ANTHONY WEINER: A DROP OUT...OR SOMEONE WHO WILL GO ALL THE WAY?

    

Should Anthony Weiner drop out of the race to become New York City mayor?  The former United States Congressman from "The Empire State" vows to stay put...and to not let anyone...or anything... change his mind about his bid to become "The Big Apple's" next chief executive. 

     Now let's be frank...(no pun intended)...I don't live in New York City...so whether I think Weiner should or should not take a hike...really isn't important, as I don't have a so-called..."dog in this fight"...(again, no pun intended).  However...you may recall that on Sunday, May 26th, 2013...four days after Weiner tossed his hat in to the ring to run for New York City mayor...I wrote a full commentary and argued, "This is America.  And Mr. Weiner deserves a second chance."  Since then...we have learned that Weiner participated in more "sexting"...even after he resigned from the U.S. Congress. But is that important?  According to a new poll by Quinnipiac University... maybe it is...maybe it isn't.  As for how Anthony Weiner feels...he says, "I don't quit.  New Yorkers don't quit.  I'm not going to go in to the corner and curl up because someone found out something embarrassing about me."

     I will give him this...Anthony Weiner has guts.  And anybody that is willing to put up with the press, the pundits, the polls and the politicians who think he should pack his bags and go away...I say...more power to him.  That's not to say I would want him to be mayor of New York City.  Again...my zip code isn't part of the five boroughs...and I have paid little attention to the other three Democratic candidates.  But the fact of the matter is...Anthony Weiner has the right to run for mayor...and he has the right to stay in the race if he so desires.

     Despite all of that...support for Weiner has taken a nose dive and his approval ratings have plunged substantially since it's become known that Weiner's - shall I say - "rather unusual" text messages went beyond what was originally thought.  At first glance...we observe that Anthony Weiner has dropped from a first place position in the polls last week...to the very bottom of the pack today.  Weiner is now in 4th place...at 16 percent...down 10 points from a week ago...while New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has taken over the top spot at 27 percent. 

Bill DeBlasio ranks in at second place with 21 percent...and Bill Thompson weighs in at 3rd with 20 percent.

     The spotlight on Anthony Weiner's "sext" messages has given New Yorkers a moment to reconsider who they want as mayor of America's largest city.  Among likely Democratic voters...53 percent feel Weiner should throw in the towel and drop out of the race.  Meanwhile 40 percent of those polled declared that Weiner should keep moving forward and fight all the way.  A mere 7 percent admit they don't know what Weiner should do.

     As to the question..."Does Anthony Weiner's behavior disqualify him?"...40 percent of the Democrats surveyed believe that it does...40 percent say no it doesn't...and 20 percent feel Weiner's behavior is not a factor at all.

      But the polls - good, bad or indifferent - mean nothing to Anthony Weiner.  He states emphatically that he's not backing down...and that he's staying in the race until the very end.

     Can Anthony Weiner come back from all this?  I really don't know...but stranger things have happened in politics...and candidates have won...when they were written off with no chance of getting the votes.  What I do know...is that it should be left to the voters of New York City...and not anybody else.  They will make up their minds when they pull the levers in the voting booths.

       Nobody should judge Anthony Weiner...except for the voters.  If they think he has the leadership quality to be mayor of New York City...then let the system work.  And as Weiner says..."I'm gonna let New Yorkers decide." Weiner refuses to listen to those who continue to attack him.  And he's right.  He shouldn't listen.  He may be dead last in the polls...but his campaign may not be dead.  All Anthony Weiner should listen to...are the people of New York City...when they cast their ballots in the Democratic Primary on September 10th.  That's the only voice that counts...and come election day...the voters will speak.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

     "We'll talk again."

 

The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday.  Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well.
 

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net.  All Rights Reserved.

WATCH WHAT YOU SAY ON-LINE. A SARCASTIC JOKE - THAT SOUNDS LIKE A THREAT - COULD LAND YOU BEHIND BARS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

     Let it be clearly known - in case anybody who reads this edition of The Controversy has any doubts or lacks any understanding - the following is a commentary on a story that has been published in other areas of the media for several months.  I - the writer of this column - am a journalist who is expressing opinions based on the facts as I know of them.  When quoting the defendant in the case - who allegedly made the statements in question - or any other remarks pertaining to legal action being discussed - I am merely repeating what court documents claim have been stated by the defendant or by others.  The words are not mine...as I would never - even "jokingly" - use such language.  The Controversy by Gary B. Duglin is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

     Now...that being said...it is sad that I have to include the aforementioned disclaimer prior to writing today's commentary...but...I felt it was necessary... given the subject matter.

 

   Justin Carter was 18-years old - he's now 19 - when in early February, 2013...he made a sarcastic remark on Facebook.  He apparently was involved in a debate about a computer video game...which began on the League of Legends Web site...and continued on a Facebook page.  A total stranger allegedly accused Justin of being "crazy and messed up in the head."  Carter reportedly responded - in what has been described as a "sarcastic tone" - "Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head.  I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still beating hearts."  Court documents, however, say that Justin allegedly wrote in the Facebook chat, "I'm f---ed in the head.  I think I'm a shoot up a kindergarten...and watch the blood of the innocent...rain down...and eat the beating heart of one of them."  The problem with writing such words - besides that it's disgusting to hear in any context - that without vocalization... inflection and intonation...cannot be determined.  Therefore... realizing a "sarcastic tone" is not possible.

