Why Wasn't FLA 'Gunslinger' Michael Dunn Convicted of Murder in the 1st?

This is the question most of us would like to have answered. For any normal person, it's a no-brainer to find for murder in the 1st degree for any guy who  (without firm identification of any real threat) fires three shots at a fleeing vehicle after he's already emptied seven bullets into a car, killing one of the occupants, (Jordan Davis).   But see, in the state of Florida, because of one screwed up law, anything goes. You can become judge, jury and executioner merely on the psychological perception that a young black kid wants to off you, and hey, he and his bros were playing "thug" music too loud.

Such is the case with one Michael Dunn, who - if he isn't a blood brother or cousin of George Zimmerman- is at least a psycho clone of him. But unlike the George Zimmerman case, the Dunn case featured a straightforward application of Florida’s "stand your ground" law. Under the Florida state statutes (the law goes by "776.013"). : if Dunn had a "reasonable fear"  that he was about to suffer “great bodily harm,” then he had a legal right to shoot Davis to death, rather than, for example, choosing to protect himself by driving away, even if Dunn knew that driving away would have protected him from harm.

That is how insane this ridiculous law is. Even more perverse, as a TIME article on it ('The Law Heard Around the World', April 9, p. 36)  observes, you're invariably better off firing your gun once it's drawn. According to the article:

"Even though 'Stand Your Ground' excuses with the barest of evidence, Florida punishes the crime of simply pointing a gun at someone with a mandatory minimum of three years in prison. In other words, you can point a gun and go to prison, or you can fire your gun and go free under 'Stand Your Ground'."

How screwy is this insane law? It is so nutso that it places most of the burden of proof on the prosecution! Because the stand your ground law creates an affirmative defense for criminal defendants, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter's claim, i. e.  that he had a reasonable fear he was about to suffer great bodily harm,  was false. Such laws, in effect, put the victim rather than the killer on trial.

It was for this reason there was a mistrial on the count of first degree murder, which in any normal state, would have been a veritable no- brainer.  As the prosecuting attorney put it, Dunn acted purely out of "pride". This, despite the fact he brought on the altercation himself. I mean, he's at a convenience store gas station - for maybe five minutes if that- and he finds it necessary to tell a car full of youngsters to turn the music down?  Why not just zip the lip, fill 'er up and freakin' leave!

But no, Dunn had to tell the kids to turn it down, and he then blew a gasket when they gave him some back chat, as kids will do. He then perceived the back chat as a personal slight, in fact a serious challenge to his manhood. He couldn't face them down squarely, minus  a weapon, knowing that his verbal altercation (with four teenaged boys)  harbored a non-trivial risk of him suffering great bodily harm. So he whipped out his gun - the great 'equalizer' -  and started firing, expecting the SYG law would protect him.

The jury then was faced with the typical SYG quandary, I mean, here was this poor little middle -aged white software developer faced with four black kids and playing ....lo and behold....'thug music'.  Thus, murder in the first wasn't on the table, at least for one juror  - hence the mistrial. In that juror (or jurors) mind, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn wasn’t in reasonable fear of suffering great bodily harm. And hey,  if the prosecution couldn’t prove that, it meant Dunn had the legal right to choose to kill a teenaged boy – to “stand his ground” — rather than to retreat.

Never mind. Though Dunn escaped the most severe count, he was found guilty of four other counts including murder in the second degree and opening fire in a public place.  As one legal expert on MSNBC put it on Saturday night, he faces up to 20 years on each count and if the judge imposes the penalties consecutively, it's basically life in prison for Dunn.

One hopes this will be a lesson for any more would-be Jesse James wannabes, but in Florida don't count on it!

Another School Shooting: Is Rigorous Gun Regulation Even Possible?

In Murdock, FL, ca. May, 1986, with a Colt AR-15. It is doubtful these weapons can be controlled unless the private market (as exemplified in Gun show sales) can also be regulated.

