejudice him; I agree with the defendant; therefore, I will adopt and implement the white view (and judge Nelson's position as judge gave her the authority to carryout and/or implement the white view)". So, judge Nelson, who is white, implemented the white view, without any discussion or consideration of a different (or black) view. That was white racism.

Furthermore, if one considers the prior rulings of judge Nelson with respect to jury selection, there is serious question as to whether her "racial" ruling was invidious. That is, from my understanding and information, the prosecution attempted to use two peremptory strikes (i.e., can strike a juror for any or no reason) on two white female jurors (who were eventually seated on the jury), but, the judge overruled their strikes and seated the jurors anyway. On another occasion, the prosecution attempted to seat two African American jurors, but judge Nelson, this time, sustained the peremptory strikes of the defense, knowing that there were few African Americans in the jury pool and that there would be a greater chance that there would not be any African Americans on the jury. The prosecution did not appeal, so we will never know whether any of her rulings were valid or not (i.e., the prosecution didn't appeal the "racial" ruling either). If her rulings were invalid, that would point to invidious bias, and therefore, invidious white racism.

So, are you saying that judge Nelson should have automatically implemented the black view (i.e., that race was a factor in George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin and that racial profiling was a part of the race factor; and that Zimmerman wasn't just defending himself when he killed Trayvon, rather , he killed Trayvon, in part, because Trayvon was Black) instead? No. What I'm saying is that judge Nelson should have implemented the "fair view". And, what is the fair view? The fair view is the view based on the evidence and circumstances of the case available to the judge prior to the trial or expected to be produced at trial (even if the judge had to convene a special hearing just to receive evidence going to the issue of race and racial profiling prior to her ruling on the issue). But, if the prosecution had persistently argued (which it didn't--and I will address that, infra) that "racial profiling" was their theory of the case for charging and supporting the second degree murder charge, the judge would have had to allow a "racial profiling" argument (or racial profiling as a concept), or, at minimum, she would have had to convene a special hearing prior to a ruling--she could not have denied the use of the term on the spot. Perhaps the white view would have ultimately prevailed after the "fair view", but, we'll never know because there wasn't a "fair view" (only a "white view", by a white judge). And, again, that was white racism.

In my view, the issue of racial profiling was, or should have been, the most significant aspect of the second degree murder charge, but, because of blunders by the prosecution, it did not prove to be as significant as it should have been. And, ultimately, it didn't prove to be a part of the case at all, which is why, in large part, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin.


WHITE JUSTICE

The Zimmerman/Martin case was also another case of white justice in America, and this white justice also contributed to the not guilty verdict for Zimmerman.

Why was it white justice in the case? It was white justice because all the major players and mechanisms leading to the not guilty verdict were white, and as I pointed out above, white people and black people, generally, view things (especially things involving race) differently. In discussing some of the entities involved in the Zimmerman trial and verdict below, I will hopefully clarify some of the differences between white justice and fair justice.

The Trial Judge

The trial judge, Debra Nelson, was white. Therefore, and ordinarily, unless she is a "special" (here, special means fair) judge, she will adhere to a white view of things, *even if another view would have been the proper view. NOTE: In my opinion, based on my experience and observations as a lawyer (with over 25 years of experience), the vast majority of judges, state and federal, are unfair, based on either bias, prejudice, or racism. Therefore, those few judges who are fair, and there are some, must be deemed "special". Fair judges are rare.

Based on the various rulings(e.g., the jury selection rulings) of judge Nelson that I am aware of, including and especially her ruling regarding the use of the term "racial profiling" (ruling that the term could not be used during the trial), I believe that she was not a "special" judge, and that she adhered to a white view of things. Thus, she was a part of and contributed to the white justice in the trial.


The Jury

The jury ended up being majority white, or all white, except for one Puerto Rican woman.
Thus, the jury presented a white view of things (and an interview of one white juror seemed to substantiate that). A black jury would have presented a black view of things, and it's probable that Zimmerman would have been convicted of murder.


The Defense

The defense's lead legal team was white. They, necessarily (in defense of their client), presented a white view of things. And, this was made clear by the defense objecting to the use of the word or term "racial" profiling (and the judge sustaining
that objection by keeping the word "racial" out of the trial (even to the extent that the prosecution argued that the case was not about race--when, in fact, it was all about race).


The Prosecution

The prosecution team was white. And, unfortunately for Trayvon Martin, the prosecution's team presented a white view of things. Here, I will go a little more indepth about how that view was presented or how things would have been handled differently if the prosecution had presented a black view.

First, at jury selection. From my understanding, the prosecution tried to strike two white female jurors, but, the judge denied the strikes, and ordered that the two jurors be reseated. On another occasion, the prosecution tried to seat two black female jurors, but they were stricken, and judge Nelson sustained the strikes. A black view would have called for the prosecution to appeal both rulings. But, the prosecution did not appeal. These rulings were important enough in a criminal trial, which could and did end in an acquittal, to seek an interlocutory appeal immediately. Other things, such as the court's denial of voice experts, might not be appealed; but, the Batson matters were important enough to seek an appeal, particularly regarding the striking of the black jurors by the defense.
NOTE : I am relying on secondhand facts regarding the jury issues; so if my facts are incorrect, then my argument would be misplaced.
The prosecution, ultimately, adopted a white view (even if that wasn't its intention) and chose to accept the judge's rulings, which resulted in no blacks on the jury.

Second, the prosecution's main argument for second degree murder. The white view would be to present an ordinary second degree murder argument. That is, murder with a depraved mind, with a showing that Zimmerman killed Trayvon "by an act evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life" (in this case, the prosecution relied on the concept of Trayvon being profiled as a "criminal", after judge Nelson would not allow profiling by race). On the other hand, the black view would have been to present the second degree murder charge as strictly a racial profiling case, relying on the facts that Trayvon was Black and that there had been previous robberies in the housing complex by Black or African American males. The white prosecution team chose to present a white view, after being dissuaded by judge Nelson with her ruling. However, if the prosecution team had really intended to pursue the racial profiling concept, and was determined to do so, it would not have been dissuaded so easily. And, necessarily, it would have appealed judge Nelson's ruling. So, initially, and likely because of Trayvon's parents, the prosecution started out presenting the racial profiling argument, but was easily persuaded to move to another concept with the judge's ruling, and likely felt more comfortable or "at home" with the non-racial argument. Therefore, the prosecution ended up presenting a white view of second degree murder.

