Analyzing The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Incident

According to a Florida jury, George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. Needless to say, this verdict has caused an uproar, with the emotional responses running the gamut from calm protest to violence.

I’ve waited a few days before outlining my own opinions, only to bring some calm and reason to my own mind. Something very wrong has happened here, and the wrong started before the actual killing.

Very simply put, this whole matter would have been avoided if George Zimmerman took his role in his neighborhood watch as just that – to WATCH. Instead, he was armed, he took action after being told not to, and in doing so, Trayvon Martin was the one who was dead for doing nothing except walking wearing a hoodie.

Zimmerman was also not arrested quickly for the shooting until several weeks after it happened. The police investigation into the shooting took far too long before Zimmerman was arrested.

The prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon in self defense, which the jury felt it did not do. The prosecution also allowed for a lesser charge of manslaughter to be considered after the case was already in progress, a sign that they didn’t think they could win their own case of murder. Had they gone forward first with a manslaughter charge, they may have a had a better chance in getting their desired verdict. There is also talk that the Feds will research pressing charges against Zimmerman for a hate crime, but the general consensus of the media pundits is there is simply not enough evidence for the Feds to sustain those charges. It’s possible that a civil suit against Zimmerman would be the best recourse to get justice for Trayvon.

Compounding the emotional response, the media has did a good job in fanning the flames. NBC News faces a lawsuit from Zimmerman for editing Zimmerman’s 911 call where they made it sound as if  Zimmerman was commenting on Trayvon's race, when in reality he was simply answering the dispatcher's question.  In delivering the details about this case over the last several months even before the trial, it’s as if the media is trying the case themselves and polarizing viewers before the trial even started. While I know that cases like this could mean bigger ratings for the news media, it seems like the media has forgotten that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Needless to say, things need to change to avoid situations like this in the future.

First and foremost, those working neighborhood watch programs should do only that – WATCH, and then report to law enforcement. Law enforcement should decide which situations should require their involvement. Neighborhood watch people should not be armed with guns. If they are going to protect their neighborhood, they need to watch everyone and not judge people on their color or their clothing. Neighborhood watch programs across the country need to take a very hard look at how they operate and what kinds of people they use as watchers. These programs should be as simple as watch, observe patterns, and report to the authorities.

All laws that allow killing in self defense such as “Stand Your Ground” need further scrutiny to tighten those situations where it is justifiable. If you are in your own home and an intruder enters and you feel your life is in danger, that seems to be a clear situation where self defense would be in order. But, things get murky when a person uses self defense in a situation in which they put themselves. 

The only thing neighborhood watch people should be armed with is a good set of eyes, a good camera, and good sense. In fact, maybe we need to take the people out of that equation – just install video cameras in the neighborhoods to record activity. Video cameras can’t have their lives put in danger and they can’t be armed with a gun.



Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

Driving While Distracted (DWD) - Stop The Regulation Insanity!

With the recent news that the NTSB wants a ban on cell phone use while driving, including the use of hands free devices, I think it’s time to bring some sanity to the insanity of over regulation.

While I believe that texting while driving a car, truck, bus, or train is inherently dangerous as it can not only take a driver’s hands off the wheel but also their eyes for too much time, the suggestion to ban hands free cell phone devices is just plain ridiculous. Talking on a cell phone while driving and using hands free device in the process is no more distracting than driving with a passenger in the car. Granted, sometimes having a passenger (or passengers) in the car can be a distraction, but  the NTSB hasn’t suggested a ban on having passengers in a car or any other motor vehicle...yet.

If banning hands free cell phones comes to pass, maybe the NTSB should look at these other behaviors that can distract drivers:


1. Eating/drinking beverages while driving: – Admit it, everyone has seen a driver weaving down the road while drinking a cup of coffee or chowing down on a sandwich.

2. Applying makeup while driving: I’ve never had the urge to do this myself, but I have seen other women apply mascara while driving. Scary.

3. Having a radio/music player in the car: In the late 1960s, some kid trying to change the channel on his radio lost control of his car and demolished my parent’s mailbox as he went off the road. Imagine if we had a law banning changing radio channels in the 1960s – this accident would have never happened (sarcasm intended).

4. Changing the heating/cooling settings while driving: Sometimes it’s hard to see the controls, and I admit I must take my eyes off the road for a second to change them. Maybe if we didn’t have the ability to heat or cool our cars, there would be no accidents! (more sarcasm)

5. Putting purses, bags, briefcases, or any non-human object in the front seat: Sometimes things shift off the seat while driving, and sometimes people lean over to pick them up. Case in point: a Miami cop drive up a utility pole when he bent over to pick up a pen. If we ban any objects in the front seat – especially pens! – accidents like this will never occur. (even more sarcasm)

6. Simply looking out the window can distract a driver. Who hasn’t had something catch their eyes while driving which takes the eyes off the road for a brief period? Maybe everyone should wear blinders?


By now, you get my point. There are many things that can distract drivers, and sometimes bad things can happen when drivers are distracted. All it takes is a few seconds with a driver’s eyes off the road and accidents, even fatalities, can occur. Texting while driving IS a big problem. But let’s not get carried away with more rules and regulations that are not practical or that are very hard to police. If there were never any distractions, we’d have far fewer accidents. But we live in a world filled with distractions, and it is virtually impossible to write laws to prevent all of them. The best course of action is to educate drivers on what is safe driving behavior, and what is not – and to hope that the person behind the wheel has enough common sense to practice safe driving.

All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.

The Court of Public Opinion Doesn’t Count

With yesterday’s not guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony trial, there was an important lesson to be learned:  the court of public opinion does not count. While many seem shocked over what they perceive as a mother getting away with the murder of her daughter, those same people need to reflect on themselves and be shocked at their own behavior by passing judgment on someone before getting all the facts. The media is most to blame for fanning the flames for a guilty verdict. They should know better that it is the jury – not the media or the viewers – that have the last word.

The Casey Anthony trial was not some sort of reality competition show like “American Idol” where viewers can call in and vote to convict, This was real life where the judicial system makes the decision.  Some think that the not guilty verdict means that the system DIDN’T work – and they are wrong. The jury heard the whole case and did not hear any conclusive proof that Casey Anthony was guilty of murder.

Sure, it is highly suspicious that Casey did not report that her daughter Caylee was missing for over a month after Caylee’s disappearance. It does suggest that either she murdered her daughter, or knows who did. But this is the whole point of the not guilty verdict – the jury apparently did not believe that the prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Casey herself killed Caylee. Caylee is dead, but the prosecution never definitively answered the question -  who killed her and how?

Casey Anthony may be not guilty of murder, but the case does seem to imply that her parenting skills are questionable, after all, no good parent would allow their child to go missing for a month without reporting it. But a possible uncaring parent is not proof of murder.  The jury did convict Casey on the charges of her lying to law enforcement officers.

While the not guilty verdict may seem to fly in the face of logic, it is an important reminder that facts, not feelings, is what should be the factor in deciding guilt or innocence. Will the media learn this lesson for the next big case? I seriously doubt it.


All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.