     Despite that...I am willing to give Justin Carter the benefit of the doubt and believe that he intended for his statement to be interpreted as "sarcastic."  Nevertheless...what Justin admits to saying was in very poor taste.  Very, very BAD taste - especially when it was less than two months from the day 20-year old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult educators in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

 Despite that...I am willing to give Justin Carter the benefit of the doubt and believe that he intended for his statement to be interpreted as "sarcastic."  Nevertheless...what Justin admits to saying was in very poor taste.  Very, very BAD taste - especially when it was less than two months from the day 20-year old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and 6 adult educators in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

     Carter is certainly old enough to understand that what he said was not something to "joke" about - although he indicated his comment wasn't serious by adding "LOL" and "J/K" after his written words.  For those of you who are not familiar with social media abbreviations...LOL means "laughing out loud" and J/K implies that Justin was..."just kidding."

     A woman in Canada noticed Carter's comment and she contacted law enforcement authorities.  And since Justin lived less than half a mile from an elementary school in New Braunfels, Texas...police in "The Lone Star State" did not take the report lightly...and cops took the correct course of action by investigating.

     Officials then arrested Justin Carter and placed him behind bars.  A judge set bond at the outrageous amount of $500,000 - meaning that 10 percent of that...or $50,000...would need to be posted in order for Justin to be released from jail while he awaits trial.  Through my research, I have learned there have been actual murder suspects - who by the way later got convicted of the crimes - and their bonds were nowhere near a half-million dollars.  I'm puzzled as to why the judge ordered Justin's bond to be so high.

     Since the bail amount was beyond what Carter's family could afford...the teenager remained in jail...on suicide watch...from when he was booked on February 14th until July 11th - 5 long months.  According to his mother... Jennifer Carter... Justin was "assaulted a number of times" by other inmates so officials then "locked (him) in solitary confinement for weeks."  Fortunately now...thanks to an anonymous donor who posted the bail...Justin is home.  But for how long?  A grand jury indicted Carter on April 10th, 2013 and he faces a charge of making terrorist threats...which is a felony that could bring the teenager a prison sentence of up to a decade.  He has already rejected a plea deal to serve 8 years in jail...and his trial is scheduled for next year.  But now that Justin is free - at least for the time being - the ecstatic young man told CNN on Friday, July 12th, "I certainly would have thought a lot more about what I said and how permanent my writing is."

     Since Justin Carter's arrest, people have rallied together on-line to support him.  A petition at Change.org has received more than 125,000 digital signatures.  "Too many teenagers are being arrested, jailed and having their lives forever altered because of anti-terrorism laws and investigations that impede their First Amendment right to freedom of speech," reads the petition.  But the First Amendment doesn't give us an unrestricted right to free speech.  Freedom of speech doesn't allow a person to say absolutely ANYTHING.  If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre...and there's no smoke or not a flame in sight...you can be arrested.  If you even mention the word "bomb"...while waiting for a commercial airliner to take off...you're going to be escorted off the plane in handcuffs and questioned by police.  

     Threats need to be taken seriously...and I completely understand and agree that our city, state and federal governments must be careful and cautious when there's a threat of school violence.  There's no two ways about it.  Authorities must be vigilant and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the threat is not credible.  But at some point, investigators need to have some common sense...and with Justin Carter...that is what Texas authorities lacked.  This is where this case has gone completely wrong.  

     Police performed a thorough investigation.  There was no proof that Justin's remark was meant to be genuine.  His so-called "threat" was made in jest and was not in any way legitimate.  There was no motive.  No weapons were found during a search of his apartment.  No notes...outlining or planning any devious, disastrous or doomful event... were discovered.  There is no evidence of any kind that even slightly gives a minuscule impression that Justin was being anything other than "sarcastic" when he selected a poor choice of words.

     Justin's father...Jack Carter acknowledges that "It's incredibly inappropriate when you take it out of context for sure."  But Justin's dad goes on to say..."It was a sarcastic remark in response to an insult."

     Justin's mother... Jennifer Carter agrees that her son...who she describes as "a good kid"...was wrong in what he wrote...but she says..."The authorities' over-reaction is ruining Justin's life.  We need to make sure he's not labeled a terrorist...simply for making a Facebook comment.  Things got out of control, but my son is not a terrorist."

     Is what Justin Carter wrote...a "true threat"...as defined by the United States Supreme Court?  David L. Hudson, Jr. is an expert in First Amendment issues.  He graduated in 1994 with a law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School...teaches First Amendment classes at Nashville School of Law and Vanderbilt University Law School...and he is the author or co-author of more than 30 books - including several on the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution and student rights.

     On the FirstAmendmentCenter.org Web site...Hudson writes that "the line between protected expression and an unprotected true threat is often hazy and uncertain."  Hudson says that "True-threat jurisprudence remains a muddled mess.  Courts often have trouble determining whether violent expression should be evaluated under the 'incitement to imminent lawless action' standard or under a true-threats line of analysis."  Since I am not a lawyer...I will not even venture an attempt to interpret what the Supreme Court, any court, or even the esteemed David Hudson is discussing at The First Amendment Center Web site.  I'm curious to know, however, where the courts draw the line between someone who is merely venting, blowing off steam or - in this case - responding to an insult...or someone who is genuinely and legitimately making a "true threat?"  Furthermore...I wonder how the courts determine - as I noted above - how a written comment on the Internet can be ruled a "true threat"...when the "tone" of the remark cannot be clearly understood?  As such...I'd be interested to know how the judge and the prosecutor in the case against Justin Carter were able to keep the teenager in jail for 5 months - until his bail was posted earlier in July 2013 - when there was no convincing evidence of a "true threat?"

