A sheriff who helps ICE is in political trouble in Travis County

The Texas Tribune published an interesting article today describing a major issue in the election of the Travis County sheriff.  Travis County voters are being asked whether to re-elect a sheriff who cooperates with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  This cooperation consists of reporting to ICE all Travis County jail inmates and then holding for 48 hours those inmates who ICE determines are here illegally.  Within those 48 hours, ICE has time to come and get the inmates for deportation. 

This cooperation between Travis County and the federal government would seem to be a good thing, unlike the internecine fighting in places like Arizona, but Travis County is a liberal hotbed in Texas and it sometimes believes that the practical policies of the Obama administration’s ICE are insufficiently enlightened.  And that explains why a Democratic sheriff enforcing the Obama policy is in danger of being outflanked on the left. 

The sheriff’s opponent in the Democratic primary is quoted in the Tribune article as saying, “I was appalled to see what it was doing to the Hispanic community and the immigrant community here.  I felt like it was very inhumane to be lazy and not do the research and say, ‘We’ll just hold everybody for deportation and not even mess with the particulars.’”  Apparently, the sheriff’s opponent wants the sheriff’s office to decide which arrested individuals have crimes that aren’t serious enough to justify deportation. 

Only in America would a person who is in the country illegally and then is arrested for allegedly committing a crime be released back into the community because the alleged crime was not serious enough to justify deportation.  A naive person might think that being in the country illegally is enough to justify deportation, let alone being here illegally and then getting arrested for a separate crime. 

With sanctuaries like Travis County, illegal immigration will never stop .

Incidentally, the Tribune article pointed out that Travis County appears to have a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants deported under this ICE program when compared to Bexar County (San Antonio).  The comparison is suspect, though, because it is based on the population of those two counties, not on number of illegal immigrants in each county.  I can’t find it now, but I remember seeing a report about a year ago that revealed the number of illegal immigrants in Bexar County was surprisingly low compared to DFW, Houston, and I, believe, Austin.  That would explain why Travis County has so many deportations.  And Austin’s sanctuary sentiment would also explain why so many illegal immigrants are attracted to Austin. 

As Ronald Reagan said, subsidize something and you get more of it, so you need to be careful what you subsidize.

Texas alimony and justice

The state of Texas is famous for not allowing alimony following a divorce.  Instead of alimony, it affords justice to both parties by splitting in half the marital estate (property acquired during the marriage).  This is what is meant in calling Texas a community-property state.  There are nine community-property states in America, and all but one (Wisconsin) are on the southwestern rim of this country stretching from Louisiana to Washington.

In 1995, however, Texas decided that, in addition to splitting the community property, a narrow form of alimony – so-called spousal maintenance – should be allowed in limited circumstances.  Spousal maintenance has a three-year maximum of $2,500 a month or 20% of gross income, whichever is less.  Many critics of the law made the slippery-slope (or camel’s nose under the tent) argument that once a limited alimony was adopted, it would be only a matter of time before Texas adopted the full-scale, lifetime alimony that some other states allow.  Well, I guess that slope wasn’t as slippery as suspected because the authorized amounts have not been adjusted, even for inflation. 

(Incidentally, child support in Texas is typically limited to $1,200 a month or 20% of income, whichever is less.  I wonder why an ex-spouse of a high-income person deserves more than twice as much as the child of a high-income person.  That difference doesn’t make sense.)

I have friends who complain that a spouse shouldn’t automatically be entitled to half of a marital estate if the other spouse generated nearly all the income.  For example – Michael Jordan.  I disagree, and instead subscribe to the statement made by a California divorce lawyer:

• “In California, we live in a community property state. Community property exists to ensure that the roles of each party to a marriage is given equal importance for purposes of dividing the property that was acquired by the marriage.

Just because Mitt Romney’s wife stayed at home raising their five boys while he was making $700 million, it is ludicrous in my mind to think that she is not entitled to half of that money if they were to divorce.

Last week, it dawned on me that there is a strong argument that awarding half of the marital estate to the low-earning individual is inadequate.  The argument came to me when I was discussing with a friend USAA’s elimination of its pension a few years ago.  USAA acknowledged to us older employees that the value of a pension balloons in an employee’s last few years of employment, and therefore those of us over 45 years of age would be seriously and negatively affected by the elimination of the USAA pension just as we were entering those years.  To make up for that negative effect, USAA promised to provide us older employees with a so-called bridge-to-retirement benefit.  As I recall, the bridge benefit was an additional 8% contributed to our 401k for about eight years.