With the news of another school shooting, this time by a 12 year old using a semi-automatic weapon in Sparks, NV, attention once more turns to gun control. Make no mistake the damage in Sparks could have been much worse had a courageous math teacher, Michael Landsberry, not stepped in front of the young shooter, impeding him from firing on other classmates. According to one student interviewed by John Blackstone as reported yesterday morning on CBS Early Show, the shooter yelled: "You ruined my whole life!" - likely referring to a bad math grade.

Now, as reported this morning, the parents may have to accept responsibility for the kid getting the gun, and take the consequences for his actions.  But is it even reasonable? Perhaps, given it was their duty to ensure the weapon was secure. Once a weapon enters a home, the parents are the last line of security ensuring a kid doesn't get his mitts on the merchandise, load it up and go out with a chip on his shoulder to settle scores.

But outside of the home venue,  is rigorous gun control even possible? According to James B. Jacobs, writing in the January-February 2003 Legal Affairs ('Off Target', p. 18) all the regulations in the world  won't help unless we finally get smart about what is practical and what isn't. It's also clear that other nations (e.g. Canada) with high numbers of guns owned per capita don't act like we do. In Jacobs' words:

"it's clear that there is much more going on than unchecked access to guns. The United States has much more violent crime, with and without firearms, than any other Western democracies. America, it seems, has a disproportionate penchant for violence."

Why? One can surmise any number of reasons. My own, as given in 'The Elements of the Corporatocracy',  is the presence of pervasive free floating anger - even rage - endemic in so many citizens. This arises because of their powerlessness in the face of the power brokers, who play with their lives and basic security like a deranged kid might "play" with ants using a magnifying glass.  A guy is one week from collecting a pension from his company which would ensure long term security, and he's fired. Make sure if you do such a deed, you batten the hatches. The guy  dumped will not go gracefully or easily into that good night !  A working mother, meanwhile, has to leave her job to take care of her sick kid and is fired on her return. Another mom with an autistic child to care for is happy to get the news of her promotion, until she learns she will no longer be able to get the Medicaid care needed - the higher salary now disqualifies her! 

All of these disclose possible reasons for the endemic anger  in much of U.S. society, but let's be honest and admit the easy access to weapons makes going over the precipice to violent action easier. Why not in Canada which has more guns per capita? Because there are more social support safety nets in place to catch people who are cut off from their life lines. Canadians enjoy a truly single payer health insurance system as well as other social insurance protections that U.S. citizens don't. Hence, there's a higher threshold of pain that can be tolerated before they go whacko.

This is something to bear in mind, as the Neoliberal politicos ponder "entitlement" and other cuts in some "bipartisan grand bargain" to try to right the U.S. debt situation..

Anyway, back to Jacob's piece. He notes that the "practical effect of gun control is severely limited". For example, the regulatory system itself appears to defeat its own efforts. Purchases made through Federal Firearms Licensees are heavily regulated but purchase by private individuals, say at gun shows, are not. So long as occasional gun sellers don't declare themselves FFLs, there's no federal requirement they run background checks.  Jacobs compares this to "a house with six deadbolts locks and one open window."

Jacobs adds it ought to surprise no one that most criminals get their weapons through the secondary market, i.e. at gun shows. As he points out:

"If the law doesn't require background checks at gun shows, then it's at gun shows that criminals know they need to get their guns."

Hence, no gun regulation law that leaves out the private market can work.

The other practical problem, as Jacobs shows, is that even if a gun regulation "forbids" selling guns to certain categories - say illegal aliens, or mental patients - there's no way to ascertain a buyer falls into these prohibited categories.  "It serves only as political agitprop not as policy".

He adds that even after the Columbine massacre here in Colorado, the U.S. Congress refused to pass the "Gun Show Accountability Act", and there's no reason any new congress would do so even after Aurora, Newtown and other school shootings such as the one in Sparks.

What about a national handgun registry - say to cover weapons such as Glocks? Jacobs argues that this would "mean little unless nearly all of the 250 million guns currently in circulation were all listed with the government."

What about laws regulating assault weapons such as the AR-15 I am holding in the photo? Jacobs acknowledges states have passed laws mandating regulation of such rifles but "for reasons ranging from ideology to laziness these laws have been overwhelmingly ignored". He adds that even given such laws, "a black market would inevitably crop up where unregistered weapons would be peddled."

