Los Angeles, California
February 26, 2014
(Today's date)
February 24, 2014
(Original date)
*Denotes a change made in the original blog, either to add or delete information
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to blog after the original blog was published)
I missed the Michael Dunn trial because news about the case and the trial was not heavily broadcast in Los Angeles by the major television stations or the major newspapers, i.e., the L.A. Times, so I first discovered information about the trial in the Times after jury deliberations had begun. Since then I've been able to obtain some additional information from some cable stations. I believe CNN probably covered the trial, as it did the Trayvon Martin trial, but I simply missed it, because I didn't know about the trial. Anyway, I've gathered enough vital information about the case and the outcome of the trial to write an assessment of what I find to be the most critical aspect of the outcome of the trial.
Briefly : Michael Dunn, a white man, became extremely annoyed about some Black youngsters playing loud music (black or rap music) as he sat next to them at a gas station. He and the youngsters apparently exchanged heated and expletive-filled words about the music after the youngsters continued to play the music. And, eventually, Dunn pulled a gun from his glove compartment and fired multiple rounds into the SUV that the youngsters were sitting in. At least one of the bullets killed Jordan Davis. After the youngsters took off to try and evade the gunfire, Dunn fired several more rounds towards and into the SUV. However, none of the other youngsters in the SUV was injured. Dunn was eventually arrested and tried for the killing of Davis and for firing shots at and/or into the SUV after it took off. Dunn was charged and tried for first degree murder for the killing of Davis and attempted second degree murder for shooting towards the SUV. After the trial, the jury came back with a mixed verdict or hung jury on the first degree murder charge and with a verdict of guilty on the attempted second degree murder charge (for shooting after the fleeing SUV).
From my view, the most significant aspect of the Michael Dunn trial was the jury makeup. There were eight white jurors (4 white men and 4 white women), two African American women, and one Hispanic man and one Asian woman. The fact that the jury was a mostly white jury, in a case where a white man is accused of killing a black man (in this case, a boy), set the tone for the entire trial, as well as the outcome. This is America, and as much as some of the non-racist minority of white people would like to believe, and would like others to believe, i.e., that we live in a colorblind society; in America, race matters. Especially where black-white confrontations are involved. The racist majority of white people in America already know this. America is still a racist country. That's reality. So, when the final jury was composed of eight white people, you knew that at minimum, at minimum, there likely would be a hung jury on the first degree murder charge (or second degree, if the killing had been charged as a second degree murder rather than a first degree), based on the jury makeup alone. At most, it would be a not guilty verdict like in the Trayvon Martin case.
So, I was not surprised to learn of the hung jury, after discovering the jury make-up. It was expected. Let me explain further what I mean about the racist majority of white people. I don't mean that the racism is necessarily hate-filled racism, but rather, the superiority type of racism. The "I'm superior because I'm white, and you are subservient because you're black", "I'm here and you're there", and "because I'm white, my life necessarily is worth more than your black life, and so if I kill you (a black man), in a confrontation between you and I, I, ordinarily, shouldn't be prosecuted for it, because your life has much less worth than mine" (i.e., just another dead "black"). This is the type of racism I'm speaking of when I refer to the racist majority of white people in America. It is this type, along with some of the hate-filled type as well, that likely supported George Zimmerman with his legal defense funds or other funds raised by Zimmerman. The non-racist white minority, which thankfully is significant, does not believe or feel this way. They truly believe "all men are created equal", or at least in the concept. And, it is the non-racist white minority who has supported Black people in our fight for civil and constitutional rights in America. The so-called "good" white people.