Why does the value of a pension balloon at the end?  Everyone knows that the value of a 401k grows greatly at the end because of compounding, but pensions grow almost exponentially because their payout is based not only on years of service, but also on final average pay.  Thus, instead of calculating the pension payment on what an individual has earned, and thereby contributed, to the pension, a pension payout considers only what individuals earned in their highest 1, 3, or 5 years of pay.  In almost all situations, an individual’s compensation continues to rise all the way to retirement (sometimes dramatically), and those highest years are considered for the calculation and those low-paying years are disregarded. 

If you apply this thinking to divorce settlements, it becomes obvious that the low-paying spouses are short-changed because often the divorce will take place at a time when the couple has been spending their income on their family and have not yet entered the asset-accumulation phase.  In such situations it seems that justice would be served by either giving more than half of the assets to the low-income spouse or to require a more significant amount of alimony.

Illegal immigration and racial profiling

An article in today’s San Antonio Express-News reported on a shocking report from the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington-based nonpartisan research group.  According to the article, between 2005 and 2010, more Mexicans left America (1.39 million) than came to America (1.37 million).  By contrast, between 1995 and 2000 670k Mexicans left America and 2.94 million came to America.

The Pew report does not provide an explanation for this dramatic shift in in immigration (legal and illegal combined), but it speculates that the cause was the declining availability of jobs in an American economy that was struggling with a recession, plus the increased border security and the improved Mexican economy. 

There was additional information in the report that I found even more interesting:

• At 12 million, Mexicans are the dominant immigrant nationality in America, but more than half of them are here illegally. 
• No other country in the world has as many as 12 million immigrants of all nationalities combined.  This fact shows how attractive America has been as a destination for foreigners and how relatively open our doors are.
• The number of illegal Mexican immigrants in America peaked in 2007 at 7 million, and that number had dropped to 6.1 million by 2011.
• The total number of legal Mexican immigrants in America dropped between 2007 and 2011, but the number in Texas increased during that time.
• The number of legal Mexican immigrants increased from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.

This information regarding the predominance of Mexican illegal immigrants relates to another issue that we the subject of a Washington Post op-ed piece earlier in the week.  The Post’s op-ed piece was written by a Louisiana judge who pointed out the obvious – i.e., law-enforcement personnel who are attempting to identify illegal immigrants will pay more attention to individuals who look like Mexicans or are brown-skinned.  The judge went on to argue that such conduct amounts to illegal racial profiling, and he is hoping the Supreme Court review of the Arizona illegal-immigrant law will put a definitive end to it.

As a practical person, I am reluctant to discard a valuable enforcement tool.  The essential question is whether the value of the enforcement tool exceeds the cost to members of the group that will be scrutinized more closely merely because of their skin color.  This is an exceedingly complicated, subjective question, and I think the U.S. Supreme Court is supremely qualified to conduct an analysis and render a decision.  Unlike the Louisiana judge, however, I will not prejudge their decision and instead will look forward to reading their analysis.

 

 

 

Re-thinking creationism

Conservative America seems to be in the mood for re-thinking controversies that I had been taught were resolved.  The best example of this is the separation of church & state.  I actually included this as a no-brainer in the first edition of my congressional-campaign brochure until one friend and many constituents said, “Not so fast.”  They suggested moving this issue from resolved to controversial. 

Other examples of this rightward tilt are abortion (Roe v. Wade), limits to federal regulation of commerce (ObamaCare), and global warming.

Just last week, a new item was added to the list – creationism.  A headline USA Today proclaimed, “Debate over evolution now allowed in Tennessee schools,” and the associated article reported that a new law – the so-called Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act (attached below) – would “reopen a decades-old controversy over teaching creationism to the state’s schoolchildren.” 

Ironically, Tennessee was also the venue for the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.  Although the Scopes trial was not, as generally portrayed, the devastation of creationism as scientific theory, it was a landmark in public opinion on the issue.  As stated in Wikipedia:

• The trial was thus both a theological contest, and a trial on the veracity of modern science regarding the creation-evolution controversy. The teaching of evolution expanded, as fundamentalist efforts to use state laws to reverse the trend had failed in the court of public opinion.

The official summary of the new Tennessee law provides:

• This bill prohibits the state board of education and any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or principal or administrator from prohibiting any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught, such as evolution and global warming.