He adds that "unlike with cars - where drivers without license plates can easily be spotted by police- those who choose to carry an unregistered gun would likely go undetected until after they commit a crime."

As he further asks:  Even if we overcame the political, logistical and financial impediment to passing a practical and cogent law for the secondary gun market, would a new generation of criminals obtain unregistered handguns? And - would the gains in controlling guns be worth it?

Jacobs concludes that prohibition of civilian ownership of firearms "is not a feasible option".

But he does assert some things can still be done. These include:

- Ballistic fingerprinting: requiring manufacturers to test fire new guns and supply the government with samples of the bullets and shell casings.

- Restricting handgun sales to one handgun per buyer each month. ("Very few legitimate users would be inconvenienced by the limit")

- Imposing a defined waiting period, say from 48 to 72 hours. This would prevent a person in a murderous rage (say just after being canned 1 week from getting his pension) from running straight to a gun shop - buying a gun- to discharge his frustrations.

- The easiest solution (to strengthen firearms policy)  is to "provide severe punishment for every defendant who uses a gun to commit a crime." No serious interest groups would oppose tough treatment for gun offenders."

The one little problem with the last? It takes no account of the 'Stand Your Ground' laws such as in Florida, which allow a gun toter to blow away his opposition if he "feels threatened with deadly force".

One wonders what Jacobs would have thought of such laws, given Florida's only came into existence 5 years after his article. I believe if he'd been cognizant of them, he'd have argued they're a bad idea because of undermining the punishment aspect by applying too general conditions for use of deadly force. Think George Zimmerman and Tavon Martin.

Can The Right’s Wingnuts Grasp That Chris Lane is NOT Trayvon Martin?

An example of the gross lack of critical thinking in this country is the Right’s current depiction of Obama and the Left as “hypocritical” because we don’t come out in manifest outrage at the Chris Lane killing – by two blacks and one mixed guy – as we did with the Trayvon Martin killing. A brain is truly a precious thing to waste, but to hear the lapdogs on the Right, you’d think they’d all lost their brains –or what’s left of them!

How do we spell it out for them that this is a clear case of false analogy? I mean, if these jokers don’t even grasp the basics of accelerating climate change – and still believe it to be a “hoax”- how in Hades can we get them to grasp a highly nuanced illustration of causal disjunction in the Chris Lane murder vis-à-vis the Trayvon Martin murder? I wonder!

Look, the case of the young Aussie here on a baseball scholarship that gets plugged in the back by three teen punks who were “bored” is a tragedy beyond belief. He was just visiting at his girlfriend’s place, going out for a jog one evening, and gets shot in the back with a .22 revolver. His life ended, his scholarship hopes terminated as well as a likely major league baseball future – maybe with the Milw. Brewers!

But it was not to be because of these thugs. So how is this case different from Trayvon’s murder?

1) The cops actually acted expeditiously and effectively in arresting the perps in this case, while they were asleep at the switch in the Trayvon killing. (Probably immobilized initially by Florida’s reckless ‘stand your ground’ law – hence unable to decide if Zimmerman really committed a crime).

2) Zimmerman basically used the SYG law as a legal cover to whack Martin, who was just minding his business and trying to get through the neighborhood. The punks in the Lane case out and out blasted a guy to death but had no legal cover to hide behind.

3) The three punks (not “apes”) in Oklahoma, are singularly responsible for their dastardly act and must face the music. They stand trial as adults as well they should. Zimmerman had a state law (Fla. State statute 776.013) as an untried accomplice- which means others can get away with the same crime in the future.

4) Zimmerman, because he had a legal façade to protect him, collected hundreds of thousands of bucks to hire the best lawyers to make his legal case. The 3 punks in Okey-land won’t have doggy lickspittle. This is not to say they deserve $$$, but only that had they been white and acting under the same ‘guidelines’ as Zimmerman in FLA- they’d likely have had a rat’s chance of escaping like Zimmerman did. But black or mulatto, and SYG law or not, they’d have faced Old Sparky.