      Kids today speak their minds by using various tools of communication.  From Facebook to phone calls...from texting to Twitter...teenagers - and even adults - are expressing themselves.  But in this day of technology...everyone must be extremely attentive of the words we choose.  Remember...with the Internet...it's possible for even private messages to be read by others.  Don't write anything that you wouldn't say to a police officer or in a court of law.  We do have freedom of speech...and we...as Americans...are protected by the First Amendment of one of our most precious documents...but only to a point.

     If what Justin Carter said is being considered a "threat" by authorities in Texas...someone please explain to me how certain Facebook pages that promote violence against George Zimmerman - the Florida man who was found not guilty in the shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin - are being left to remain on-line?  Recently, the offensive pages titled..."Kill Zimmerman" and "Let's Kill George Zimmerman" have been removed...and rightfully so.  Whether I...or anybody else...agrees or disagrees with the jury's verdict...it is disgraceful to post a Web site that proclaims the killing of anybody.  But officials at Facebook still refuse to remove "Kill George Zimmerman" and "George Zimmerman Must Die" pages...on the grounds they don't violate Facebook's "community standards" on credible threat of violence.  If blatant words such as "Kill George Zimmerman" and "George Zimmerman Must Die" are not considered threats...then how is what Justin Carter said...causing him to face criminal charges and a possible prison sentence?

     "I could kill him for saying that."  We've all heard people we know...speak that line about somebody.  Did the person really and truly mean that they could "kill?"  I doubt it.  Of course I don't know the statistics - and I'm certain that nobody does - but I'd bet that more than 99.9% of people who have made such a ridiculous comment...had no intention of killing anybody. Otherwise, our prisons would be filled with many more people.  Then there are the children who have turned to their mother or father...in a fit of anger because they didn't get their way...and say..."I hate you."  We all know that most youngsters who have uttered those three words...really don't hate their parents.  Unfortunately...human beings sometimes say things...they don't really mean.

     I'm surprised, at this point, that no senator, no congressman, no high-profile attorney...has stepped forward to investigate on behalf of Justin Carter.  If what Justin said was legitimately intended as a threat...and if...and I say IF...there was reason to believe...based on factual evidence that he was going to harm or hurt anyone...then a court would be right in locking him up.  Based, however, on the facts, to date, it is preposterous to think that Justin Carter is guilty of anything...but making an impulsively...stupid statement.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

     "We'll talk again."

The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday.  Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well.
 

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net.  All Rights Reserved.

ROLLING STONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PRINT WHAT THEY WANT ON THE COVER OF THEIR MAGAZINE... BUT THEY LACK ANY HEART BY DOING IT

     The editors of Rolling Stone are defending themselves following a blaze of negative criticism throughout the United States.  The magazine's issue - dated July 17th, 2013 - features a cover photo of the alleged Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev...looking - as one person described him - "as dreamy as a teen heartthrob superstar."

     Why would Rolling Stone put such a picture on their cover...of the man that law enforcement officials believe is responsible...for the terrorist attack that killed three people and injured nearly three-hundred others?

     To begin with...as a journalist and broadcaster for nearly 40 years...I am against any form of censorship.  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the editors of Rolling Stone the right to publish anything they want in their magazine...or on their cover.  That being said...I have one question for the "powers that be" of the 46-year old publication.   DO YOU NOT HAVE A HEART?  You have the right to put a photograph of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of Rolling Stone...but how dare you do something so cruel and heartless?  Are you only interested in making money?  And do you really think...that in the long run...you will benefit by adorning an individual who is suspected of being a vicious villain?

     Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not a rock celebrity.  The photo of Tsarnaev is not a mug shot.  The cover looks like any Rolling Stone magazine that would promote the latest teen idol or music megastar.  Granted, Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...but for Rolling Stone to glorify, glamorize and practically romanticize a man...who authorities feel is a criminal beyond belief...a mass murderer...that without question boggles my mind.

     How about focusing on the tragic victims of this deplorable act of violence? Why not shine the spotlight on Martin Richard...whose 8-year old life was stolen when the bombs were detonated on Patriots' Day three months ago?  How about putting a photo of that precious, young boy on the cover of the magazine?  Believe me...that would sell many more copies and it wouldn't piss off the nation.  Or is Rolling Stone's reason for not doing that because they feel a profile about a suspected killer is a much better way to make bigger bucks?  What a shame!  What a shame!
 
     As a way to counter what Rolling Stone did, Sergeant Sean Murphy of the Massachusetts State Police - on July 18th, 2013 - leaked a series of photographs showing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in a less flattering way.  The dramatic pictures were taken by Murphy the night Tsarnaev was captured, but Murphy was not given permission by his supervisors at the Massachusetts State Police Department to release the stunning photos...one of which includes the bloodied Tsarnaev as he is walking away from the boat where he had been hiding following a statewide manhunt.  Although he is surrendering... the picture shows the accused killer with a red laser dot squarely aimed on Tsarnaev's head.  In giving the graphic photos to Boston Magazine, Murphy wrote that "The Rolling Stone cover was an insult to anyone who has ever worn a uniform.  What Rolling Stone did was wrong.  This guy is evil.  This is the real Boston Bomber...not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.  There is nothing glamorous in bringing more pain to a grieving family."