Third, use of race or the term "racial" profiling during the trial. Judge Nelson ruled that the prosecution could not use the term "racial profiling" during the trial. She apparently accepted the defense argument that use of the term would prejudice the jury against Zimmerman. A white view would accept the judge's ruling and move on. A black view would have required the prosecution to immediately appeal the ruling so that the term could be used and/or presented to the jury. The white prosecutors did not appeal. So, as to race being a factor in the case, or relying on the term racial profiling, the white view was presented to the jury, i.e., race was not a factor in the case.

Finally, closing argument. The white prosecution team specifically argued to the jury that the case was not about race. This was the white view. The black view would have argued that the case was all about race, and racial profiling.


Consequently, and in totality, Trayvon Martin, as the Black male victim, received total white justice from the Florida judicial system, and it is that white justice, in part, and in combination with other factors, that resulted in a not guilty verdict for George Zimmerman and an unfair trial for Trayvon Martin. But, don't most defendants and victims in criminal trials in Florida and elsewhere (and civil trials for that matter) receive white justice? Probably. But that doesn't make it right(and clearly, its not right--it's just another aspect of white racism), and there are ways of fixing the "problem", to avoid white justice for Black (and other minority) victims. But, a discussion of that matter must await another day.

But, in a nutshell, the solution to white justice is: Diverse Justice.

Next, why the Justice Department must prosecute George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle for civil rights violations.

Briefly, the Oscar Grant case involved the murder of the Black male Oscar Grant by a white male BART police officer, Johannes Mehserle, at a subway train station in Oakland, CA. The unarmed Grant was shot in the back by Mehserle while being held down by other police officers. The entire scenario was precipitated by a report of a commotion on the underground subway and a subsequent investigation of that commotion by BART Police. Oscar Grant was with some other friends, and they all were out to celebrate New Year's Eve and New Years Day. When the BART Police reported to the subway scene, they began questioning Grant and his friends; and the questioning evolved into physical interaction or confrontation between the BART police and Oscar and his friends, which resulted in Oscar being subdued by the police, and subsequently being shot in the back by Mehserle. Although the murder took place in Oakland, the case was tried in Los Angeles.


THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MUST PROSECUTE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN AND JOHANNES MEHSERLE FOR VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF TRAYVON MARTIN AND OSCAR GRANT, RESPECTIVELY, FOR FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS AND FAIRNESS REASONS, NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE ZIMMERMAN AND MEHSERLE WERE NOT CONVICTED OF MURDER IN STATE COURT.

The murder trials of George Zimmerman and Johannes Mehserle for the killing of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, respectively, were nearly identical in two significant respects, that is, in both trials, the murder victims were Black males, and in both trials, the Black male victims received unfair white justice (there can be "fair" white justice--but, in the Trayvon Martin/Oscar Grant cases, the white justice was unfair, which is usually the case--"fair" white justice would be the exception; the optimum type of justice would not be white justice or black justice, but "fair" justice).

Here are the similarities of white justice that Trayvon and Oscar received :

1. The trial judges. They (Trayvon and Oscar) both had white judges presiding over their cases and in both cases, the white trial judges exercised and implemented a white view of things (as opposed to a fair view). In Trayvon's case, among other rulings, the judge would not allow the use of race or racial profiling in the case. In Oscar's case, among other rulings, the judge, Robert Perry, overrode a jury determination that the shooting of Oscar occurred with the use of a firearm and that the shooting was not accidental, which resulted in a lesser or lighter sentence for Mehserle. Perry also issued a de facto judgment of acquittal of Mehserle, although the majority white jury had at least found Mehserle guilty of manslaughter, thereby providing Mehserle with double jeopardy protection.

2. The juries. They (Trayvon and Oscar) both had majority white juries (which adhered to white views), with the exception of one non-white juror; in Trayvon's case, the non-white was Puerto Rican, in Oscar's case, the juror was African American. The jury in both cases, as alluded to, implemented a white view of things. The Trayvon jury found that Zimmerman killed Trayvon in self defense(the black view was that Zimmerman killed Trayvon primarily because he was black). The Oscar jury apparently found that Mehserle did not intentionally kill Oscar. The black view was that he did. In both cases, the white or non-black defendant was not convicted of murder by the majority white jury.

3. The defense. The defense in both cases (Trayvon's and Oscar's), as expected, implemented a white view of things, i.e., self defense in Trayvon's case and unintentional killing in Oscar's case.

4. The prosecution team. The prosecution team in both cases was white, and they both started out presenting a black view of things, which was desired by the black male victims' families (and would in all probability have been desired by the black male victims themselves), and ended up presenting a white view by failing or refusing to appeal a trial judge's pertinent ruling which affected the outcome of the case. In Trayvon's case, the prosecution began by presenting a racial profiling case, but the judge ruled that they could not use the term "racial" profiling (although they could use other types of profiling, e.g., criminal). The prosecution team refused to appeal the ruling, so the black view of the case was not argued or presented to the jury. In Oscar's case, the prosecution began by presenting an intentional killing case (the black view), but, after the manslaughter verdict, and after the trial judge dismissed a gun allegation enhancement found by the jury (which would have given Mehserle a longer sentence) and purportedly granted Mehserle a new trial, which actually resulted in an acquittal, the prosecution team, like the one in Trayvon's case, refused to appeal the judge's decision (when it could have). So, the white prosecution team in Oscar's case, like the one in Trayvon's case, ended up presenting a white view of the case.

A black view of both cases would have required the prosecution to appeal in both cases.

5. The outcome of the case. In both cases, as a result of white justice, rather than fair justice, the respective defendants were not convicted of murder, and acquitted (in Oscar Grant's case, the acquittal was actual, but not in name). With a black view, including a black jury, both defendants would have been convicted of second degree murder.

I believe that with a "fair view", the defendants would have been convicted of second degree murder as well. Because I believe that based on the evidence, facts, circumstances, and proper required law of both cases, e.g., "racial profiling", the black view would have been the fair view.