Another reason why the hung jury or a not guilty verdict was expected was for the same reason there was a not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman case. The prosecution refused to prosecute the case as a hate crime, which it was. In the Zimmerman case, the judge refused to allow it; in Dunn, from my understanding, the prosecution simply refused to prosecute it as such. There has been much discussion about the ineffectiveness of the State Attorney's Office and Angela Corey, e.g., regarding her overcharging the murder, but the greatest ineffectiveness I've found is the office's failure to charge a hate crime in both the Zimmerman case or the Dunn case. I do not know what their motivation or reasoning is for not pursuing either case as a racially-motivated killing, but whatever their reasoning is, it's defective. In the Zimmerman case, the prosecution initially attempted to raise racial profiling as a motivation, but was halted by the judge (and refused to appeal the judge's decision); and in Dunn, from my understanding, the prosecutor simply refused to raise or argue a racial motivation. If true, this was ineffective and/or defective prosecution. Again, like I argued in a separate blog, white prosecutors cannot be counted on to protect the interests of black murder victims. Although Angela Corey appears to be black, her thought patterns and performance do not appear to be black. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is black in color, but not black "in kind". If Corey was truly "Black", she would have charged a hate crime in both Zimmerman and Dunn. Both cases were hate crimes, and there was sufficient evidence to prosecute them as such.
So, all this discussion about stand your ground laws is useless fodder. The Dunn verdict was not based strictly, or not even predominantly, on stand your ground law, although stand your ground law was relevant, to the extent that it, along with the overall self-defense defense, provided the controlling white jurors with a basis upon which to substantiate their not guilty verdict. The jury hung because some white jurors (based on racism) was not going to convict the white Michael Dunn of first degree murder for killing a black man or boy.
But, the ultimate 9 to 3 verdict, which caused the hung jury is encouraging for future trials in Florida and for the future of America towards the achievement of fair juries. Although I am not informed as to the color or race of the 3 jurors who voted for not guilty verdicts, I presume they were white. That means that 5 white people, or the majority of white people on the jury voted to convict Dunn of first degree murder. That is encouraging. It demonstrates that those five white jurors were fair, and not racist, because on the facts of the Dunn case, all fair-minded people would necessarily find Dunn guilty of at least second degree murder for the killing of Jordan Davis. Only a racist white person could find Dunn not guilty of murder under the circumstances of the Dunn case (I think the jurors that found him not guilty simply used the self-defense concept and instruction as justification for believing Dunn and for their verdict). Admittedly, the Martin case is different. I would not and cannot state that only a racist white person could have found Zimmerman not guilty under the facts of the Zimmerman case. Arguably, a non-racist white person could have found Zimmerman not guilty based on the facts of the Zimmerman case (without the racial profiling factor, which was precluded), if he or she believed Zimmerman's version, and/or gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, whether the white people on the Zimmerman jury were racist or non-racist, race was a factor in the outcome of Zimmerman's trial; at minimum, based on the differences between white and black culture, without a consideration of racism.
So, with respect to the murder of an innocent Black boy (in both the Zimmerman and Dunn cases), and trying to obtain justice for that murder, the Dunn case is an improvement, and a reason for hope for the future. Unlike the Trayvon Martin case, where all the white jurors agreed to reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter, and thereafter, all agreed to find Zimmerman not guilty, the Dunn white people were divided, and the majority found Dunn guilty of first degree murder. So, there's hope for future murder trials in Florida involving black/white scenarios that the outcomes will be fairly decided on the facts, and not strictly decided on the basis of race.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
MICHAEL DUNN AND THE MURDER OF JORDAN DAVIS : LIKE THE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN-TRAYVON MARTIN CASE, THE OUTCOME CAME DOWN TO A MATTER OF RACE, AND NOT THE STAND YOUR GROUND LAW. BUT, THE JURY'S VOTE BREAKDOWN ON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE DOES PROVIDE SOME HOPE FOR THE FUTURE IN THE DIRECTION OF OBTAINING FAIR JURIES IN FLORIDA
Thursday, February 20, 2014
THE 2014 9TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT (FILED IN THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES) : THE USDC, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS, CHRIS SAWYER, DEPUTY CLERK, AND DISTRICT JUDGES CHRISTINA A. SNYDER AND CORMAC J. CARNEY; THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEFENDANTS, JAY S. BYBEE, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, AND WILLIAM A. FLETCHER ; AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DEFENDANTS, WILLIAM K. SUTER, CLERK, AND JEFFREY ATKINS AND JACOB C. TRAVERS, DEPUTY CLERKS
Los Angeles, California
May 27, 2014
(Today's date)
February 20, 2014
(Original date)
*Denotes change in original blog, either added or deleted information
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added after publishing of original blog)
***This blog is being submitted or contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination(WRD) in California and the United States.