5) I know this must give a certain wannabe Confederate cretin a stroke, but Obama owes no one any explanation or any chiming in on the Lane case. Basically, it is 'case closed', and those 3 punks are going to likely get the maximum punishment. International outrage alone – e.g. from Australia – demands it.

6) The Australian former PM correctly blames the "NRA gun culture" for making weapons too easily available in the U.S. and he’s correct. Some wingnut lamebrains compare this argument to suggesting that all autos be confiscated because they kill 35,000 or so a year, and all pressure cookers be confiscated because they can be used to make bombs such as in the Boston Marathon bombing.

But these again are false analogies. The reason is that the primary use for a car is transport and people are killed mainly out of negligence, causing accidents. The primary use for a pressure cooker is and always has been to cook food. All other uses - including taking a crap in or making a bomb out of are aberrant at best, and hence not justifiable to base withdrawal or disuse upon. The primary use for a gun, by contrast, is to kill or maim and most gun deaths – better than 90% - are caused out of intent to kill, maim. (“Protection” is often cited but the stats show this hardly if ever materializes. The crooks usually get the guns and employ them against the owners)

But here’s the butt -kicker for the Right to ruminate on: Had the three OK punks all been white and the shooting occurred in FL they likely would have gotten away with their punk deed on the basis of the Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law - if they’d come up with the right pretext – as opposed to the stupid, degenerate “bored” crap.

Something to think about!

Wonder Why Zimmerman Was Acquitted? Blame Florida's Stupid 'Stand Your Ground' Law!

In Murdock, FL, ca. May, 1986, admiring one of my middle brother's favorite rifles in his collection. No, I am not a "gun-hater" only a hater of stupid laws!


The verdict is now in with the Trayvon Martin case and millions are outraged as they should be. The problem is to be able to pin the tail on the right 'donkey', and that means exactly and precisely identifying how a 'not guilty' in this criminal case came to be.  Reasonable people can disagree on particulars, such as influence of "reasonable doubt" and how the prosecution "blew it" but in the end there lurks the 4,000 lb. 'elephant' in the room: Florida's misbegotten 'Stand Your Ground' law.

According to an April 9, 2012 TIME article ('The Law Heard Around the World') the threshold for proof of felony homicide is so low with this law on the books, it's almost impossible to prosecute anyone for capital murder. Which, of course, is why the Special Prosecutor at the time opted not to pursue a capital murder charge in the Zimmerman case and backed away from a Grand Jury.

Even more perverse, as the TIME piece observed, is that  in Florida you're invariably better off firing your gun once it's drawn. According to the article:

"Even though 'Stand Your Ground' excuses with the barest of evidence, Florida punishes the crime of simply pointing a gun at someone with a mandatory minimum of three years in prison. In other words, you can point a gun and go to prison, or you can fire your gun and go free under 'Stand Your Ground'."

According to one of Zimmerman's former law profs (and contrary to Zimmerman's earlier claims) he knew this law, so you expect him to know he'd be tagged with at least 3 years at Raiford if he merely drew his gun on Trayvon and didn't fire. In other words, it's plausible that  a knowledge of 'Stand Your Ground' made him realize he'd have a better chance getting off Scot-free using his weapon than if he'd merely pointed his weapon at the youngster and not fired. As the article put it:

"One can imagine that Zimmerman was not racist but merely hasty when he drew his Kel-Tec PF pistol"

Indeed. And once he'd drawn in haste, Zimmerman would have realized he'd have to fire if he had any chance of escaping prison. This is why 'Stand Your Ground' is so perverse. Under the Florida state statutes, "776.013"  -  passed in 2005 -   effectively expanded the rule known as "the Castle doctrine". This is a version of the old common law from the Middle Ages that states if a stranger enters your home without permission you may use deadly force to defend yourself. (Colorado also has a version of this called 'Make My Day'.)

The problem was that unlike Colorado's more conservative law - which only permits you to kill an intruder once he's in your home- Florida's lawmakers opted to expand the purview not only to the easement or sidewalk outside but to "any place where the citizen has a right to be". Thus, bowling alleys, churches, movie theaters, parties....the Everglades....you name it. Oh, and the vicinity of gated communities if an SYG groupie thinks he might have spotted anyone "suspicious", i.e. "criminal".