But the USA Today article explained that, although the new law in Tennessee was technically directed toward encouraging critical thinking, there were significant fears within the scientific community in Tennessee that it was intended to encourage the teaching of creationism:

• Instead, it encourages students to question accepted scientific theories — listing as examples evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and cloning — and it protects teachers from punishment if they teach creationism. Proponents say it will encourage critical thinking and give teachers license to discuss holes in scientific theories if they choose to do so.

The Republican governor of Tennessee, by refusing to sign or veto the bill, seems to agree with the scientific community:

• “I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation’s impact.  I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill.  I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers.  However, I also don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.  The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion.  My concern is that this bill has not met this objective.  For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.”

Critical thinking is wonderful, but it’s troubling that scientific theories are often challenged by conservatives whenever there is any component to the theory than cannot be definitively proven, while by contrast conservative doctrines are supposed to be given deference in American education unless they are definitively disproven.  (How about this canard – to raise government income, you simply cut tax rates.) 

Many Christians argue that intelligent design should be taught in schools as a scientific alternative to evolution.  Most scientists object that intelligent design has no place in a science class because it has nothing to do with science.  Rather it is a Christian attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with reconciling the Bible to science.  The Catholic Church has been doing that for years.  But this reconciliation has no place in a science classroom.  That’s as clear as the separation between church & state.

 

Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act 

SENATE BILL 893 – HOUSE BILL 368

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, is amended by adding the following as a new, appropriately designated section:

(a) The general assembly finds that:

(1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens;

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and

(3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

(b) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

(c) The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Did the special prosecutor over-charge George Zimmerman?

A former co-worker at USAA, Becky Abel, recently commented in response to my posting about George Zimmerman’s arrest and the fact that many people seemed to think an arrest was justified, pending an investigation, because a young man will killed.  She suggested that most people who disagreed with the result of the initial investigation by local authorities don’t understand that the proper appeal is to demand a special prosecutor, not to demand an arrest.  That makes sense.

In her comment, Becky asked me whether I thought the special prosecutor over-charged Zimmerman and suggested that the Florida jury charge might be relevant to answer her question.  Instead of simply responding to Becky’s question about over-charging, I decided to look up the jury charge and then provide a full response in a separate blog posting.  Here it is:

• According to the legal pundits, there is almost no downside to over-charging because the prosecutor can always decide to focus on the lesser-included crime of manslaughter.  We won’t know until trial whether this prosecutor was too politically motivated.  Of course, a judge could throw out the case at the probable-cause hearing.  I wonder how the media would react to that.
• Under the Florida law:
  • Second degree murder occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life. 
  • Manslaughter means (a) committing an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person; (b) persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person; or (c) engaging in “culpably negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.  

The key to a conviction for second-degree murder is proving beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed an act that:

1. A person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another,
2. Is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. Is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

Based on this requirement and what I have heard about the evidence, I am not confident that the special prosecutor will be able to show probable cause for second-degree murder, let alone prove it beyond reasonable doubt.  But perhaps the special prosecutor has additional incriminating evidence that we don’t know about yet. 

We will see.

The prescribed jury charges for second-degree murder and manslaughter are as follows:    

7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE

§ 782.04(2), Fla.Stat.

            To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.         (Victim) is dead.

2.         The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3.         There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

            Definitions.

            An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

            An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

1.         a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and

2.         is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and

3.         is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

            In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.

7.7 MANSLAUGHTER

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

            1.         (Victim) is dead.

            Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.

2.         a.         (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that

                        caused the death of (victim).

            b.         (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused

                                    the death of (victim).

c.         The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).

The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide.

Negligence:

Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others.  If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.

Justifiable Homicide:

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing.  § 782.02, Fla. Stat.

Excusable Homicide:

          The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1.         When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

2.         When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

3.         When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.

Give only if 2a alleged and proved.

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death. 

Give only if 2b alleged and proved.

To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something.

Give only if 2c alleged and proved.

I will now define “culpable negligence” for you.  Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others.  If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.  But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others.  In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant.  Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others.  Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

George Zimmerman is finally arrested

I have no objection to George Zimmerman finally being arrested in connection with the killing of Trayvon Martin.  America’s system of justice provides for people to be arrested when there is probable cause that the person committed the crime.  Because I don’t know the facts, I can’t say whether the arrest was justified or unjustified. 

According to an article in ezinearticles.com, probable cause in Florida means “that the facts and circumstances must indicate more likely than not that a crime was committed by the person who is being arrested.”  This standard is much less than “beyond reasonable doubt” required for a criminal conviction and appears similar to the standard required in non-criminal cases – i.e., a preponderance of the evidence.  Please recall that O.J. was found not guilty of murder under the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt,” but was found liable for wrongful death under the civil standard of “a “preponderance of the evidence.” 