Yesterday, *February 19th, 2014, I filed a federal criminal Complaint against the above-identified individuals in and with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. *But, it wasn't easy. Initially, the receptionist at the Office told me that the document that I wanted to file had too many pages, so I couldn't file it. She handed me an envelope (essentially made to hold one letter) and told me the document had to fit into the envelope (which it didn't). Eventually, I called for a supervisor. When the supervisor came, she initially said the document was too large as well (the document was about 34 pages and 12 pages of exhibits). She stated that there wasn't storage space for the document in the office. I told her that there were multiple defendants in the Complaint and in order to properly respond to the Office's questions, the submitted number of pages were required. After some further discussion, she stated that she would accept the Complaint this time, but that she wouldn't the next time. In essence, the Office precludes citizens from filing Complaints in person, if the Complaints are more than a few pages long or do not fit into a single letter envelope. Clearly, the Justice Department and the Office must address this issue, because it is very likely that many citizens have been precluded from filing Complaints because of this policy. (Now,back to the original blog).
This is the same *U.S. Attorney's Office that secured indictments of 18 L.A. County sheriff deputies for inmate abuse in December of last year. And, the indictments included two lieutenants, whose conduct didn't involve physical harm to inmates, but non-physical harm directed to hindering the overall investigation. Therefore, it is clear that the U.S. Attorney's investigation, arrests, and indictments secured regarding the Sheriff Department's misconduct was not all directed to inmate abuse or physical harm caused to inmates, but rather, they were also directed to non-physical abuse or misconduct claims, such as obstruction of justice, making false statements and reports, and other civil rights violations.
The criminal Complaint identified herein involve non-physical misconduct, i.e., obstruction of justice, denial of constitutional rights under color of law, and making false statements, by high level officers (that is, similar to the lieutenants in the Sheriff Department, but higher).
So, is the Justice Department going to pursue the criminal Complaint identified herein as vigorously as it has pursued the complaints filed against the low level sheriff deputies?
There is no question that the Justice Department (U.S. Attorney's Office) deserves praise for pursuing the abusive and/or corrupt deputies and other officials for their physical abusive conduct *directed at jail inmates(most of whom are Black and Hispanic),*and I give praise, but, just as it has done for a few of the high level officers of the Sheriff Department, i.e., lieutenants, it should equally pursue, with the same vigor, the non-physical, but equally as damaging or destructive misconduct of the high level officials (and also a few deputies) in the Complaint noted herein.
We'll see what happens.
According to the L.A. Times, regarding the Sheriff Department investigation and indictments, "In all, 13 deputies, three sergeants and two lieutenants were charged. Among the allegations are conspiracy to obstruct justice, making false statements and civil rights violations." December 9, 2013. The L.A. Times continued, "U.S. Atty. Andre Birotte Jr. said in a statement, 'Some members of the Sheriff's Department considered themselves to be above the law. '" And from CNN, quoting Birotte, "The pattern of activity alleged in the obstruction of justice case shows how some members of the Sheriff's Department considered themselves to be above the law." December 10, 2013 (CNN.com).
*The U.S. Attorney's Office has now obtained indictments of two more high level officials, State Senators Ron Calderon and Leland Yee. So, is it now going to go after the judges named in the Complaint herein noted.
Some of the charges *in the Complaint are as follows:
Chris Sawyer and Christina A. Snyder -- denial of constitutional rights under color of law, *based on race or color, and obstruction of justice.
Jay S. Bybee, Richard R. Clifton, and William A. Fletcher -- denial of constitutional rights under color of law, *based on race or color, making a false and fraudulent statement during a judicial proceeding, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.
William K. Suter, Jeffrey Atkins, and Jacob Travers -- denial of constitutional rights under color of law, *based on race or color, and obstruction of justice.
Further, a strain and charge of racial discrimination is incorporated throughout the charges against these Defendants, based on the facts and statutory interpretation.
*That is, there is racial discrimination involved in the Complaint. *It is a constant theme.
