Carlos Villarreal

Conversations With Strangers

A women in about her late 50s, dressed in her Sunday best, a stained top and sweatpants, approached me today and asked the following.

Women: are you Dave?

Me: No, I’m not.

Women: You’re not?

Me: No, I’m not the person you are looking for.

Women: Do you know him? Goes by the name madman and is good with mechanics.

Me: I have no clue who that is.

Women: You’re sure you’re not him?

Me: I got to go now.

I turned and started to walk away at that point, turning back after a few yards to see the women asking another passer by If he was Dave.

Shoot First, Ask Questions Later

In the wake of the tragic shooting death of Trayvon Martin, has Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law has given leniency to anyone who uses deadly force under the pretext of self-defense. Martin’s death echoes back to the 2007 shooting deaths of two men by Joe Horn. Who under Texas’ “Castle Doctrine“ was not prosecuted for the shootings, despite shooting the two men in the back as they retreated, after burglarizing the home of Horn’s neighbor. Laws like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground,” and Texas’ “Castle Doctrine” have given way to 24 other states enacted similar legislation. Ushering in new era of vigilante justice, where proving if a shooting was in self-defense has shifted from the shooter to the state.

According to the New York Times, on the evening of February 26, 17 year-old Trayvon Martin was on his way home from a convenience store, he would not make it home alive. On the night of his death, Martin was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the hood pulled over his head, something that caught the attention of 28 year-old George Zimmerman.

Since the shooting, the hooded sweatshirt had become a lighting rod for activists in support of Martin and even Geraldo Rivera, who has apologized over a comment he made, suggesting the hooded sweatshirt Martin was wearing led to his death. 

On the night of incident, Zimmerman called to report a “real suspicious guy,” that was “up to no good and on drugs or something.” After giving the police dispatcher a description of Martin, an African-American male, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher ”they always get away.” Zimmerman then proceeded to follow Martin, disregarding the dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to.

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer took his position seriously. According to the   NY Times article, Zimmerman, “a criminal justice major in college, often patrolled the streets in his car. In the last 14 months, Mr. Zimmerman had made 46 calls to the police, officials said, reporting everything from alarms and disturbances to reckless driving and, most commonly, a “suspicious” person.” 

What happend next is up for debate. According to ABC News, a phone call between Martin and his 16 year-old girlfriend caught the last moments of Martin’s life. According to Martin’s girlfriend, whose identity is being withheld, said Martin had noticed Zimmerman following him.

Martin girlfriend stated in the article,‘“He [Martin] said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said.” I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run. Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.”’

She added, “Trayvon said, ‘What are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn’t answer the phone.”

Zimmerman claims that Martin had attacked him first when he was returning to his vehicle, punching Zimmerman in the face and slamming his head onto the pavement, according to The Huffington Post. 

What is known, is a scuffle did ensue between Martin and Zimmerman. Ending in Martin being fatally shot by Zimmerman. Who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon, despite being “arrested in 2005 on charges of resisting arrest with violence and battery on a police officer. The charges were later dropped,” according to the New York Times. Zimmerman stated in the 911 call when he had originally spotted Martin, he witnessed Martin reaching into his waistband, giving the impression of Martin being possibly armed. Martin was in fact unarmed, having in his possession only a can of iced tea and a pack of skittles candy that he had purchased at the convenience store. 

When the police arrived, they found Zimmerman armed with a handgun, standing over the body of Martin. Zimmerman told police he killed Martin in self defense. “Taking him at his word, police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test.” According to ABC News. Zimmerman has yet to be arrested or charged for the shooting, and is currently in seclusion due to the intense backlash from the shooting.

Due to the statue of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, law enforcement officials will have a hard time pressing charges against Zimmerman. The Florida law “grants immunity to anyone who uses deadly force, inside or outside his home, if he can reasonably claim he was defending himself.” Since the passing of the law, “The Tampa Bay Times found 130 cases in Florida in which Stand Your Ground was invoked. In more than 70 percent of the cases, someone was killed. But only 28 of the cases went to trial, and only 19 resulted in a guilty verdict.” It will be up to a Florida grand jury to deicide on April 10, if Zimmerman should stand trial.

Given the tragic consequences that legislation like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” have evoked, how is it possible for such a law to pass in the first place and spred to over 20 other states. It all has to do with the National Rifle Association (NRA). Who according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, are using “fear and paranoia” to expand laws like Florida’s into other states.

