As you probably have heard the call of Zimmerman with the police that NBC aired on the Today Show was edited such that Zimmerman appears to say, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” This was not how it happened and a producer was fired over this. Good. The damage this deliberate slanting of the news could have been been millions of dollars in property damage and even people ending up dead from riots. As it is the tremendous amount of time and energy expended by people basing their actions on falsified information is incalculable.

The story is an AP story and is spreading rapidly. It certain deserves exceedingly wide coverage. Perhaps tensions can be reduced and people will look more closely at all the facts related to this event. And long term I hope more people verify stories reported by the media before taking extreme action.

Some of the news outlets reporting this story:

• NBC News producer fired for misleading editing of George Zimmerman recording (nj.com)
• NBC producer fired over Zimmerman call? (azcentral.com)
• NBC producer fired over Zimmerman 911 call (stltoday.com)
• NBC producer fired over Zimmerman 911 call (theaustralian.com.au)

Via email:

From: David Burnett [mailto:media@concealedcampus.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:23 AM
Subject: Shooting Highlights Fallacy of “Gun-Free” Schools

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Shooting Highlights Fallacy of “Gun-Free” Schools

April 3, 2012 — Seven students were gunned down yesterday morning in California on the same day that a national protest began to raise awareness about students being left helpless against such murderers.

The national Empty Holster Protest, organized by Students for Concealed Carry, involves students strapping on empty holsters to illustrate their defenselessness at the hands of college gun bans. The event runs through April 6 and involves hundreds of college campuses across the US.

“This is a poignant and ironic example of the very thing we’re protesting,” said David Burnett, the group’s spokesman.
“Colleges invite these shootings by guaranteeing criminals their victims will be disarmed. It takes more than signs to fend off killers.”

Although the details of the massacre are still unclear, it remains apparent that prohibitions against firearms were completely ineffective. Over 20 such college shootings have occurred on so-called “gun-free” campuses since 2001. At the same time, more than 200 campuses in six states allow students to carry handguns to class without experiencing any such rampages.

“Gun-free zones are defense-free zones,” said Burnett. “Since our colleges can’t guarantee our safety, it’s time for them to allow us a fighting chance and decriminalize self-defense.”

A PDF version of this press release is available at:
http://scc.gs/HEXF5S

Media resources available at: http://concealedcampus.org/media

CONTACT:

David Burnett, Director of Public Relations

Students for Concealed Carry

david.burnett@concealedcampus.org

859-576-7522

ABOUT:

Students for Concealed Carry is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of over 40,000 supporters which advocates for legal concealed carry on college campuses.

I don’t have anything to add other than I think the college administrators and state legislators that created these victim disarmament zones should be prosecuted for conspiracy to deny civil rights under the color of law with particular attention paid to the following:

…if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section … shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Perhaps if a few of these people are in jail awaiting trial with the possibility of a death sentence others will be a little less eager to infringe upon the specific enumerated rights guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.

There is only one question I want answered at this point. There might be more questions once I get the answer but I suspect I’ll know all I need to know with that one answer. I would like to think that answer would enough for everyone else as well but for the people chanting for Zimmerman’s arrest and those putting up “dead or alive” rewards for Zimmerman little things like facts probably won’t make much of a difference.

I strongly suspect Zimmerman is innocent of a crime. I need one more fact to convince me it was a lawful use of deadly force or that we cannot know the answer.

It is possible that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation in such a way that Martin attacked him. Taunting or “picking a fight” with Martin would have Zimmerman sharing a significant amount of responsibility in the death of Martin. But I have heard zero reports of a beginning to the confrontation in this manner. Hence I am of the opinion it did not happen this way or that as long as Zimmerman does not change his story we will never know about it.

I realize the police can’t always be trusted that concern is usually associated with the facts in regard to police conduct, the conduct of those with significant political power, or the conduct of groups being discriminated against. In the case of Zimmerman I don’t think there is any particular reason to believe the police are “fact challenged”. I realize witnesses can be mistaken and/or have a bias. If possible I would like to be able to reach a conclusion based entirely upon physical evidence that is difficult to convincingly fake in a timely manner without getting caught. Hence the particular facts that I think are most relevant are:

• The grass stain on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt
• Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody cuts to the back of his head—presumably with matching blood on the sidewalk
• There have been no reports (correct me if I am wrong on this) that Martin had physical injuries beyond a single gunshot wound to the chest

The one question I have that will probably settle the issue for me is when the authorities said, “Zimmerman then shot Martin once in the chest at very close range”; What was that range? I’ve probably spent more time and money than most on learning about such things and if the investigators know what they are doing, and I have no reason to believe they don’t, then they should be able to determine that range quite accurately. If the range was under 12 inches they can probably determine the range to within a fraction of an inch. And of course the angle can be determine quite closely as well.