TIME noted in its piece last year that despite SYG's vast breadth only 20 of Florida's 153 lawmakers opposed the law. Thus did Repuke Gubernator Jeb Bush sign it into law on April 26, 2005 even as the NRA got a major Jones - having fought like rabid ferrets to get the law passed since the late 80s. As the face of its PR push the NRA used a white- haired granny (Marion Hammer) who happened to be the first female president of the organization. She once declared that the key to winning the gun debate was to "get rid of all liberals". 

Given such twaddle readers won't be at all surprised to learn that Zimmerman benefited mightily by over a half million bucks in right wing extremist contributions to hire the best legal team he could. And as we know in this country, as the quality of your legal team goes so go your chances of escaping a charge.

However, what people really need to put their focus on is the idiotic, deranged Florida law ('Stand Your Ground") that has been responsible for nearly 50 homicides the past 7 years not being prosecuted as such. (In the year before the law went into effect, 2004, Florida authorities deemed 8 homicides "justifiable" compared to 40 deemed such by 2010, according to the TIME piece).

Meanwhile, insane right wingers salivate over the prospect of 2 million "George Zimmermans"   able to carry their Kel-Tec PF or Glock 9mm pistols into any schools to supposedly protect the kids. This being their "solution" to another Newtown. In that case, god help us all.  More likely than not, with such trigger-happy tools in abundance it's the kids who will pay the price.

In the meantime, consider the possibility of hundreds of Zimmerman-like shooting situations erupting all over the country. This is possible if the NRA's next pet law, the National Right to Carry Recpirocity Act, gets passed in the future. This law would mandate that  all the gun control states (e.g. New York)  to allow inhabitants of the 'stand Your Ground' states such as Florida, to tote their weapons anywhere they want ....whether in Times Square...or on Hollywood Boulevard. Think of all the potential shooting situations that could erupt, from a young black guy accidentally bumping into an elderly white Florida cracker, or a black kid making eyes at a white woman from Sanford, packing her own heat.

Think the Zimmerman case was awful, wait until this law passes!

Am I a "liberal" gun-hater? Not at all (see photo). But there is a difference between gun fetishism and sound, rational gun ownership and this nation crossed it when - in 2009, it allowed weapons to be carried into national parks (as part of an amendment to passing a credit card law- which again Obama punked out on, as he ought to have vetoed it!). Now, these 'Stand Your Ground' laws have made the distinction between justifiable homicide and blatant homicide carried out under cover of the law almost impossible for even a King Solomon to parse- let alone a FLA jury of 6 mothers.

Let us hope Florida wakes up before it's too late, and somehow enough sane members of its legislature repeal the nutso 'Stand Your Ground' law. If they don't - and it's unlikely so long as repukes control the legislature- look for more of these Zimmerman -like incidents!

The Trayvon Martin Case: Blame a Stupid Florida Law

In Murdock, FL, ca. May, 1986, admiring one of my middle brother's favorite rifles in his collection. No, I am not a "gun-hater" only a hater of stupid laws!


The news that the Special Prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin killing will not bring it before a Grand Jury, or seek capital punishment for the shooter- George Zimmerman- must have millions beside themselves and in a state of confusion and shock. However, what people really need to put their focus on is the idiotic, deranged Florida law ('Stand Your Ground") that has been responsible for nearly 40 homicides the past 6-plus years not being prosecuted as such. (In the year before the law went into effect, 2004, Florida authorities deemed 8 homicides "justifiable" compared to 40 deemed such by 2010).

And, so long as this law remains on the books, another "Trayvon" (maybe even a white kid) may not be long in arriving.

According to a TIME article ('The Law Heard Around the World', April 9, p. 36) the threshold for proof of felony homicide is so low with this law on the books, it's almost impossible to prosecute anyone for capital murder. (Which, of course, is why the Special Prosecutor, Ms. Corey, opted not to pursue it and backed away from a Grand Jury.)