THE REASONS WHY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MUST PROSECUTE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN AND JOHANNES MEHSERLE FOR VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF TRAYVON MARTIN AND OSCAR GRANT, RESPECTIVELY.

The main reason why the Justice Department must prosecute both Zimmerman and Mehserle is because without respecting and protecting the civil rights (i.e., the rights to life and liberty) of both Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, as Black male victims, the Justice Department will allow Zimmerman and Mehserle to get away with murdering two Black males on the basis of their race, in violation of U.S. statutory and Constitutional law. But, there are more fundamental reasons as well. I will explain.


TRAYVON MARTIN

1. Main reason

The main reason the Justice Department must prosecute George Zimmerman is because George Zimmerman was not tried and acquitted of killing a Black man; rather, he was tried and acquitted of killing a white man, in violation of Trayvon Martin's civil and constitutional rights. I believe it would have been Trayvon Martin's position, had he lived, and it certainly was Trayvon's parents' position that Trayvon was killed by George Zimmerman because he was a black man, and a black man who was racially profiled. And, Trayvon and his parents had a legal and constitutional right to present and argue this position and concept throughout the trial. And, more importantly, they had a right to have Zimmerman tried for killing a Black man, not just any man (or a white man), but, a Black man (because he was black). *But, they could only exercise those rights through the prosecution team. Their rights were the prosecution's rights, on behalf of Trayvon Martin.

However, because judge Debra Nelson ruled that "racial" profiling could not be presented or argued to the jury (and,in essence, ruled that "race" could not be raised as an issue in the trial), she effectively precluded the prosecution from prosecuting and/or trying George Zimmerman for killing a Black man. Instead, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty of killing a white or non-black (or person of color) man, which contributed to George Zimmerman being found not guilty of murder.

It seems clear now, with the interview of the single non-white (Puerto Rican) juror, that if judge Nelson had allowed use of the term "racial profiling" or allowed race to be raised as an issue in the case, that the Puerto Rican juror would most probably, at minimum, hung the jury. At most, or maximum, she would have persuaded the white jurors to convict Zimmerman of second degree murder, since all jurors would have had to be instructed that race could be considered as a factor. Allowing "racial profiling" or "race" as a factor would have changed the entire dynamics of the trial. And, George Zimmerman probably would have been convicted of murder, even with the white jury, i.e., because of jury instructions and the evidence of race being a factor in the killing, see infra.

Therefore, the main reason why the Justice Department must prosecute George Zimmerman is to have George Zimmerman undergo a trial for the killing of a Black man (for whom there are specific civil rights laws geared to, regarding the protection of rights), not just any man, which George Zimmerman did not undergo in state court (as he should have).

2. Judge Nelson's ruling keeping "racial profiling" and, in essence, race, out of the Zimmerman trial was the most profound and/or significant ruling of the entire case. It also was the most devastating ruling of the entire case. Once Nelson made that ruling, Trayvon Martin's right to a fair trial, and his case, was doomed thereafter. Clearly, there was sufficient evidence of race for race to be raised as a factor in the Zimmerman case. Of the little evidence that I am aware of, there was clearly "sufficient" evidence of race in order for race to be a factor in the case and at the trial. That is, there was recent evidence, prior to the Zimmerman-Martin encounter, that several African American men had robbed or attempted to rob a white resident of the housing complex where the Martin killing took place (and Zimmerman was aware of this because he investigated the matter, from my understanding); that it is likely these particular African American men were part of "these guys" that Zimmerman referred to who caused problems around the complex and that he was on the look out for; and that Trayvon Martin was African American or Black, and that he was a part of "these guys" that Zimmerman was looking out for when he confronted Martin.

So, this ruling alone is enough for the Justice Department to justify trying George Zimmerman for violating Trayvon's civil rights, because this ruling, in a significant way, contributed to the violation of Trayvon's civil rights.

3. The requirements of the hate crime statutes have been clearly met for prosecuting George Zimmerman.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 249, in part, "Whoever, whether or not acting under the color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of. . . a firearm. . . attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color. . . of any person--(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--(i) death results from the offense."

First, it matters not that Zimmerman was not a police officer, because he was not required to be acting "under the color of law" in killing Trayvon Martin for the hate crime statute to apply (i.e., "whether or not" acting under color of law). Second, Zimmerman admitted, through his various statements, that he "willfully caused the death (i.e., bodily injury) of Trayvon Martin, but, he claimed, at trial, that he did so in self defense. Third, Zimmerman admitted, again through his various statements, that he used "a firearm" to kill Trayvon (again, he simply asserts it was in self defense). Fourth, Trayvon was Black or African American and his color was dark brown or black; Zimmerman admitted that he knew Trayvon was black (after being asked about the color of the person when questioned by the police); as alluded to above, there had been a recent robbery in the housing complex where the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation took place that had been perpetrated by African American men, and Zimmerman was aware of the robbery (because he investigated the incident); Zimmerman stated during an interview that "these guys" are always committing crimes and getting away (paraphase); and it can be concluded that the "these guys" reference referred to or included the recent African American robbers; and, last, a connection can be drawn that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon as one of "these guys". "(T)he person who is the potential defendant, or is the defendant, has to have acted because of the victim's identity or inclusion in one of the protected groups." Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, "The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009", p. 10, June 25, 2009.

This is sufficient to satisfy the hate crime statute, and for the Justice Department to prosecute George Zimmerman for violating the hate crime statute in killing Trayvon Martin.