If the range is determined to be within six inches and the bullet path matches Zimmerman’s story then I have to conclude the two were in a fight at contact distance and Zimmerman was losing badly. If I were on a jury I would insist that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of imminent permanent physical injury or death and was justified in using deadly force to protect himself.

End of story for me.

David Hardy has the story on virulently anti-gun lawyer, Dennis Burke, who has been working on anti-gun projects since at least 1989. He was a driving force behind the “assault weapon” ban of 1994. Operation Fast and Furious was secretly launched just one month after his appointment as U.S. attorney was confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Burke predicted, “It’s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasers of assault weapons. Some of these weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.”

I say we should try him for treason and every single illegal gun purchase. When we are done with him extradite him to Mexico and let them try him for all the violations of Mexico laws he is implicated in.

Periodically I trade emails with some people within the ATF. I recently noticed they have a rather strongly worded restriction on the use of the email attached to each message. This restriction is identical regardless of  the person I received it from within the ATF. I admit my sample size is small but it does include people in significantly different geographical area.

The restriction is (bold in the original):

******* NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above in connection with official business. This communication may contain Sensitive But Unclassified information that may be statutorily or otherwise prohibited from being released without appropriate approval. Any review, use, or dissemination of this e-mail message and any attached file(s) in any form outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives or the Department of Justice without express authorization is strictly prohibited.

I didn’t remember it always being that strongly worded so I went looking at previous emails to see if it had changed. It had.

The notice above first appeared on March 29, 2011. A previous email from the same person on March 23, 2010 (the previous year) had this restriction (bold in the original):

******* NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments).

So sometime in that year (and six days) between March 2010 and March 2011 the notice changed. My hypothesis is that the leaking of various emails associated with operation Fast and Furious caused a review of the restriction and a rewording which was much more strict.

The question I have (calling all lawyers!) is; Does the restriction have any legal weight in use against me or is it merely a legal bluff? For example, am I at risk for merely revealing the restriction even though I did not reveal the other contents of the emails? What if I were to reveal to the public the gist of one or more email discussions that clearly was not “sensitive information” but might be somewhat embarrassing to the ATF?

A choir boy shot by a racist vigilante white guy in 1984 died on the 27th anniversary of the shooting:

Exactly 27 years to the day after Bernhard Goetz — famous in New York lore as the “Subway Vigilante’’ — shot four young men he thought were threatening him on a train, one of them killed himself by swallowing prescription pills in a low-rent Bronx motel, authorities said.

James Ramseur, 45, was found dead of an apparent overdose at 11:30 a.m. yesterday at the Paradise Hotel at 2990 Boston Road, law-enforcement sources said last night.

…

Ramseur had gotten out of prison only 17 months ago, after serving 25 years upstate for raping a young woman on a Bronx rooftop.

The shooting took place on Dec. 22, 1984, when Ramseur, 18, and neighborhood pals Darrell Cabey, Barry Allen and Troy Canty, all 19, were riding a downtown No. 2 train.

…

Cabey, who was paralyzed when Goetz shot him at close range, won a $43 million lawsuit. Goetz declared bankruptcy and hasn’t paid a dime.

Cabey, by far the most seriously injured, still is confined to a wheelchair and functions with the intellect of an 8-year-old.

Allen was convicted of robbery in 1991 and released from prison four years later.

Canty racked up a string of petty offenses and once served 18 months in a residential drug- treatment program.

The NY Times has more:

Mr. Ramseur was already incarcerated at the time of the trial, having been convicted of raping, sodomizing and robbing a young pregnant woman in 1986. He was conditionally released in 2002, but he returned to prison for a parole violation in 2005. He finished his sentence in July 2010.

I can only think that Goetz should have had more training and ammo so this particular chapter of history could have been closed much earlier.