I also have no objection to the Zimmerman/Martin matter being reviewed by a special prosecutor after the local officials concluded there was no probable cause that Zimmerman committed a crime.  The U.S. constitution prohibits double jeopardy, but American courts do not consider jeopardy to attach during a preliminary investigation. 

I am concerned, however, despite the special prosecutor’s assertions to the contrary, that Zimmerman’s arrest was prompted by the outcry in the media.  And I suspect that some of this outcry was based on a misunderstanding of the law.  Because most of us don’t know the critical facts of the case, we are not in a position to know whether an arrest was appropriate. 

My favorite talk-show guy, Don Imus, has been howling for weeks that Zimmerman should be arrested and then there should be an investigation to determine if he is guilty.  That is wrong.  Zimmerman should not be arrested unless there was probable cause that he was guilty of a crime.  You don’t arrest and then investigate.  Instead you investigate and then arrest if you find probable cause that Zimmerman committed a crime.  And finally, after the arrest, you are required to prove beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that Zimmerman committed the crime.

Thus, we will not know until all the facts come out whether Zimmerman’s arrest was justified.  Until then, we need to give the prosecutor the benefit of a doubt, something that most of the media refused to give to the initial investigation by the police and local prosecutor.  Instead of asking for a special investigation, they asked for an arrest.  That is not the “presumed innocent” that is fundamental to the American way.

Profiling, Geraldo, Trayvon, and Zimmerman

Geraldo Rivera caused a liberal/media flap when he suggested that Trayvon Martin’s hoodie had something to do with his getting killed.  The liberals/media ardently attempted to debunk Rivera’s assertion by positing that a hoodie does not justify George Zimmerman to conclude that a teenager is “suspicious” and “up to no good.”   President Obama provided the liberals/media with their strongest argument by claiming that Trayvon looked like an Obama son would look.  All of which caused Geraldo to pseudo-apologize to the Martin family yesterday: 

• But to be clear, I apologized for insensitivity and for the hubris caused, not for the potentially life-saving advice given to fellow minority parents.  Don’t let your young man go out into the cruel night wearing an outfit that may as well be a sign that says: “Stop and frisk,” or even “Shoot me.”
• I am not, as one clever critic suggested, asking black or brown young men to dress like “Family Matters” Steve Erkiel.  But if you’re flying Jolly Roger’s skull & crossbones don’t be surprised when some jerkoff with a gun takes you for a pirate.

In hindsight, I wonder if President Obama’s comment about Trayvon looking like an Obama son was based on the widely circulated, outdated photo of short, innocent-looking Trayvon Martin or a current photo of a much more mature, gangly young adult.  Similarly, the media depicted Zimmerman with an outdated photo showing him to be an overweight slob instead of his current respectable appearance with much lost weight.  If we are going to discuss the effect of profiling, you would think the media would at least start with accurate profiling information.

Regarding the merits of profiling, there seems to be an unspoken understanding by the liberals/media that profiling based on race or ethnicity is wrong.  That is why the Arizona immigration law has been castigated – i.e., people were fearful that all Hispanics would be considered as “suspicious.”  Similarly, the concern is that George Zimmerman deemed Trayvon Martin as suspicious, not because of the hoodie, but because he was black.  Of course, that same argument is made in NYC, which compiles voluminous data regarding the race/ethnicity of people subjected to NYPD stop-and-frisk, the vast majority of whom are minorities. 

Conservatives counter that you can’t expect the brain to ignore all sorts of common-sense facts – i.e., Middle-Eastern males commit an inordinate amount of terrorism, Mexicans comprise an inordinate percentage of the illegal immigrants, and young black males in gangster garb commit more than their share of both property and violent crime.  Just because the Miami Heat endorse gangster garb (they already are tattooed from head to toe) doesn’t mean that gangster garb isn’t a reliable indicator.  It may be politically incorrect to know these facts, but our brain is trained to override political correctness.  Or as Geraldo said, “But if you’re flying Jolly Roger’s skull & crossbones don’t be surprised when some jerkoff with a gun takes you for a pirate.”

Geraldo and hoodies

Geraldo Rivera has caught a lot of flak for suggesting Trayvon Martin might have avoided his demise if he hadn’t been wearing a hoodie:

• “[I] am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.  When you see a black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation. Trayvon Martin, you know God bless him, he was an innocent kid, a wonderful kid, a box of Skittles in his hands. He didn’t deserve to die. But I’ll bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way.”