*NOTE: with respect to all of the Defendants, and the judges in particular, until the Complaint is resolved, and especially resolved favorably to the Defendants, e.g., a not guilty verdict or a withdrawal of the Complaint, the Defendants are assumed to have committed the offenses and acted with racial discrimination, and therefore, if they are not removed from office (as they should be), and they have any matter come before them or brought by a black male, there will be an appearance of prejudice to that black male by the Defendants.
*(This sentence deleted)
NOTE : While it was not altogether planned this way, it just so happens that this announcement and blog is being produced and submitted during BLACK HISTORY MONTH.
It is altogether fitting and proper that the Complaint was filed and this blog is submitted during this month. This is a part of Black history, be it positive or negative. And, while I have not filed this Complaint with enthusiasm, I have filed it with complete confidence that it is necessary in my fight for my civil and constitutional rights in pursuance of my original claims against the government *(in order to deny me relief for those claims, the individuals identified here had to violate federal criminal law), *and I have filed it with complete confidence that all of the individuals named in the Complaint are criminals (who violated federal criminal law with the requisite intent to do so)*(the crimes committed here are just as serious--or beyond--as the similar state or common law crimes of grand larceny, burglary, robbery, or arson, i.e., absent direct physical harm to the victim, but enormous harm in terms of loss of property and the mental duress that is attached; and especially with respect to the example of *an arsonist who causes the loss of his victim's only home where the victim does not have adequate insurance or other adequate income to replace the home--which results in the person being "homeless").
*The crimes committed by the individuals in the herein identified Complaint were committed by "pen and paper" rather than physical force or means, but the damage and destruction caused by their actions are nonetheless significant.
*And, until the Defendants are arrested or otherwise come within the confines of the criminal justice system or process, and are cloaked with the "presumption of innocent until proven guilty", they will remain criminals (in the nature of "fugitives" from justice).
*The actions (Complaint and blog) are especially dedicated to Martin, and those that supported and followed him during the Civil Rights movement, *and beyond, in *their/our quest for full civil and constitutional rights in America.
May 27, 2014
(Today's date)
February 20, 2014
(Original date)
*Denotes change in original blog, either added or deleted information
**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added after publishing of original blog)
***This blog is being submitted or contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination(WRD) in California and the United States.
Yesterday, *February 19th, 2014, I filed a federal criminal Complaint against the above-identified individuals in and with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. *But, it wasn't easy. Initially, the receptionist at the Office told me that the document that I wanted to file had too many pages, so I couldn't file it. She handed me an envelope (essentially made to hold one letter) and told me the document had to fit into the envelope (which it didn't). Eventually, I called for a supervisor. When the supervisor came, she initially said the document was too large as well (the document was about 34 pages and 12 pages of exhibits). She stated that there wasn't storage space for the document in the office. I told her that there were multiple defendants in the Complaint and in order to properly respond to the Office's questions, the submitted number of pages were required. After some further discussion, she stated that she would accept the Complaint this time, but that she wouldn't the next time. In essence, the Office precludes citizens from filing Complaints in person, if the Complaints are more than a few pages long or do not fit into a single letter envelope. Clearly, the Justice Department and the Office must address this issue, because it is very likely that many citizens have been precluded from filing Complaints because of this policy. (Now,back to the original blog).
This is the same *U.S. Attorney's Office that secured indictments of 18 L.A. County sheriff deputies for inmate abuse in December of last year. And, the indictments included two lieutenants, whose conduct didn't involve physical harm to inmates, but non-physical harm directed to hindering the overall investigation. Therefore, it is clear that the U.S. Attorney's investigation, arrests, and indictments secured regarding the Sheriff Department's misconduct was not all directed to inmate abuse or physical harm caused to inmates, but rather, they were also directed to non-physical abuse or misconduct claims, such as obstruction of justice, making false statements and reports, and other civil rights violations.
The criminal Complaint identified herein involve non-physical misconduct, i.e., obstruction of justice, denial of constitutional rights under color of law, and making false statements, by high level officers (that is, similar to the lieutenants in the Sheriff Department, but higher).