     Sergeant Murphy was relieved of his official duties for one day and now the 25-year law enforcement veteran has been placed on desk assignment.

  Despite that...Massachusetts State Police Colonel Timothy Alben calls Murphy "a man of honor" but says his department has rules that must be followed.  

 United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz isn't being as complimentary towards Murphy.  She says, "The release of these photos was completely unacceptable."  Still, when reporters recently asked Colonel Alben if Sergeant Murphy would be fired, "The Bay State's" top cop replied, "That is not a realistic option in this case."

     Kudos to Sergeant Murphy.  He had the guts to let his heart speak for his mind.  In addition to his bravery as a police officer, he performed with much courage by giving the photographs to Boston Magazine.

     The image of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appears on the Rolling Stone cover... along with the headline..."THE BOMBER: HOW A POPULAR, PROMISING STUDENT WAS FAILED BY HIS FAMILY, FELL INTO RADICAL ISLAM AND BECAME A MONSTER."  

     There are many promising students...who may believe their family failed them...and they don't become monsters.  They don't become murderers.

     Where is Rolling Stone's sensitivity towards the people of Boston, Massachusetts and the families who lost loved ones?  Have the magazine's editors no compassion for the relatives and friends who were injured because of the deadly, massive explosions that were allegedly triggered by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan?  As we all know - the Tsarnaev brothers allegedly placed two bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 15th, 2013.  But despite that...Rolling Stone...for whatever reason...wanted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to look like a so-called "pretty boy."  But why?  

     In addition to the bombings, authorities also say the Tsarnaev brothers killed Sean Collier - a police officer from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Meanwhile... Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has pleaded "not guilty" to that murder, along with 30 federal charges for the marathon bombings including using a weapon of mass destruction to kill.  He could face the death penalty if prosecutors choose to pursue it.  As for Tamerlan Tsarnaev...he died on April 19th after a gunfight with police officers in Watertown, Massachusetts.
 
     Rolling Stone says "The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young... and in the same age group as many of our readers...makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue...and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens."  

     Inside the magazine... reveals an in-depth profile of the life of a seemingly normal teenager.  What?  What?  A seemingly normal teenager?  There is absolutely, positively nothing normal about any person who destroys human life.

     Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not the All-American boy.  And if Rolling Stone's goal - as is any business' goal - is to draw attention to their product and make sales...I suppose there are enough people in this country who will purchase the magazine...and profits for Rolling Stone will skyrocket.  But shoppers won't be buying the magazine at CVS, Walgreens, K-mart or Rite-Aid.  These companies refuse to sell Rolling Stone and have already pulled off the shelves the issue with the alleged Boston Bomber's picture on the cover.

     But other retailers are selling the magazine...there are those who are buying it...and Rolling Stone is making money from it.  Should they?  Jack Osbourne - the son of rock star Ozzy Osbourne and television personality Sharon Osbourne - is responsible for launching a petition...which urges Rolling Stone to donate all profits (retail and advertising revenue) from the issue with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's cover photo...to the victims, the surviving family members and the first responders who were affected by the Boston Marathon bombings.

     Jack Osbourne wrote in the petition letter that “Glamorizing a suspected terrorist on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine is not controversial, it’s just wrong.  Innocent people have been killed or injured by the alleged actions of this man. There is no justification for awarding him a cover spot traditionally reserved for entertainment icons.  It is this kind of action that encourages other sick individuals to act out in hopes of earning notoriety or martyrdom for their cause.  We support the first amendment and the freedom of the press, but we do not support glorifying suspected terrorists in this manner. The innocent victims, their families, the first responders, and the people of Boston are the ones who deserve to be honored and remembered.”

     Applause, applause to Jack Osbourne...as he has come up with a spectacular idea, which I certainly hope Rolling Stone will agree to do.  The petition has already received more than 25,000 signatures of support. Whether Rolling Stone will accept Osbourne's challenge is yet to be seen.  To date, officials from the magazine have not yet made any public comments regarding the petition.

     Of course we...the American people...have the option to not buy the magazine...but even with the national outcry...there will always be those who are either die hard fans of Rolling Stone...who are simply curious...or who just don't care...and, therefore, issues of the magazine will be purchased.

     As I stated at the outset...Rolling Stone has the RIGHT to print whatever it wants...but in this case...their RIGHT...is WRONG.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

     "We'll talk again."

The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday.  Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well.
 

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net.  All Rights Reserved.

THERE WAS ABRAHAM LINCOLN...LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON...MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR....AND THEN THERE IS BARACK OBAMA

     My mother has always said..."God works in strange ways."  As unfortunate and as tragic...as Trayvon Martin's death was...and still is...it's quite possible...that Trayvon Martin is a hero...who sadly needed to be killed...in order for our country to move forward...in the issue of race relations in the United States of America.

     On March 23rd, 2012...nearly a month after the death of Trayvon Martin... President Obama made an emotional remark to the nation that "If I had a son...he'd look like Trayvon."  On Friday, July 19th, 2013...nearly a week after the "not guilty" verdict of George Zimmerman...

the President made another emotional and personal statement...with regards to the death of Trayvon Martin.  "It could have been me...35 years ago."