4. The facts of the case meets the Certification Requirement. "The verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence." As stated above, George Zimmerman was not tried for killing a black man in the Florida state court. Therefore, the Federal interest in "eradicating bias-motivated violence" necessarily could not have been vindicated, because the issue of bias-motivated violence was never put on trial in the Zimmerman murder trial due to judge Nelson's ruling precluding the issue of race from being raised. George Zimmerman was not tried, as he should have been, for "bias-motivated violence" because judge Nelson precluded the issue of race violence from being a part of the case, or from being prosecuted. So, the Federal government must do what she refused to allow state prosecutors to do, which, in turn, would vindicate "the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence. "So. . . if there is a State that refuses to prosecute, that ignores the element of hate in the commission of a felony, the Federal Government can stand up and say, we're going to prosecute. I think the time is long past for this." Senator Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, "The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, p. 9, June 25, 2009. "(F)or those cases that pose particular problems or expose an inability or unwillingness for the States to prosecute them, we think that there is the demonstrated need for the Federal Government to become involved." Attorney General Eric Holder, Id. at pgs. 5-6. "(W)hat we're looking for here is Federal jurisdiction that would come into play if there was a demontrated need, if the States. . . did not have the willingness, the desire to prosecute these kinds of cases." Id. at p. 5. The State of Florida, through judge Nelson and the prosecution (through its refusal to appeal Nelson's racial ruling, i.e.,keeping race out of the trial), did not have the willingness nor the desire to prosecute Zimmerman for biased-motivated violence. So, the Federal government must do so. "(T)here are instances where there is the need for the Federal Government to come in where a State or local locality, for whatever reason, has decided not to pursue a case where I think it is clearly appropriate. . . ." Id. at 7.

Further, "a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice." The substantial justice that the Federal government would hope to achieve for Trayvon Martin is: (1) a fair venue; regardless of where the crime actually took place, the case should be tried in the venue that most assures the defendant and the victim of a jury of his peers and/or a fair cross-section of the community ;(2) a fair jury; a jury of Zimmerman's and Trayvon's peers (Zimmerman received a jury of his peers; Trayvon was prevented from receiving a jury of his), or a fair cross-section of the community (even if it requires a different "community" in order to provide that "fair" cross-section); (3) a fair judge; one that will implement a "fair view" of the trial, and not a white view or black view, unless the facts and circumstances call for such. One that will not express bias or prejudice for either party, the defendant or the victim, but will make fair rulings evolving from the facts, evidence and law; (4) a fair prosecution team; one that will appeal a judge's decision when it is called for and necessary in order to provide the victim with a fair trial; one that will defend a Black male victim's rights as zealously as it would a white victim's or other non-white victim's rights; and, finally (5) a fair verdict and sentence; one that represents the results of a young Black male teenager under 18 years of age, unarmed, minding his own business, not committing a crime, and on his way home from purchasing junk foods, being shot and killed by a white Hispanic male who was profiling and on the lookout for "these guys" (i.e., African American males, the same kind that had robbed or attempted to rob a white resident's home located in the same housing complex prior to the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation) who have committed crimes and gotten away.


OSCAR GRANT


1. The main reason

The main reason the Justice Department must prosecute Johannes Mehserle is that Mehserle truly will get away with manslaughter and murder otherwise. Because the trial judge, Robert Perry, unlawfully and unconstitutionally usurped the domain of the jury and issued a de facto judgment of acquittal for Mehserle, after a majority white jury had at least found him (Mehserle) guilty of manslaughter and using a firearm in commission of a felony for the killing of Oscar Grant, the Justice Department must prosecute and try Mehserle before another jury and obtain an actual jury verdict, rather than a bench decision, for the killing of Oscar and the violation of Oscar's civil rights through the killing. Oscar was deprived of a basic or fundamental right to a jury verdict on all factual issues, including the firearm charge and the manslaughter charge. Furthermore, if the Justice Department does not prosecute Mehserle for the civil rights violations, Mehserle truly would have gotten away with manslaughter and murder, after shooting (and killing) a defenseless and unarmed man in the back. See my blog entitled, "The murder of Oscar Grant and judge Robert Perry. . . ", for a more thorough discussion of judge Perry's actions and the ensuing results.

2. The Justice Department, in prosecuting Mehserle for violating Grant's civil rights, can prosecute Mehserle in the rightful and fair venue, Alameda County or Oakland, CA (where the case should have been tried in the first place). Mehserle, through counsel, succeeded in having the case transferred to Los Angeles for trial. The trial should have been tried in Oakland or Alameda County. There probably would have been a better chance of obtaining a fair and diverse jury in Oakland than in Los Angeles; and, as far as prejudice from publicity, if O.J. Simpson was tried in Los Angeles (where the killings occurred), then clearly, Mehserle could have been tried in Oakland (and O.J. was much more well known than Mehserle). I believe the transfer of the case to Los Angeles was part of that white justice referred to above(i.e., the white view would be to transfer the case out of Alameda County--Oakland, while the black view would be to keep the trial in Alameda County (with greater prospects of Black jurors on the jury). The judge transferring the case implemented the white view).

3. Oscar Grant's case met the requirements for the violation of two civil rights statutes, 18 U.S.C. sec. 242 and 18 U.S.C. sec. 249, by Mehserle. Therefore, Grant's case presents an even greater case for prosecuting Mehserle than Martin's case against Zimmerman, because Grant's case is supported by two statutes, which reinforces the principle that the Justice Department cannot prosecute Zimmerman in the Martin case without prosecuting Mehserle in Grant's case.

Pursuant to Section 242, in part, "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State. . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. . . on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race. . . ; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use. . .of a dangerous weapon,. . . shall be fined. .. or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section. . . shall be fined. . . or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Mehserle, in killing the Black Oscar Grant, meets the requirements for violating Section 242. First, as a BART police officer, he acted "under the color of law", at minimum, BART law. Second, Mehserle "willfully" deprived Grant of his 14th Amendment right to life and liberty, without due process of law, by intentionally firing the shot into the back of Grant (and the jury found that the use of the firearm in the killing was not accidental). That is, Mehserle shot Grant in the back, while Grant was unarmed and being held down, and killed him, without Grant having had an opportunity to prove whether or not he had committed any crimes or offenses. And, death resulted, which subjects Mehserle to "any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death". So, clearly Mehserle's actions satisfied the requirements for a probable cause arrest and prosecution of Mehserle for violating Section 242 in connection with Grant's death.

As for section 249, I have already set forth the requirements above, so I will not repeat them here. I will simply state how the requirements were satisfied.