Even more perverse, as the TIME piece observes, is that you're invariably better off firing your gun once it's drawn. According to the article:

"Even though 'Stand Your Ground' excuses with the barest of evidence, Florida punishes the crime of simply pointing a gun at someone with a mandatory minimum of three years in prison. In other words, you can point a gun and go to prison, or you can fire your gun and go free under 'Stand Your Ground'."

Zimmerman most likely knew this law, at least as a supposed law and order wannabe-buff, so you might expect him to know he'd be tagged with 3 years at Raiford if he merely drew his gun on Trayvon and didn't fire. In other words, it's plausible a knowledge of 'Stand Your Ground' made him realize he'd have a better chance getting off Scot-free using his weapon than if he'd merely pointed his weapon at Trayvon and not fired. As the article put it:

"One can imagine that Zimmerman was not racist but merely hasty when he drew his Kel-Tec PF pistol"

Indeed. And once he'd drawn in haste, Zimmerman would have realized he'd have to fire it if he had any chance of escaping prison. This is why 'Stand Your Ground' is so perverse.

Under the Florida state statutes, the law goes by "776.013". Basically then, in 2005, Florida - the swamp state- became the first state in the nation to expand the rule known as "the Castle doctrine". This is a version of the old common law from the Middle Ages that states if a stranger enters your home without permission you may use deadly force to defend yourself. (Colorado also has a version of this called 'Make My Day')

The problem was that unlike Colorado's more conservative 'Make My Day' law - which only permits you to kill an intruder in your home- Florida's lawmakers opted to expand the purview not only to the easement or sidewalk outside your home but to "any place where the citizen has a right to be". Thus, bowling alleys, churches, movie theaters, parties....the Everglades....you name it.

Moreover the underpinnings for triggering the law were murky. Say you're at a party and just feeling threatened by a 280-lb. jock type and you fear he will waylay you and even cause brain injury, then you can pull the gun and fire basing your actions on 'Stand Your Ground'. Yet as TIME notes, despite its vast breadth only 20 of Florida's 153 lawmakers opposed the law. Thus did Repuke Gubernator Jeb Bush sign it into law on April 26, 2005 even as the NRA got a major Jones - having fought like rabid ferrets to get the law passed since the late 80s. (The NRA used as the face of its legal push one Marion Hammer, a white- haired granny and the first female president of the organization, who once declared that the key to winning the gun debate was to "get rid of all liberals").

Fortunately, more recent rational voices appear to be emerging such as Buddy Jacobs (General Counsel of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association) in an op-ed published in the March 27 Orlando Sentinel. Jacobs correctly noted that Florida legislators ought to reconsider the law.

Meanwhile, imagine a situation in the land where 2 million "George Zimmermans" may be able to carry their Kel-Tec PF pistols to any gun control states such as California and New York. This will occur if enough wussie Democrats in the Senate cave-in to help pass the "National Right to Carry Recpirocity Act" .

This law will command all the gun control states to allow inhabitants of the fancy free, 'stand Your Ground' gun -loose states such as Florida, to tote their weapons anywhere they want ....whether in Times Square...or on Hollywood Boulevard. And given these "swamp denizens" - as TIME columnist Joe Klein calls them in his op-ed ('Triumph of the Gun Fetishists')in the same TIME issue - will likely have some version of their states' 'Stand Your Ground' embedded in their craniums, watch out!

Am I a gun-hater? Not at all (see photo). But there is a difference between gun fetishism and sound, rational gun ownership and this nation crossed it when - in 2009, it allowed weapons to be carried into national parks (as part of an amendment to passing a credit card law). Now, these 'Stand Your Ground' laws have made the distinction between justifiable homicide and blatant homicide carried out under cover of the law almost impossible for even a King Solomon to parse.

Let us hope Florida wakes up before it's too late, and hope at least enough Dems in the Senate aren't so spooked by the NRA gun lobby that they give this one up to the crazies too!

The Trayvon Martin Case and the Dogs of American-Style War

Julian Assange defends Wikileaks release of documents two years ago, mainly to do with the conduct of the occupation of Afghanistan. It is doubtful that such releases can have any substantive effect on war policy or conduct until the documents NSC 10/2 and NSC-68 (which green light never ending wars and meddling) are each mothballed!