An op-ed piece in the LA Times provides a comprehensive analysis of Rivera’s comments, but in my opinion it reaches the wrong conclusions.   For example, it mentions the analogy of provocatively dressed women who are assaulted, but then dismisses the analogy without discussion.  And it refers approvingly to a column in Time magazine by a guy named Toure (I recently blogged about the column) without considering the similarities between Rivera’s and Toure’s recommendations – i.e., staying safe by avoiding troublesome situations.  What is the difference between Rivera recommending that kids don’t wear hoodies and Toure recommending the following:

• If you encounter such a situation, you need to play it cool. Keep your wits about you. Don’t worry about winning the situation. Your mission is to survive….  You will have to make allowances for other people’s racism. That’s part of the burden of being black. We can be defiant and dead or smart and alive. I’m not saying you can’t wear what you want, but your clothes are a red herring. They’ll blame it on your hoodie or your jeans when the real reason they decided you were a criminal is that you’re black.

Toure seems to be having it both ways by saying that black kids should wear what they want at the same time he advises them against being defiant and dead. 

I don’t think there is any question that wearing a hoodie over your head is threatening to a lot of people, just like tinted windows in cars are threatening or just like the burqa that many Islamic women wear.  In fact, some European countries have banned the wearing of burqas, most famously France. 

I am not suggesting that burqas or tinted windows or hoodies should be banned.  I’m just suggesting that the practice has some practical implications that are difficult to legislate away, even if all of the Miami Heat players try to popularize the hoodies. 

As some wag said, hoodies are like tattoos in that they come from gangster/convict/ghetto culture, and if a kid wants to adopt the gangster/convict/ghetto look, then don’t be surprised when other people are on edge around you.  That is in our DNA.          

Stand Your Ground

The Trayvon Martin case has brought attention to a legal concept I had not previously heard of – i.e., the “Stand Your Ground” defense or immunity.  For a thumbnail description of the concept, I turned to Wikipedia and found the following:

• A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the “stand your ground” law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction. More than half of the states in the United States have adopted the Castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from any location. “Stand Your Ground,” “Line In The Sand” or “No Duty To Retreat” laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.  Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

Texas hasn’t adopted a Stand Your Ground law, but it adopted the Castle law in 2007, and that has proven to be controversial in the local news whenever a homeowner shoots an intruder.  A neighbor of one of my best friends relied on the law a few months ago when he was prosecuted for shooting in the back and killing a young man who intruded into his house.  As with the Trayvon Martin case, the San Antonio case was controversial because the victim was arguably totally innocent – i.e., he might have accidentally gone into the wrong house and then was shot as he ran toward the street.

As conservative as Texas is, it is surprising that we lag behind Florida on this issue.  In 2005 Florida already had the Castle doctrine, but because they thought that didn’t sufficiently empower its citizens, they expanded the law to include Stand Your Ground.  As reported by the NY Times in 2005, Jeb Bush signed the Florida Stand Your Ground law after it received overwhelming legislative support.    

Wikipedia provides the rationale for Stand Your Ground laws:

• In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905), where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated: The doctrine of “retreat to the wall” had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs and even knives as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced persons, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm.
• Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921) a case that upheld the “no duty to retreat” maxim that “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” 

I have only been following the Martin/Zimmerman case for a few days, and inexplicably most of the news reports have not attempted to report the underlying facts, so today I went searching on the internet for some of those facts, and found an interesting report on Slate.com.  According to Slate’s Emily Bazelon: 

• The only evidence the police have that Zimmerman acted in self-defense is that he said he lost sight of Martin—after following him despite the 911 dispatcher’s instruction not to—and was going back to his truck when Martin attacked him. That’s it. The only evidence supporting Zimmerman is Zimmerman’s claim about what happened.
• But there are at least four reasons to doubt what Zimmerman has to say. First, there is the tape of his own 911 call, on which he is agitated by Martin merely because the 17-year-old was walking through the gated community where Zimmerman lives, and then grumbles, “These assholes. They always get away.” Second, this wasn’t Zimmerman’s first phone call like this. He has placed other 911 calls, 46 over 10 years, in which he reported black people for hanging out and children for playing in the street. Third, and most important, is the account of Martin’s girlfriend, who says he was talking to her on his cellphone in the moments before he died. She says Martin told her, “I think this dude is following me,” thought he’d lost Zimmerman, and then said, “He is right behind me again. I’m not going to run, I’m going to walk fast.” The girlfriend claims she next heard another voice say, “What are you doing around here?” to which Martin answered, “Why are you following me?” She then heard Martin get pushed and sounds as if his phone was hitting the ground. Last, there’s just the sheer unlikelihood of a teenager afraid he was being followed, and trying to walk away fast, suddenly turning and pouncing on a much bigger man. (Zimmerman weighed 100 pounds more than Martin.)