First, Mehserle acted "under color of law" in killing Grant (although it's not necessary that he so acted in order to violate Section 249). Second, Mehserle willfully caused Grant's death by intentionally firing the shot into Grant's back when there was no need to do so. Third, Mehserle used a firearm to shoot the bullet into the back of Grant. Fourth, Mehserle was aware of Grant's race or color, that is, that Grant was Black, because he visually saw Grant who was with other African American males and he heard Grant speak (with a distinctive Black voice). Moreover, there was racial language, i.e., "nigger", being used by other police officers as they were attempting to secure Grant on the ground. So, Mehserle, who is white, shot Grant, at least in part, because Grant was Black by race, or in color. "It seems to me that to protect groups of people who are the objects, the subjects of violence simply because of who they are, simply because of the color of their skin, simply because of their ethnicity, simply because of their sexual orientation, their gender, their disability, those kinds of crimes are worthy of consideration, examination by the Federal Government. We should have an ability to become involved in those cases." Id. at 20.

Consequently, Mehserle, in killing Grant, met the requirements for violating both Sections 242 and 249.

4. Oscar Grant's case met the requirements for Certification. "The verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence". For the shooting of an unarmed Black man in the back, while the man was being held down by other officers, Mehserle served several months in jail and received a de facto (and de jure) acquittal (it was simply not called or named an "acquittal") by the trial judge, who usurped the authority and decision of a jury. Mehserle, with the assistance of the trial judge, literally, got away with murder (i.e., the de facto acquittal). Further,"a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice." Clearly, the Justice Department must prosecute Mehserle, in the public's interest in confidence in the judicial system (i.e., the State's system has failed, so the federal one must succeed); and a federal prosecution is absolutely necessary to achieve substantial justice and a fair trial and verdict for Oscar Grant (and, yes, he has a right to a fair trial also). Moreover, "When a person has been victimized by a hate crime, it's not only the victim who suffers. The entire community is diminished." Attorney General Holder, Id. at 17.

Part of the substantial justice that the Federal government would hope to achieve for the deceased Oscar Grant would be : (1) a fair venue, i.e., Alameda County, CA.; (2) a fair jury, i.e., a jury of both Mehserle's and Oscar's peers (Mehserle had a jury of his peers at the murder trial)(while the Constitution does not specifically grant a victim a right to a jury of his peers, the right to a due process fair trial should), or a fair cross-section of the community of Alameda County; (3) a fair judge, e.g., one that does not usurp the domain of the jury or illegally issue a de facto judgment of acquittal after a jury has found a white defendant of at least manslaughter for the murder of a black man; (4) a fair prosecution team; one that zealously represents Oscar's interest, that is, when an appeal of a judge's decision is called for, the prosecution team appeals the decision. Furthermore, when a fair strategic decision is called for, that decision is made, e.g., there is sufficient evidence in the Grant case for the prosecutors to have charged a hate crime--but, they didn't; and (5)a fair verdict and sentence for the unlawful and unnecessary killing of a Black man, e.g., 11 months of jail confinement certainly is neither fair nor sufficient.


CONCLUSION

In the decades prior to the 1960's, Black boys and men were murdered by white men (and likely some women), through beatings, lynchings, shootings, etc., without much concern about punishment, because there were little or no enforcement of the available criminal laws when acts were perpetrated against Blacks (men or women, i.e., for rapes, etc.) by whites (who controlled enforcement of the available criminal laws). Consequently, and in fact, most white people who murdered Black people back in the day were neither tried nor convicted for the murders. So, to whites of that earlier era, the lives of Black people were meaningless or valueless, except when those Black lives brought value to whites, i.e., as slaves, and later as house or business workers, i.e., butlers, maids, houskeepers, handymen, etc., during the post-slavery period.

But now, we are supposedly in a new time or era, with a Black President and a Black Attorney General, and with new civil rights and criminal laws, purportedly to protect and give meaning to the lives of Black people and others. Yet, with the murders of the Black Oscar Grant and Trayvon Martin by white men (and for the purpose of this explanation, I will consider the white Hispanic George Zimmerman to be white--I believe for the purpose of the race issue at his trial, he was considered white), we appear to have returned to that period of time when Black lives (taken by white men through murder) were meaningless or valueless. And, it appears that the only way the United States, as a Government or a country, can prove to Black Americans, specifically, and to Americans, in general, and the world, that we have not returned to a period of time in our history where Black peoples' lives were meaningless, is to do what was not done in the earlier era : Prosecute and convict (at least prosecute--but conviction should follow with fair proceedings--because these two Black men, one a minor, were murdered) white men for the murder of black males.

The Obama Justice Department now has an opportunity to demonstrate that our Black leadership has some meaning. *The President and Attorney General made important and meaningful comments or statements in reference to Trayvon Martin's murder. But now, its time to take action. As is always the case, "action speaks louder than words." That it will in fact do for Black males today what the white administration of yesteryear refused to do back then, that is, prosecute white men for murdering Black males; as we (Black people) believed that, at least in part, the refusal to prosecute white men for the murders was because the administration was white (and didn't care about the lives of Black people). So, now we have a Black Administration, and we (Black people) expect this adminstration, because it is black, to care (about the lives of Black males).

And, if this Black Administration does care, then it must do the right thing. And, the right thing is to prosecute George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin and Johannes Mehserle for the murder of Oscar Grant. I believe that the facts, law, and evidence support a Federal prosecution of Zimmerman and Mehserle. And, I have tried to depict that here.

The Justice Department must prosecute Zimmerman and Mehserle to demonstrate to the American people, and most especially to Black people, that the civil rights movement is not going backwards (to the days when white men had carte blanche to murder black men without punishment), rather than forward (when white men are punished for doing so).

The Justice Department must prosecute Zimmerman and Mehserle to demonstrate to the American people that in the area of civil rights, we are progressing (towards "diverse justice"), rather than regressing (towards "all white" justice).


*FINAL CONCLUSION

*The only way the Justice Department can morally or legally refuse to prosecute Zimmerman and Mehserle for the murders of Martin and Grant, respectively, is for it to find that the lives of Martin and Grant, as Black males, are worthless.


THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD DESIGNATE A DATE CERTAIN FOR MAKING A DECISION AS TO PROSECUTION OR NON-PROSECUTION OF ZIMMERMAN AND MEHSERLE : THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE HISTORIC MARCH ON WASHINGTON RECOGNITION ON AUGUST 28, 2013, I.E., THE "LET FREEDOM RING" CEREMONY WOULD BE A GOOD TIME AND OPPORTUNITY WITH WHICH TO DESIGNATE THE DATE.