So, is the Justice Department going to pursue the criminal Complaint identified herein as vigorously as it has pursued the complaints filed against the low level sheriff deputies?
There is no question that the Justice Department (U.S. Attorney's Office) deserves praise for pursuing the abusive and/or corrupt deputies and other officials for their physical abusive conduct *directed at jail inmates(most of whom are Black and Hispanic),*and I give praise, but, just as it has done for a few of the high level officers of the Sheriff Department, i.e., lieutenants, it should equally pursue, with the same vigor, the non-physical, but equally as damaging or destructive misconduct of the high level officials (and also a few deputies) in the Complaint noted herein.
We'll see what happens.
According to the L.A. Times, regarding the Sheriff Department investigation and indictments, "In all, 13 deputies, three sergeants and two lieutenants were charged. Among the allegations are conspiracy to obstruct justice, making false statements and civil rights violations." December 9, 2013. The L.A. Times continued, "U.S. Atty. Andre Birotte Jr. said in a statement, 'Some members of the Sheriff's Department considered themselves to be above the law. '" And from CNN, quoting Birotte, "The pattern of activity alleged in the obstruction of justice case shows how some members of the Sheriff's Department considered themselves to be above the law." December 10, 2013 (CNN.com).
*The U.S. Attorney's Office has now obtained indictments of two more high level officials, State Senators Ron Calderon and Leland Yee. So, is it now going to go after the judges named in the Complaint herein noted.
Some of the charges *in the Complaint are as follows:
Chris Sawyer and Christina A. Snyder -- denial of constitutional rights under color of law, *based on race or color, and obstruction of justice.
Jay S. Bybee, Richard R. Clifton, and William A. Fletcher -- denial of constitutional rights under color of law, *based on race or color, making a false and fraudulent statement during a judicial proceeding, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.
William K. Suter, Jeffrey Atkins, and Jacob Travers -- denial of constitutional rights under color of law, *based on race or color, and obstruction of justice.
Further, a strain and charge of racial discrimination is incorporated throughout the charges against these Defendants, based on the facts and statutory interpretation.
*That is, there is racial discrimination involved in the Complaint. *It is a constant theme.
*NOTE: with respect to all of the Defendants, and the judges in particular, until the Complaint is resolved, and especially resolved favorably to the Defendants, e.g., a not guilty verdict or a withdrawal of the Complaint, the Defendants are assumed to have committed the offenses and acted with racial discrimination, and therefore, if they are not removed from office (as they should be), and they have any matter come before them or brought by a black male, there will be an appearance of prejudice to that black male by the Defendants.
*(This sentence deleted)
NOTE : While it was not altogether planned this way, it just so happens that this announcement and blog is being produced and submitted during BLACK HISTORY MONTH.
It is altogether fitting and proper that the Complaint was filed and this blog is submitted during this month. This is a part of Black history, be it positive or negative. And, while I have not filed this Complaint with enthusiasm, I have filed it with complete confidence that it is necessary in my fight for my civil and constitutional rights in pursuance of my original claims against the government *(in order to deny me relief for those claims, the individuals identified here had to violate federal criminal law), *and I have filed it with complete confidence that all of the individuals named in the Complaint are criminals (who violated federal criminal law with the requisite intent to do so)*(the crimes committed here are just as serious--or beyond--as the similar state or common law crimes of grand larceny, burglary, robbery, or arson, i.e., absent direct physical harm to the victim, but enormous harm in terms of loss of property and the mental duress that is attached; and especially with respect to the example of *an arsonist who causes the loss of his victim's only home where the victim does not have adequate insurance or other adequate income to replace the home--which results in the person being "homeless").
*The crimes committed by the individuals in the herein identified Complaint were committed by "pen and paper" rather than physical force or means, but the damage and destruction caused by their actions are nonetheless significant.
*And, until the Defendants are arrested or otherwise come within the confines of the criminal justice system or process, and are cloaked with the "presumption of innocent until proven guilty", they will remain criminals (in the nature of "fugitives" from justice).
*The actions (Complaint and blog) are especially dedicated to Martin, and those that supported and followed him during the Civil Rights movement, *and beyond, in *their/our quest for full civil and constitutional rights in America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)