And CBS News provided some insights from the two authors of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law:

• It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator’s advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law. “The guy lost his defense right then,” Peaden told the Miami Herald. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”
• Rep. Dennis Baxley, Peaden’s co-sponsor in the Florida House, agrees with his former colleague, telling the newspaper that the law does not license neighborhood watch or others who feel “like they have the authority to pursue and confront people. That is aggravating an incident right there.”
• Both co-sponsors told the newspaper, however, that they did not think the law needed to be re-examined. “If you want to pass something, pass something that limits their ability to pursue and confront people,” Baxley said. “It’s about crime watch,” he said. “What are the limitations of crime watch? Are you allowed to jump out and follow people and confront them? What do you think is going to happen? That’s where it starts.”
• But during the town hall meeting in Sanford, Florida Rep. Geraldine Thompson promised the law’s repeal would be a top priority for the state legislature’s black caucus. “If vigilante justice becomes the norm, will visitors feel comfortable coming to our state?” she asked.

I think Rep. Thompson has focused on what will be the ultimate issue in the Miller/Zimmerman matter. It is not, as many opine or Obama suggests, Miller’s hoodie or police harassment of black males or white profiling of blacks. Instead, it will be the narrow issue of what conservatives call citizen self-defense and liberals call vigilantes. Both sides think the public is on their side, but I think the liberals are wrong on that.

Arranged and forced marriages

Although it may seem that arranged marriages are antediluvian practices that no longer exist in modern life, I was surprised to learn from two Indian-American friends in San Antonio (one Muslim and the other Hindu) that the practice continues to thrive within their communities in America.  In fact, Wikipedia makes an elaborate defense of the practice:

• Proponents of arranged marriage often feel that people can quite easily be influenced by emotional infatuation to make an illogical choice.  In these societies, the intragenerational relationship of the family is much more valued than the marital relationship. The whole purpose of the marriage is to have a family.  Even if the couple does not love each other at first, a greater understanding between the two would develop, aided by their often similar socioeconomic, religious, political, and cultural backgrounds.  Proponents may also feel that marriages simply based on romance are doomed to failure due to the partners having unreasonable expectations of each other and with the relationship having little room for improvement.  Furthermore, supporters of arranged marriages believe that parents can be trusted to make a match that is in the best interests of their children. They hold that parents have much practical experience to draw from and not be misguided by emotions and hormones. 

But the practice of arranged marriages is so antithetical to Western values, as is polygamy, that there is an inclination to prohibit it.  In the West, “love marriages” are considered to be the only civilized option.  The problem is that any prohibition on arranged marriages would not only be inconsistent with Western tolerance, but would also impinge on freedom of religion.  That is why governments attempt to make a distinction between arranged marriage (OK) and forced marriages (not OK). 

According to a recent article in the NY Times, titled “On Human Bondage,” a forced marriage was one in which a party married under “physical or psychological pressure.”  By contrast, an arranged marriage was one in which “someone other than the couple getting married makes the selection of the persons to be wed, meanwhile curtailing or avoiding the process of courtship.” 

Obviously, distinguishing between arranging a marriage and psychologically pressuring one to marry is problematic at best, but that hasn’t stopped Great Britain from trying.  The Times article reports that Great Britain is criminalizing forced marriages, but suggests that this move “has been more about savvy politics than values. And Cameron’s political opportunism may backfire by alienating British Muslims and undermining his government’s commitment to multiculturalism.”  Furthermore, some advocacy groups argue that criminalization could discourage victims from speaking out for fear that their relatives will be prosecuted under the law.  In response, the government has asserted that a forced marriage is “little more than slavery.”

The author of the Times article, Huma Yusuf, concluded the article by suggesting that, “chances are, no legislation can be as effective in curtailing forced marriages as growing awareness and empowerment within the affected communities themselves.”  I agree.  Let’s hope that true conservatives will not countenance any effort by government to interject itself in the marital decisions of its citizens.