     The death...the killing of Trayvon Martin...and the comments made by the President...may be the beginning of President Barack Obama becoming equal in status...to President Abraham Lincoln.

     You will all recall...that in 2008...the then Senator Obama's campaign slogan was..."Yes we can."  I will now revise those three words to..."Yes he can."

     People can say all day long that race was not an issue in the George Zimmerman trial.  People can claim that George Zimmerman did not profile Trayvon Martin before Zimmerman got out of his car.  And that may be true.  People can say that George Zimmerman is not a racist.  And he may not be.  And people can say that George Zimmerman truly felt threatened by Trayvon Martin...and not because he was black.  And it too...may and could be true.  But certainly now, race is an issue...regarding the death of Trayvon Martin.  And to my thinking...race was...at the very least...an underlying concern by George Zimmerman on that February 26th night back in 2012.  And if I could ask one question to George Zimmerman...it would be the following.  "If Trayvon Martin was white...would you have gotten out of your car...and would you have followed...a white male...wearing a hoodie?"

     An African-American teenager was killed...and his death...and the acquittal of his killer...have catapulted our nation in to a discussion that I never realized was as - black and white - (pun intended) - as it is.  I am horrified by the fact that some white people...hate black people - and yes, I used the word "hate" - as much as they do...because of a person's skin color.  It nauseates and sickens me that some white people...speak with such ill will...towards black people.  

     When it comes to the issue of race in America... and which individuals have been rightfully credited in taking positive steps to making America better in the area of equality for African-Americans...among a handful of others...we perhaps first think of President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 and the Emancipation Proclamation.  We think of President Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  And of course...we think of  

...The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr....because of the 1963 "March On Washington" and his I Have A Dream speech...plus all his outstanding efforts and civil rights accomplishments...in the hope of making blacks equal to whites.  And now...we can think of President Barack Obama...if...if...he takes the opportunity...to quickly move forward...as Lincoln, Johnson and King had done.  And I believe..."Yes he can" do it.

     The killing of Trayvon Martin - as ugly...as disgraceful...as deplorable as it was - may be a blessing in disguise.  Please understand my statement.  Obviously no death - especially that of an innocent, unarmed, 17-year old kid - should be wished on anyone...and the fact that the Martin family will suffer for many, many, many years...because of their terrible loss...is beyond what any parents...and any family...should ever have to endure.  But in some twisted, disgusting way...Trayvon Martin's killing may be exactly what was necessary...in order for America to move in the right direction for race relations...and true equality for not only black people in this country, but people of all races, ethnicities and minorities throughout the United States of America.

     Furthermore...the "not guilty" verdict of George Zimmerman...because the jury needed to follow specific "instructions by the court" and certain laws of Florida - which need to be changed - may also be a blessing in disguise.

     On Saturday, July 20th, 2013...a week after Zimmerman's acquittal... Justice For Trayvon Rallies were held outside federal buildings in 100 cities including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, DC.  These rallies prove that we...as a nation...are in desperate need of focusing on race relations in the United States...and that the death of Trayvon Martin must send a message to everyone...that it is vital...that it is essential...for us to concentrate on the interweaving of race, crime and justice in America...and that a black person...especially a young black person...should not be immediately profiled as someone who is going to do something bad...because he is black.  At the rallies Saturday...homemade signs were displayed by peaceful demonstrators including those that read "WE WANT JUSTICE FOR ALL OUR SONS"..."I'M 17 AND UNARMED"... and "DON'T SHOOT.  I'M YOUNG, BLACK AND WALKING."

     There is too much anger throughout our country today.  Anger by people who believe that George Zimmerman got away with committing a crime... because of poorly written laws in the State of Florida...and anger by those who support the Zimmerman acquittal...but are infuriated with others who feel he deserved a prison sentence for killing Trayvon Martin.

     America's chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Tuesday, July 16th, 2013 that "It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.  These laws try to fix something that was never broken.  There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force...if...and the IF is important...IF no safe retreat is available."

     George Zimmerman's lawyers officially backed off from using the Stand Your Ground Law in their defense, thus it was not to be considered by the jury...but that's like a judge telling a jury to ignore testimony by a witness... who makes a statement that is objected to by an opposing attorney and the judge sustains the objection.  A jury is made up of human beings...not robots.  They heard the testimony.  Human nature is bound to overrule what the judge says...and in many cases...play a part in a decision made by a juror...or the jury as a whole.  Therefore, the Stand Your Ground Law was an issue in the trial of George Zimmerman...and in the death of Trayvon Martin.

     If George Zimmerman was suspicious - for whatever reason - that Trayvon Martin may be a danger to the neighborhood Zimmerman was patrolling - and that Martin may have had a gun - then Zimmerman should have listened to the police dispatcher and stayed in his car.  He was clearly told by an official of the Sanford, Florida Police Department to not pursue the black male with the hoodie, but instead...he did.  And that is where, I believe, racial profiling comes in to play. If Zimmerman had accepted and embraced what the dispatcher had told him...Trayvon Martin would be alive today.

     What happened to Trayvon Martin is only one slice of a very large pie.  Blacks are being discriminated against, arrested and - in many cases - shot and killed because white people suspect them of wrongdoing...just because they are black.  That must change.