President Barack Obama and/or Attorney General Eric Holder should inform the American people of a date certain when the Justice Department will make a decision whether to prosecute Zimmerman or Mehserle or not. I believe the Obama Administration has a duty to the American people, and especially to the families of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, to at least make a decision immediately. As a lawyer, I believe that there has been sufficent time within which to decide whether it will prosecute Zimmerman and Mehserle or not, *including time for investigation. *Otherwise, out of sight will mean out of mind, and the the matter deserves immediate attention.

Personally, I believe that President Obama or Attorney General Holder should announce their final decision, i.e., whether they are going to prosecute Zimmerman and Mehserle or not, on Wednesday, August 28, 2013, at the "Let Freedon Ring" ceremony. It would be altogether fitting and proper to announce the decision on this special day as a means of demonstrating to the American people that indeed the civil rights movement is progressing and that the prosecution of Zimmerman and Mehserle is some proof of that. And, it would give special meaning to the 50th Anniversary celebration.


cc: President Barack Obama
Attorney General Eric Holder
Ben Jealous and the NAACP
Benjamin Crump and the Parents of Trayvon Martin
Cephus Johnson (for Oscar Grant)
Los Angeles (CA) City Council *(in support of its Resolution on behalf of Trayvon)
Carson (CA) City Council *(in support of its Resolution on behalf of Trayvon)


UPDATE--September 11, 2013

Obviously, August 28th has come and gone, and there's been no decision from the Justice Department as to whether they are going to bring prosecutions or not against George Zimmerman or Johannes Mehserle. But, at least that much is owed to the Martin and Grant families, as well as the American people, by the Justice Department. It should provide a date certain to provide a decision, or simply provide a date to make a decision or provide a decision.

Otherwise, it will appear that the Justice Department is waiting for "out of sight, out of mind" and for things to die down, so that anticipation of a decision will fade away; and the decision itself will fade away, which will result in no prosecution of Zimmerman and Mehserle. I hope the civil rights community, as well as the respective parents and/or families will recognize this and take the appropriate action to keep the matter alive.

I intend to publish this blog every week until a decision is made by the Justice Department to prosecute or not prosecute Zimmerman and Mehserle for the murders of Trayvon Martin and Oscar Grant, respectively.


UPDATE--November 4, 2013

As I pointed out in the introductory passage at the beginning of this blog, it is my understanding that Attorney General holder has made a decision not to prosecute George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin, or on the federal ground of violating Trayvon Martin's civil rights; therefore, I will discontinue re-publishing the blog on a weekly basis.

Senator Lindsay Graham, during a U.S. Senate hearing on stand your ground laws, stated that Holder had decided to not prosecute George Zimmerman for violating Trayvon Martin civil rights. He thereafter posed a question to a Black law professor from Harvard (who was an invited member of one of the hearing panels) whether he agreed with Holder's position. * More specifically, Sen. Graham asked : "Do you agree with Attorney General's Holder's decision not to pursue a federal civil rights case in the Trayvon Martin('s case)?" The professor stated that he did and went on to offer his rationale as to why he did. He generally stated that there was a heavy burden required to prosecute and prevail in "these" type of cases and that he didn't believe that the burden had been met. Further, he stated that a more practical reason for not prosecuting Zimmerman was that the federal government should be careful in exercising its discretion to upset a state court judgment or determination. * More specifically, the professor stated : "I do based on the standard that needs to be satisfied in order to move forward with a case like that. The federal government would have to demonstrate that at the momentof the violent encounter Mr. Zimmerman behaved as he did as a function of racial animus and I'm not sure that. . .there is sufficient evidence there for the federal government to go forward. So, I typically agree with that decision on that basis and also on a more prudential basis, that the federal government should be cautious in exercise(ing) discretion in going in and upsetting a state verdict."

*However, the professor not only contradicted himself through an earlier statement, but through that same statement, he provided the minimum but sufficient basis necessary for going forward with a federal civil rights prosecution of George Zimmerman. That is, the professor had stated earlier, "And all because I strongly suspect that Mr. Zimmerman could not apprehend any lawful reason for a young black male to be walking through his middle class neighborhood. To Mr. Zimmerman, Martin's blackness likely served as a crude proxy for criminality. This unfortunate outcome sends a two-fold message. First, it tells Floridians that they can incorrectly profile young black children, kill them and be protected by stand your ground laws. But, second, this decision sends an even more ominus message to young black children. So, I consider myself fortunate to live in a jurisdiction that does not have stand your ground laws." * This statement by the professor is the true basis, I believe, for George Zimmerman confronting and subsequently killing Trayvon Martin. And, it is the essence of racial profiling, and indeed, the professor even called it racial profiling himself, i.e., "it tells Floridians that they can incorrectly profile young black children, kill them and be protected by stand your ground laws."

*So, the factual scanario supporting a conclusion and charge of racial profiling, as stated by the professor was sufficient to bring a federal civil rights proscution against George Zimmerman, and the Justice Department should have brought it. It was inexcusable for it not to.

As I indicated above, I disagree with the professor, and I, as an experienced criminal and civil rights lawyer, believe there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Zimmerman for violating Trayvon's civil rights and to prevail at trial, beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, I believe that it was an abuse of discretion for Holder not to prosecute Zimmerman.

Although this was a Black professor responding at the hearing, his position was likely the same as that of the white majority in this country. The professor didn't go into detail about what the burden was and why it wasn't met, so I won't go into detail either. But, I'm neither impressed nor persuaded by the professor's opinion. And, as stated, I totally disagree with it. Moreover, because he was the only black lawyer and/or person responding to the question, which presented only one black legal view to a large public and national audience, the professor's comments smells like government propaganda. To me, Holder's decision not to prosecute Zimmerman or Mehserle is inexcusable, and only serves to set the civil rights of black people back; not to mention the disservice it does to all of the people, black, white, and other, including and especially children, who gave their lives for the advancement of civil rights and the suppression of the days of unfettered lynchings, rapings, bombings, and other forms of human disrespect perpetuated against Black people.