In 2004, the NRA honored Republican Florida state legislator Dennis Baxley with its Defender of Freedom award. The following year, Baxley worked with the NRA to pass Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, allowing citizens to use deadly force if they “reasonably believe” their safety was in danger. “People no longer would be restrained by a “duty to retreat” from a threat while out in public, and they’d be free from prosecution or civil liability if they acted in self-defense,” according to Susan Ferriss of The Center of Public Integrity. 

The law has open the flood gates to “justifiable homicides” in Florida, which spiked from “an average of 34 yearly to more than 100 in 2007,” according to Ferriss. The terms in which the law was meant to be applied are so vague, it may just help to shield acts of violent aggression as self-defense. The controversy over the shooting had led Baxley to state ”that his law shouldn’t shield Zimmerman at all, because he pursued Martin,” according to Ferriss.

In 2007, “the Virginia-based National District Attorneys Association issued a report, “Expansions to the Castle Doctrine,” warning that the phenomenon “could have significant implications for public safety and the justice system’s ability to hold people accountable for violent acts,” stated Ferriss. Given the broad protection that Florida’s law gives people who act in self-defense, a type of justice first seen during the days of the wild west will rear its ugly head around. Where a court, a judge and a jury were unnecessary. The one holding the six-shooter decided it all. Where as if these laws remain common place, the justice system will be taking a page out of a Charles Bronson movie.

Super PACs and My High School Class President

I had my first dabble in politics during my senior year in high school, when I agreed to help a close friend run for student body president. What started out as a harmless venture into high school politics so he could meet girls, turned into an ugly, downright shameful campaign that would have made Mitt Romney proud. Our campaign strategy was simple, we would raise money for the campaign by collecting donations from a few friends in return for political favors. Which really meant nothing at the time, this was high school after all. Our political influence was limited to perhaps a free lunch.

We collected a small fortune of about $200 dollars. The money went to finance a smear campaign against our rival in the race, that amounted to us passing out flyers around campus, suggesting that our political rival had a love child with a handicapped student. My friend showed no remorse and pulled out all stops on his dirty election run. Leaving me thinking that he would have even taken out a hit against the other guy, if he would have gotten away with it. In the end, our political ambitions got us suspended from school, costed us a few friends and the election.

Now fast-forward to 2012 and what has changed in American politics? Not much really.

As the 2012 presidential race is hot under way, the Republican front-runners are busy tearing at each other’s throats via proxy attack ads, such as a recent attack ad against Newt Gingrich financed by Mitt Romney’s super PAC, “Restore Our Future.” It’s a catchy name, isn’t it.

So what in the hell is a super PAC? The term is an abbreviation for political action committee and its birth came from the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.The Federal Election Commission. Prior to the decision, political contributions were limited by the federal government to tune of $2,500. After the decision by the high court, previous limits on political campaign financing were prohibited, opening the floodgates for unlimited political contributions. Super PACs can now raise unlimited amounts of money in support for or against a candiate. The only catch is that the super PACs cannot “coordinate” with candidates they support. Is it just me, or does that not make any sense at all?

Given the complexity and absurdity of it all, Stephen Colbert invited the former chairmen of the Federal Election Commission, Trevor Potter, on his show early last year to explain what a super PAC is and how it works. Click on the link above to see the video.

So why even have a super PAC? For starters, its expense to run a political campaign. According to a recent article in Forbes, the cost of a presidential run has skyrocketed over the years. In 1996, Bill Clinton spent $153 million, compared to the $774 million Barack Obama spent in 2008.

Second, not everyone who wants to have some say in how the government is ran will run for office. So how can organizations, businesses or individuals have a say in goverment? By buying some political influence and that is now becoming easier to get then most people think. All it takes is deep pockets, leaving out about 99 percent of Americans from the political process.

According to Forbes, As of 2011, super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich raised over $32 million combined. Behind some of the largest contributions are mega millionaires, like Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who gave Romney $11 million as of January of this year. According to political strategist Douglas Schoen, when ever a political donor gives that much money, that donor is now someone with some sway, “you will be taken seriously in Washington by every player.” Where as “in traditional philanthropic giving, that’s a valuable contribution, but the president of the university doesn’t have time for you. The President of the United States does have time for you,” according to Schoen.