    "All men are created equal," wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1776.  But we all know that is unfortunately not true.  Obviously, America has made great strides and much progress since Mr. Jefferson penned that special phrase more than 237 years ago.  And equality for black Americans has moved forward in many ways since the civil rights movement of the 1960s.  But we're not where we should be.  Not yet.  And even though it is the law of the land...perhaps Barack Obama - as our first black President - can make President Jefferson's words...become the understanding...and the belief of everyone...who calls himself...or herself...an American.

     At the podium of The White House Press Briefing Room last Friday... President Obama said that "In the African-American community, at least... there is a lot of pain around what happened here.  I think it's important to recognize...that the African-American community is looking at this issue... through a set of experiences...and a history...that doesn't go away."

     What the President did on Friday was one of the bravest...most courageous steps any President has taken in a very long time...and I tip my hat to him.  I have always been proud to call myself an American...but after President Obama's surprise speech on Friday...I am proud to be an American who has Barack Obama as my President.

     Those of you who read The Controversy on a regular basis know that I am nearly always in support of what President Obama does as our nation's chief executive and commander-in-chief.  But his comments on Friday showed a leadership quality that paints a portrait of him that can be compared to only a handful of other Presidents.

     As an African-American himself...President Obama spoke in a personal way - connecting himself to Trayvon Martin.  And I applaud the President.  He reminded everyone that for too long...the issue of race has crippled our country...and that we need...we must...take aim on bigotry and prejudice... and shoot those ignorant beliefs, opinions and attitudes in the heart...before another African-American - or any life - is shot...because of a person's skin color...ethnicity...religious thoughts...sexual orientation...or for any other reasons whatsoever.

     Trayvon Martin's death...and George Zimmerman's acquittal...have re-opened a door...that has in the past been opened just a crack...and then slammed shut over the years.  However, President Obama's comments on Friday, July 19th have given America...and Americans...what we need at this time...at this moment.  President Barack Obama can go down in history as a great President for a number of reasons.  But if he continues the conversation that he began two days ago...and he's able to get Americans all across the country to truly discuss the issue of race in the United States...President Barack Obama can become an exceptionally great President of superior excellence...and one of the best in our nation's history.  Can he do it?  "Yes he can."

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

     "We'll talk again."

The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday.  Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well.
 

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net.  All Rights Reserved.

WHAT DID TRAYVON MARTIN DO WRONG? AND HOW IS GEORGE ZIMMERMAN NOT "GUILTY" OF SOMETHING FOR KILLING HIM?

    

My commentary today is jampacked with questions.  As I ask in the title...what did Trayvon Martin do wrong?  Nobody... nobody...not George Zimmerman...or anybody else...can say what it was...that Trayvon Martin did wrong.  So then...why is he dead?  Why did George Zimmerman shoot and kill Trayvon Martin?  And how is George Zimmerman not "guilty" of something for killing him?

     On Saturday night, July 13th, 2013...after deliberating for 16 hours and 20 minutes...a jury of 6 women - 5 of which were caucasion...and one that was described as being either African-American or Hispanic...found George Zimmerman to be "not guilty" in the 2nd degree murder trial of the Sanford, Florida, neighborhood watch leader.  The jury also declined to convict Zimmerman on a lesser charge of manslaughter.  And now...after sixteen and a half months since the February 26th, 2012 shooting...George Zimmerman is free.  But is he?

     Following his acquittal...Zimmerman is now receiving death threats.  Thousands and thousands of "likes" have been posted on a "Kill Zimmerman" Facebook page...and the hashtag "#killzimmerman" has been tweeted by many users on Twitter.

      Twelve days of emotional testimony has now led to Zimmerman fearing for his own life.  "He has always feared for his safety...and we have always feared for his safety and our safety as a family.  Clearly, he is a free man in the eyes of the court, but he's going to be looking around his shoulder for the rest of his life," Zimmerman's brother, Robert Zimmerman, Jr. told CNN.

     Whether a person agrees or disagrees with the verdict, threatening the acquitted Zimmerman is not how he should be treated.  We, as Americans, must accept this jury's decision.  We may not believe it to be the right decision...we may not agree with it...but our system of justice has ruled.  Sometimes a jury is correct.  Sometimes it is wrong.  But sitting in a jury box is not an easy task.  An old friend of mine - who has been a member of a jury that heard testimony in another murder trial - recently informed me that "That experience was the most heart wrenching and emotional two weeks of my life.  Jurors do take this obligation very seriously."  I'm sure they do.

     For whatever reason...the jury in the George Zimmerman trial believed that Zimmerman's actions were necessary as a means of self-defense.  I, however...do not agree.

     New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wrote, "Shoot First Laws like those in Florida can inspire dangerous vigilantism and protect those who act recklessly with guns.  Such laws (enable) people to shoot first and argue justifiable homicide later."  

     The Stand Your Ground Law in Florida states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat.  Trayvon Martin was an unarmed, 17-year old kid...who was shot and killed.  What was the unlawful threat?  How was killing him...a justifiable use of force?

     Reverend Al Sharpton said it best on the Sunday, July 14th, 2013 edition of NBC's Meet The Press with David Gregory.  "An unarmed teenager...who committed no crime...can be killed...and the killer can say...'self-defense.'  That is dangerous.  That is an atrocity.  I think every American ought to be afraid that (their) child can do nothing wrong...and can be killed...and (the killer) can use self-defense."