It now becomes clear why so many white people voted for Obama for a first and second term. Because they knew, in the area of Black civil rights, nothing would change. *Black voters were hopeful that change would occur. It hasn't. *It is doubtful the same white people who voted for Obama would have voted for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for President, because they would have known that with Dr. King, in the area of Black civil rights, things would have changed. To wit: they didn't vote for Jessie Jackson or Al Sharton, when either of them ran for President.


**UPDATE--December 23, 2013

There has been new infomation added above to the last Update, at the * designation.

CHRISTOPHER DORNER'S "NAME" HAS BEEN "CLEARED", HE HAS HIS NAME BACK : DORNER TOLD THE TRUTH; OFCR. TERESA EVANS KICKED CHRISTOPHER GETTLER DURING THE ARREST

Los Angeles, California


December 18, 2013****
(Today's date)

August 1, 2013
(Original date)

*(Denotes new information added to original blog)

**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to blog after original blog)

***This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination (WRD) in California; and it is dedicated especially to Christopher Dorner, the first leader of the WRD. It is also dedicated to Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant,*and Miriam Carey.

****This re-publication is specifically in response to a series of articles published last week by the Los Angeles Times about Christopher Dorner with the base title called "The Manhunt", beginning on December 8, 2013.



Christopher Dorner died attempting to "clear his name". Clearing his name meant proving that he told the truth when he reported and charged that Officer Teresa Evans of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) kicked arrestee Christopher Gettler during the arrest of Gettler made by Dorner and Evans on or about July 28, 2007.

*Chris Dorner was Black and Teresa Evans was(is) Caucasian or white. While the issue of race was not pertinent to the proving or disproving of whether Evans kicked Gettler or not, it was significant regarding the firing of Dorner by the LAPD and the covering up of information pointing to the kicking of Gettler by Evans, and the accusation of Dorner lying about the kicking. Dorner was fired because he was a Black male (and a Black male accusing a white female supervisor of misconduct), and Teresa Evans was(is) a white female (who the LAPD tried to protect from liability for the kicking of a mentally ill man while conducting an arrest--and part of that protection was to charge Chris Dorner with making a false statement against Evans, and thereafter, firing Chris Dorner for purportedly making that false statement, thereby shielding Evans and the LAPD from any potential liability and/or exposure of their misconduct to the public). This was one of the most purest forms of white racism, that is, castigating (and firing) a Black man for taking action against a white woman (reporting a white woman supervisor for kicking a mentally ill man). This was the same type of white racism that was exercised against Emmett Till (who was murdered instead of fired--but, there is also a serious question as to whether Chris Dorner was murdered at the end of his standoff) for whistling at a white woman in Mississippi.

Chris Dorner's name has now been cleared. Dorner now has his name back. The significant evidence proves that he did not make a false statement or submit a false report when he reported that Evans kicked Gettler during the arrest of Gettler made by Dorner and Evans. The evidence proves that Evans kicked Gettler, like Dorner said. Therefore, Dorner told the truth, *and he should not have been fired.

"Clearing his name" was important to Dorner because one's "name" to Dorner was more than just a name. "A name is more than just a noun, verb, or adjective. It's your life, your legacy, your journey, sacrifices, and everything you've worked hard for every day of your life as and (sic) adolescent, young adult and adult. Don't let anybody tarnish it when you know you've live up to your own set of ethics and personal ethos." Dorner's Manifesto.

Part of Dorner's "name" was his "law enforcement career that began on 2/7/05 and ended on 1/2/09." Id., and his "Naval career which started on 4/02 and end(ed) on 2/13." Id. He also "had a TS/SCI clearance (Top Secret Sensitive Compartmentalized Information clearance) up until shortly after (his) termination with LAPD. This is the highest clearance a service member can attain other than a Yankee White TS/SCI which is only granted for those working with and around the President/Vice President of the United States," Id., and "a position as a Commanding Officer of a Naval Security Forces reserve unit at NAS Fallon". Id. Finally, his name was "a relationship with (his) mother and sister" and "a relationship with close friends". Id. "I lived a good life and though not a religious man (,) I always stuck to my own personal code of ethics, ethos and always stuck to my shoreline and true North. I didn't need the US Navy to instill Honor, courage, and Commitment in me but I thank them for re-enforcing it. It's my DNA." Id. "I stood up for what was right but unfortunately have dealt with the reprocussions (sic) of doing the right thing and now losing my name and everything I ever stood for." Id.

The LAPD took Dorner's name when it unjustly fired Dorner, knowing that Evans had kicked Gettler and knowing that Dorner was telling the truth when he reported that she had done so. I have already more specifically pointed out why the evidence clearly supports the fact that Evans kicked Gettler in my blog responding to the Dorner Report, entitled, "Christopher Dorner: The Dorner Report is Absolute Rubbish. . . ." I refer my readers here to that blog for a more detailed account of why the evidence (some of which came from the Dorner Report) proved that Evans kicked Gettler, and that Dorner told the truth when he stated that she did.

However, my conclusion that Dorner told the truth about Evans kicking Gettler, which means that Dorner did not make a false statement in stating so, was reached based on the combination of Dorner's Manifesto, the LAPD's Dorner Report, the L.A. Police Commission's Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Report, and in an indirect way, Connie Rice's L.A. Times article, see the Dorner Report blog.

The most significant evidence demonstrating that Evans kicked Gettler and that Dorner told the truth about her doing so, was the testimony of Gettler himself through a videotape and live testimony before the Board of Rights(BOR), and the testimony of Gettler's father confirming not only that Gettler said he had been kicked, but also testifying that he observed physical evidence on Gettler's face which supported a kicking. There is other evidence as well, but this is the strongest first hand evidence, which is not changed by any issues of credibility of the witnesses.