"And Caesar's spirit, raging for revenge, with Ate by his side come hot from hell, shall in these confines with a monarch's voice, Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth. " (Julius Caesar Act 3, scene 1, 270–275

"The hallmark of a great civilization is its ability to wage peace, not war."

-Gene Roddenberry

Incredibly, throughout the media blitz on the Trayvon Martin killiing, none of the pundits commenting have brought up the obvious parallels to the mode of American, pre-emptive warfare since 2003. To summarize briefly: the very least we know (before Sanford police PR began insinuating itself) is that "Neighborhood Watch" guy George Zimmerman encountered Trayvon Martin - a young black kid in a hoodie, and suddenly felt his life threatened. We don't know how many more details there are, but based on 911 calls this is the least we know. The claims that Trayvon "attacked" Zimmerman are still under investigation and as yet no hard proof has emerged to sustain them.

The point is, prior to Zimmerman's overt action of firing his weapon, the State of Florida already had in place a reckless law known as "Stand your ground" - which basically conferred the right of ultimate self protection if one felt or sensed that his life was threatened. On this basis, one can argue that Zimmerman acted "pre-emptively" to neutralize a vague threat that had become entrenched in his sense perceptions - triggering the fear circuits in his amygdala.

Now, think of laws like this all over the nation (we also have one in Colo. called "Make my Day" after the famous catch phrase in the first 'Dirty Harry' flick - where you can shoot and kill anyone entering or already inside your home if you believe he poses a threat to your life) and the inevitable results. We'd had mass bedlam and anarchy! The rule of law as it should be would be incessantly trumped by the perception of a "threat" requiring lethal force. Or "pre-emptive lethal force" if you will.

But as odious as such laws are in terms of the lethal license they give to the feeling threatened, let us admit and concede that they have precedents on the national level! I am talking of course of the "Bush doctrine" and its prescription to justify any form of "pre-emptive war" if the U.S. feels itself threatened. (Note: the Pentagon's PR mongers like to use the term "preventive war" but I am not buying into that bollocks. This again is a form of collaterial language designed to gut critical thought, reason. Please see the book: Collateral Language: A Users’ Guide to America’s New War (2002) )

Referring back to the preceding parenthetical, the alteration of the language (including use of the term "terrorist" and "war on terror") was crucial in order for the Bushies to launch their assorted 'dog and pony' shows (including with Colin Polwell at the UN) to try to show Saddam was getting ready to have a nuke and then who knew? Maybe mushroom clouds! The impetus was then to try to drive American public opinion into embracing an absurd, unjustified invasion and occupation which ultimately transmuted into an 8 ½ year long "war" (which was obviously still an occupation).

In other words, like George Zimmerman confronted with the "threatening" (in Zimmerman's mind) hoodie-clad, tall black kid, the Bushies were confronted with a lone nation (Iraq) they perceived (in their minds) as a "terrorist" (or part of the "Axis of Evil") which had all kinds of weapons and therefore this demanded a first strike. In other words, pre-emptive action, hence striking an initial lethal blow at a country before it could strike- thereby sending its economy into carnage and slaughtering over 600,000 Iraqis according to World Health Organization estimates. (Which are, of course, lowballed by the Pentagon to no more than 100,000).

Needless to say, based on what transpired from the fall of 2002 to March 15, 2003 (public support for the war went from barely 34% in December, 2002, to more than 67% in February) it is incumbent on all Americans now to be aware that when they passively comply with collateral language pushed on them like crack (as it was by the corporate media in the runup to the Iraq invasion) they become no better than useful idiots for the military-industrial complex and perpetual war state.

If Americans instead persist in a state of false consciousness and allow their brains to be PR-dumbed down, then they assist in mutating language and thought toward an ideological agenda, rather than shedding light on the issues themselves.