     Why did the jury not consider - at the very least - the lesser charge of manslaughter?  They had that option. Well, one of the jurors...who has only been identified as Juror B37...spoke earlier this week... exclusively with CNN's Anderson Cooper on his Anderson Cooper 360 program.  In that interview...the juror stated that she wanted to find George Zimmerman guilty of "not using his senses" but realistically "you can't charge him with anything because he didn't do anything unlawful.  He was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin."  Juror B37 released a statement to CNN on Wednesday, July 17th indicating that the jury had "no verdict option other than NOT GUILTY...in order to remain within the instructions" by the court...which were based on the laws in Florida.  That is why she is hoping that such laws will be "modified"...because "no other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured."  Many feel the same way...and protestors are wanting the Stand Your Ground Law to be repealed in Florida.  But for now...if you carefully examine the Florida law...the jury did what they were supposed to do.  It's unfortunate...but as President Obama said... in a written statement following the verdict..."We are a nation of laws...and a jury has spoken."

     Be that as it may...how is it possible...that an unarmed teenager...who was walking home...minding his own business...is shot and killed...but the person who kills him...is not being held accountable?  Juror B37 told Anderson Cooper that she believes that George Zimmerman really felt his life was in danger.  "I do.  I really do.  I have no doubt George feared for his life," she said.  But how, I ask?  How can Juror B37...or any of the jurors, for that matter, feel that way?  As I questioned at the outset of this commentary... what did Trayvon Martin do wrong?  What did he do to lead George Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger?

     In Florida...if there is reasonable doubt of self-defense...the jury did what they needed to do.  Do I agree?  I certainly do not.  The Stand Your Ground Law needs to be changed.  

     Trayvon Martin's rights were obviously violated.  He was followed...even when the police dispatcher in Sanford, Florida told him not to continue.  Zimmerman was advised to stay in his car.  But no...he wouldn't listen.   George Zimmerman presumed that Martin was suspicious.  But why?  Because he was a young, black male...walking in a suburban neighborhood...through the darkness of night...while wearing a hoodie?  

     If Trayvon Martin was white...not black...would George Zimmerman have stalked him?  If Trayvon Martin was white...not black...would George Zimmerman have waited for the police...and not gotten out of his car?  If Trayvon Martin was white...not black...would George Zimmerman have done nothing at all?  

     Did George Zimmerman profile Trayvon Martin because of his African-American race?  There was no evidence in the murder trial to prove such action...but a federal hate crime trial...or even a civil lawsuit...may provide us answers...that to this point...have not been given.  After all...in a civil lawsuit...Zimmerman may be forced to testify.  There is certainly a tremendous amount of explaining that I...and millions of other Americans... want to hear from George Zimmerman.  There have been too many inconsistencies...regarding the night Trayvon Martin was killed.  America... Sanford, Florida...and most importantly...Trayvon Martin's family...are entitled to know exactly what happened.  But even on the witness stand...will George Zimmerman tell the truth...the whole truth...and nothing but the truth?  He's already been found "not guilty" in the murder trial.  In a civil suit...going to prison is not a possibility...but George Zimmerman would have to pay money damages.  That won't bring back Trayvon Martin...but at least some justice would be served in some small way.  As for a hate crime trial...if one becomes a reality...does anyone really think that George Zimmerman would incriminate himself?  Another jury, however, may come to a conclusion that is different from that of the jury in the murder trial.   

     Meanwhile...demonstrations throughout America...which began as peaceful protests - from New York to California -  following the Zimmerman verdict... became violent in Los Angeles on Monday night, July 15th...which resulted in several incidents of assaults and more than a dozen arrests.

     From the average citizen to civil rights groups to some Members of Congress...there's pressure on the Department of Justice to charge George Zimmerman under federal civil rights laws...and Attorney General Eric Holder says an investigation is underway to determine whether such a charge can stick...if it is made.  Federal prosecutors would have to prove that George Zimmerman was motivated by racial animosity when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.  Racial hatred was not evident in the murder trial, but that doesn't mean the feds can't prove differently.  Juror B37 told Anderson Cooper that race was not a factor when deliberating whether Zimmerman should be found guilty or not guilty...and double jeopardy does not apply if the Justice Department moves forward with a hate crime case.

     You may recall that in 1992...a jury in California acquitted four Los Angeles police officers, who were accused of beating Rodney King.  However, under federal law...two of the cops were convicted for violating King's civil rights.

     Why did George Zimmerman get out of his car?  Why did he go after Trayvon Martin when he was told by a law enforcement official to wait for police and to do nothing else?  Four times throughout this commentary...I have referenced the fact that Trayvon Martin was "unarmed."  With the "not guilty" verdict of George Zimmerman...how can any young person of the African-American race...believe they are safe...and that the United States' system of justice will protect them?  Think about this?  Suppose Trayvon Martin was able to get the gun out of George Zimmerman's hand...and it accidentally went off...killing George Zimmerman?  Would a jury have found Trayvon Martin to be not guilty?  I wonder.

     Why must the issue of race...be an issue...in the 21st century?  Why is there still so much hatred towards blacks in this country?  Another old friend of mine remarked this week that, "If there is one thing that I've realized in the days since the Trayvon Martin trial...is that racism is not only still part of the U.S....it is raging and flourishing.  All you have to do is read the comments on any news story on the trial and...I can guarantee you...your stomach will flip."  Obviously, The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "dream" has not fully been realized...despite the fact...that as a nation...we have twice elected...an African-American to be President of the United States.  