*The videotape evidence of Christopher Gettler testifying or stating that he was kicked by Evans is downplayed by the LAPD in the Dorner Report, to the extent that the LAPD attempted to minimize its destructive force by claiming that on other occasions, Gettler was incoherent and confusing, and therefore, that incoherency should be transferred to the videotape statement; in addition to other reasons it offered. However, Chris Dorner was so confident that the videotape clearly revealed Gettler stating that Evans kicked him, that he (Dorner) sent the videotape out to several major media outlets, probably hoping that the media would jump on the videotape and broadcast it the way that they broadcasted the Rodney King video. But, it didn't happen. Dorner Stated, "During this BOR hearing a video was played for the BOR panel where Christopher Gettler stated that he was indeed kicked by Officer Evans (video sent to multiple news agencies)". Dorner went on, "I ask that all journalist investigating this story submit request for FOIA with the LAPD to gain access to the BOR transcripts which occurred from 10/08 to 2/09. There, you will see that a video was played for the BOR members of Mr. Christopher Gettler who suffers from Schizophrenia and Dementia stating that he was kicked by a female officer. That video evidence supports my claim that Evans kicked him twice in the upper body and once in the face." So, why didn't the media play the tape? It certainly would have been newsworthy, especially in view of the fact that it was a Black officer that was being fired for lying about the misconduct of a white officer. Could it be that the tape was not played because the object of the accusation by the Black male officer was a single (or one) white female supervisory officer (as opposed to multiple white male officers, as in the Rodney King case)? I think so. I believe the tape was newsworthy, although not nearly as newsworthy as the Rodney King tape (because of the seriousness of the beating by multiple officers), and ordinarily would have been broadcast by the media but for the fact that the subject of the misconduct was a white female (that the LAPD and the media sought to protect from exposure and liability). So, Dorner was the sacrificial lamb, by the LAPD, in terms of his being fired (purportedly for making a false statement about Evans' misconduct) rather than Evans being fired for the misconduct itself(kicking Gettler), because she was a white female).

*The bottomline is: If Capt. Beck and the LAPD really want to display its integrity and honesty to the Los Angeles community, especially the Black community, and demonstrate that they want to get at the truth and justification about the firing of Chris Dorner,

CAPTAIN BECK AND THE L.A. NEWS MEDIA, PUBLICLY PLAY THE GETTLER VIDEO, SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN DETERMINE FOR ITSELF, THE MERIT OF THE VIDEO.

*The second bottomline is :

Teresa Evans kicked Christopher Gettler during the arrest of Gettler by Evans and Chris Dorner. Apparently, Evans denied kicking Gettler, even at the BOR hearing, from my understanding, "What you did was perjury, exactly what Evans did when she stated she did not kick Christopher Gettler," Dorner's Manifesto. There is no dispute that Evans denied kicking Gettler, "The training officer agreed that she fully entered the planter to assist Dorner, but insisted that no such kicks occurred." Police Commission's OIG Report. Also, there is no question that Evans testified at the BOR hearing, "The training officer (Evans) testified. . . that she told no other person of her intent to adversely rate Dorner", and "The training officer was never questioned during the Board of Rights about the potential disparity between her initial statement during the complaint investigation and her later testimony during the hearing." Id. Therefore, the only question is whether she denied kicking Gettler under oath, at the hearing. (Admittedly, I have not reviewed the BOR transcripts --but, the U.S. Attorney should). If so, that would be perjury, as suggested by Dorner. I'll discuss this further, infra. So, for the combination of the events covering up the fact that Evans kicked Gettler, and for Evans allowing Dorner to be fired knowing that Dorner was telling the truth, but, mostly for the fact that Evans actually kicked Gettler during the arrest :

THE LAPD SHOULD FIRE TERESA EVANS

*Moreover, as alluded to above, if Evans committed perjury during the BOR hearing, she should be prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office, not only for perjury, but for conspiracy (with others) to have Dorner fired to cover-up for her misconduct. But, I don't expect much from our so-called "Black" U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles with respect to the protection of civil rights of Black males (i.e., see the Oscar Grant murder). As I have stated before, the Justice Department has generally shown a blatant neglect of Black males and their rights. And, in my opinion, Obama's Justice Department, generally, is "for white people only"; notwithstanding the Justice Department's pursuance of sheriff deputies' discriminatory actions in Lancaster/ Palmdale with respect to Section 8 participants.


So, Chris Dorner cannot get his life back, and I cannot help him with that, but, he can get his name back, and, he has done so. I tried to help.

Chris Dorner, from my knowledge and information, was a good and decent man (and he proved that by not killing several white people whom he had an opportunity to kill during his killing spree, while realizing that he would likely be killed himself), who the LAPD drove to do bad acts by unjustly and unjustifiably firing him when they knew that he was telling the truth, and when they knew that Teresa Evans actually and truthfully kicked Christopher Gettler (and I hold the LAPD responsible for all the deaths caused by Dorner). Dorner, because he was a good and decent man, came to the aid of Gettler, who, based on information, knowledge, and belief, was mentally ill. And for his decency, courage (by speaking up, knowing that he might be chastised or criticized in some way--but, he certainly never expected that he would be fired),and strength, in sticking up for a mentally ill man, he ultimately paid the ultimate price, his life.

Rest in peace, Chris, you are once again, the real Christopher Dorner, who helped the helpless.

UPDATE--August 7, 2013

See above at * .


UPDATE--December 9, 2013

Yesterday, the L.A. Times published an article, which will be the beginning of a series of articles, about the Chris Dorner saga, "The manhunt: A double killing, a vengeful plan, a wave of fear", December 8, 2013. In the article, the writer attempts to paint a picture of Teresa Evans as an innocent participant in the scenario that was the basis of Dorner ultimately taking the actions that he took.

Teresa Evans was and is no innocent participant, and in fact was the perpetrator of the action that caused the entire Dorner ordeal. She lied when she denied kicking Christopher Gettler, and she allowed the LAPD to throw Dorner under the bus instead of her admitting to her actions. Because of racism and racial discrimination, Evans , as a white woman, was allowed to "walk", while Dorner, as a Black man, eventually lost his job and his life. As I stated above, EVANS SHOULD BE FIRED. Evans is and remains a symbol of racial discrimination against black people by the LAPD.

**UPDATE--December 18, 2013

According to the above-mentioned L.A. Times' series of articles called "The Manhunt", Teresa Evans has not returned to the LAPD since the death of Christopher Dorner. If that is the case, it would make my call for her to be fired misplaced. However, my above statement, "Evans is and remains a symbol of racial discrimination against black people by the LAPD" remains in tact.

Further, even after the "Manhunt" articles, other than the information in this Update, nothing changes in this main blog. That is, notwithstanding the "Manhunt" articles, Chris Dorner's name has been cleared.