Nevertheless, the PR residue from 2002-03 which fueled that Iraq invasion bubble of unreality via jingoistic illusions (and inadequate security delusions) continues today with assorted similar pressures to strike Iran - despite the fact there's absolutely no hard evidence they have any nukes, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/03/its-still-stupid-to-launch-attack-on.html

Thus, unlike with the drumbeating in 2002-03, Americans must now do all in their power to resist the flood of media sound bites, from every yammering pundit, assuming ab initio an attack or war on Iran is morally justified, correct and "preventive" (instead of pre-emptive). Let's also reiterate once more, such pre-emptive attacks, as in the case of the U.S. invasion and attack on Iraq, and Nazi Germany's pre-emptive attacks on the Sudentenland in 1938, and Poland in 1939 (based on Poles being a "terrorist threat" to Aryan females) can't be countenanced under international law. These are guided by the Nuremberg Laws which were written after the conquest of the fascists in World War Two. Most particularly we have:

PRINCIPLE VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Note especially (i) which most directly embodies the entire pre-emptive war concept. It means exactly what it states, so that any nation found guilty of "planning, preparation, initiation or war of aggression" is thereby violating that principle.

The fact that so few Americans are aware of the above shows how ripe we are as a people to become even more PR-deformed.

Sadly, in the old days, before the disastrous implementation of National Security Council (NSC) Directive ‘NSC 10/2’ on June 18, 1948, this nation valued honor and only initiated wars unless first attacked. Thus, Pearl Harbor paved the way for our just entry into World War Two. Because honor underscored initiation of war, it thereby became a matter of honor to also have everyone help PAY for such using higher taxes and-or rationing of foodstuffs, gas etc. Because at that time we were on the side of moral right, we had the nation and the world with us.

Not so since that NSC 10/2 was enabled! The scope of activities enumerated under the directive included: “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action – including sabotage; subversion against hostile states including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas and refugee liberation groups and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”

Ratcheting up the effect, and consolidating the impetus to Empire building was the document NSC-68, prepared by Paul Nitze of the National Security Council – completed by 1950. The document essentially contained the blueprint for unending strife and undeclared wars, all of which would be invoked on the basis of a zero tolerance threshold for foreigners’ misbehavior. The putative basis? To enable U.S. agitation, overthrow (or assassination) of democratically-elected leaders, and large and small occupations (ranging from the few thousand troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965, to more than 200,000 in Iraq by 2006.)

Thus, we lost our way as we invaded nations (e.g. Dominican Republic, Iraq, etc.) with no reason and engaged also in the overthrow of democratically-elected governments (e.g. Iran's Mossadegh in 1953, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, assassinating Salvador Allende in 1972.) Thereby we lost honor, so that "war on the cheap" or more accurately "wars of choice" became the norm, to try to justify whatever was in the NSC 10/2 directive.

The motivating force of the Nitze document was clear in this regard:

“a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere”

In other words, any place for which the U.S. even remotely construes a “defeat of free institutions” gives it license to intervene at will. This critical aspect is described thusly by Morris Berman (Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, W.W. Norton, page 118, 2006)
"Nitze emphasized the importance of perception, arguing that how we were seen was as crucial as how militarily secure we actually were. This rapidly expanded the number of interests deemed relevant to national security”

In other words, it provided the pre-emptive formula for unending war even before the Bush doctrine arrived. Gore Vidal pinpoints the emergence of the American Empire when he notes (Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, Thunders Mouth, p. 124, 2002)

"Since 1950 the United States has fought perhaps a hundred overt and covert wars. None was declared by the nominal representatives of the American people in Congress…they had meekly turned over to the executive their principal great power to wage war. That was the end of that Constitution"

One would have hoped that MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow in her new book, 'DRIFT' would have covered more of this backstory, but evidently not. Her focus was more on how "cheaply" war has been waged over the past 4-5 decades, effectively insulating the civilian U.S. populace from any real consequences. But she did not dig into the underlying deep causes, the offensive and dishonorable documents: NSC 10/2 and NSC -68. Well, maybe in a follow-up.

In the meantime, as we puzzle over George Zimmerman's pre-emptive over-reaction to the mere appearance of a young hoodie-clad black man in his "territory" perhaps we might also contemplate the pre-emptive over-reactions of our own nation to any and all perceived threats in the larger world.

Maybe....at some juncture... one is connected with the other.