 
"You know...if I had a son... he'd look like Trayvon," said President Obama on March 23rd, 2012...about a month after Trayvon Martin was killed.

     The death of Trayvon Martin was tragic and unnecessary.  I cannot believe that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense.  But in these United States of America...we must have faith in our system of justice.  And faith in the reasons we have certain laws.  And that includes our civil rights laws.  Remember what I have said now...five times...Trayvon Martin was a black, "unarmed" teenager.  The jury may have found Zimmerman to be "not guilty"...but how can George Zimmerman be innocent of a crime...when Trayvon Martin...is dead?  This case is far from over.  A jury did not find George Zimmerman to be guilty of murder or manslaughter...but either in a federal, hate crime trial...or a civil lawsuit...George Zimmerman will be held responsible...for the wrongful death...of Trayvon Martin.  And hopefully...the law that allowed George Zimmerman to kill Trayvon Martin...will be changed... so that no other mother...no other father...no other brother, sister, family or friend...of any other person...no matter what color their skin is...will have to suffer and grieve...as the families and friends of Trayvon Martin have been doing...and will continue to do...for the rest of their lives.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

     "We'll talk again."

The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday.  Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well.
 

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net.  All Rights Reserved.

CAN'T YOU TAKE A JOKE? FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA DID NOT SERIOUSLY CALL THE WHITE HOUSE...A PRISON. THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK SHE DID....NEED TO CHECK YOUR FUNNY BONE.

     Why do some people...in this case certain Republicans...make false statements - for political reasons - before they know the facts?  Or...even though they are fully aware of the truth...why do some people...again, certain Republicans...make accusations...to merely embarrass or make the President of the United States or...in this instance...The First Lady...look bad?

     While at a summit of female leaders in Tanzania, Africa...on Tuesday, July 2nd, 2013...First Lady Michelle Obama was talking with former First Lady Laura Bush and moderator Cokie Roberts of ABC News and National Public Radio when...at one point during the discussion...Roberts kiddingly asked Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Bush if being First Lady and living in The White House could be compared to being "a state prisoner."  It was obvious that the veteran, professional journalist...who is the author
of the best selling book, Founding Mothers...The Women Who Raised Our Nation...was jokingly referencing comments that were made by America's first First Lady, Martha Washington, who...history has proven...called herself - as First Lady - "a state prisoner" in a 1789 letter to her niece.  Mrs. Washington, however...and her husband - "The Father Of Our Country" - President George Washington... did not live in The White House.  President John Adams and First Lady Abigail Adams were the first occupants of America's presidential palace.

     Mrs. Obama laughingly told Cokie Roberts that "there are prison elements to (living in The White House).  But it's a really nice prison.  You can't complain.  It's a great privilege."  And Mrs. Bush continued with the humor and referred to The White House as a prison "but with a chef."

     Since Mrs. Obama made her funny comment...water cooler conversation and comments throughout the blogosphere have criticized The First Lady for comparing her life at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with that of being in jail.  That, of course, is nonsense and a bunch of hogwash.  Mrs. Obama made her remark in response to Cokie Roberts' question, which was asked all in good fun.  The fact of the matter is that similar comments have been made by other White House dwellers.  

President Harry Truman called it "a glamorous prison" and "the great white jail."  President Gerald Ford described living in the President's mansion as "the best public housing I've ever seen."  And President Bill Clinton labeled the commander-in-chief's residence in similar fashion stating, "I don't know whether it's the finest public housing in America or the crown jewel of the prison system." 

     Mrs. Obama noted that First Ladies "have probably the best jobs in the world because...unlike our husbands, who have to react and respond to crises on a minute by minute basis...we get to work on what we're passionate about."  But she noted..."there are confining elements"...while describing some of the restrictions of living in The White House.

     I'm amazed by the ignorant comments that are made by people across our great land...who simply read or hear a headline...that is used only as a tease...to get people to watch the rest of the cable news program...or to read the entire article of a newspaper or Internet Web site.  Then those headlines get transformed - by individuals around the nation - in to full stories... followed by person to person conversations...telephone gossip...social media chatter...and E-mails that spew venom, lies and falsehoods - only in an effort to humiliate and belittle a perfectly decent and honorable human being...who gives of herself everyday of her life.

     For anyone to think that Mrs. Obama would degrade the position she gladly and proudly holds...or that she would embarrass The President in any form...you are simply creating a bunch of blather and balderdash to blemish the beauty - inside and out - of the First Lady of the United States.  Michelle Obama...is a classy, charming and intelligent person...who is devoted and dedicated to helping other Americans.  And like her husband...Mrs. Obama happens to also have...a great sense of humor.  Perhaps some of you...should get the same.

     And that's The Controversy for today.

     I'm Gary B. Duglin.

     "We'll talk again."

The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday and Wednesday.  Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well.
 

Please express your opinions in the comment box below.  You do not have to register your name and you can remain anonymous if you prefer.  The Controversy wants to know your views on the essay above and on any other commentaries written on this blog.  Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your thoughts in the box that appears.  Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish."  Thank you.

Copyright 2013 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net.  All Rights Reserved.