News Media – All About the Revenue

Just this past December everyone was talking about the killing at Newtown, Connecticut. Then there were the Marathon Bombers. And just two days ago there were hundreds of parades and demonstrations over the George Zimmerman verdict.

I was certain that “Justice for Trayvon Martin” would not be easily forgotten. But the birth of a new prince in England has pushed everything off the front page. Even “Hardball with Chris Matthews” devoted his entire program to the birth.

So my question is, How important are the daily stories presented in the news? The media wants us to believe that the current story really is the consequential event. They keep feeding us with a non-stop flow of tragedy and drama that suits their need to obtain advertising revenue. And what does the public do? We watch and listen to every bit of information no matter how trivial.

The newspapers are not much better than television and radio. Washington Post’s front page article “For some, a drive across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge is a harrowing experience” may be interesting to some people but is this a front page story? The Los Angeles Times Column One story “The NRA newest Sensation” tells of a Black man who is also a member of the organization. Both stories might be interesting to some people but is this front page news? To me it is trivial events that have little bearing on anyone other than their immediate families and maybe not even them.

Is it any wonder that so many of us have turned off the news broadcasts and canceled our newspapers?

Zimmerman and the Jury Trial System

Demonstrators held a peaceful rally in Beverly Hills against the George Zimmerman trial verdict, but 17 people were arrested during a rally that turned rowdy in Victorville, California, authorities said Wednesday night.

The block immediately west of Highland Avenue in Hollywood is a tourist Mecca. The Famed Grauman’s Chinese Theater is there. Almost immediately next door is the Dolby (Former Kodak) Theater that is home of the Academy Awards show. Across the street is the El Capitan Theater. See pictures in the Los Angeles Photo Gallery.

I have visited this area dozens of times. But since the Zimmerman trial the area has become a center for demonstrations against the verdict. That has led to criminals storming the streets to steal whatever they can. It’s just an excuse for criminal behavior that some believe will not result in punishment. They are wrong. The police have made arrests.

I have served on many juries both civil and criminal. Once in the deliberation room all of those jurors struggled to reach the correct decision.

The O.J. Simpson murder trial resulted in a not guilty verdict. There were no demonstrations even though many believed him to be guilty. Both the prosecutors and the defense attorneys did their best to convince the jury.

I know of no better system to determine guilt or innocence. Highly capable lawyers do have a bearing on the outcome. O.J. Simpson’s lawyers were among the best. If Zimmerman was Black and Martin was White would the verdict been different? I believe the answer is Yes. There is racial bias/bigotry in this country and I hear some of it almost every week. Still this is the system. The law must prevail.

Demonstrations are permitted. Vandalism is not.

George Zimmerman has a Jury of Six

July 13, 2013

George Zimmerman found innocent!

Six women were selected yesterday to serve on the Florida jury that will decide if George Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

I was surprised to learn that the Zimmerman murder trial in Florida consists of only six people on the jury. I had always believed a jury must consist of 12 people.

From Exploring Constitutional Conflicts I have learned the following:

The Court (Supreme Court) had long taken the position that a jury in a criminal case must have 12 members. In 1898, the Court said, “a jury comprised of 12 persons, neither more or less” was a constitutional requirement. In 1970, in Williams v Florida, they Court reconsidered its earlier statements on jury size in a case that affirmed the conviction of a robber convicted by a six-member Florida jury. The Court noted that the Sixth Amendment says nothing at all about jury size, even though 12 person-juries had been traditionally used in America. The expectation that a jury consists of 12 members dated back to the 1300s, but the Court found that to be a “historical accident.” Concluding that a six-person jury could fulfill the framers’ expectations concerning a jury’s functions just as well as a 12-person jury, the Court rejected its prior words on the subject and held that six-person juries satisfy the requirements of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Harlan harshly criticized the majority’s reasoning, asking where and how the Court might draw the line on jury size. Would a three-person jury be okay, he wondered?

California does use the 12 person jury. Criminal cases must have a unanimous verdict. Civil cases require a nine person majority. Nowhere does the United States Constitution say that a jury has to consist of 12 people.

For thousands of years, though, civilizations have given great mystical prominence to an even dozen. The 12 days of Christmas. The 12 hours on the clock. The 12 tribes of Israel. Twelve months of the year, 12 houses of an astrological chart. A baker’s dozen.

And 12 jurors. That’s the tradition and the law in most states. An ancient Welsh king, Morgan of Gla-Morgan, who established trial by jury in A.D. 725, is said to have declared, “For as Christ and his 12 apostles were finally to judge the world, so human tribunals should be composed of the king and 12 wise men.”

Convincing six people of anything is defintiely easier than convincing twelve. It seems to me that erring on the side of a person is innocent until proven guilty the Supreme Court would have upheld the 12 person requirement.

90 Guns for every 100 Citizens

Re-posted November 5, 2013

Shooting in New Jersey Mall and at LAX

Gunman kills himself after terrorizing New Jersey shopping mall

Three dead, including gunman, in Oregon mall shooting in December 2012. Killings like this happen so often that few even pay attention.

I have written about this situation before. The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world. This has been reported by news agencies repeatedly.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

So is it any wonder that when Americans become angry they grab a gun, go to the mall or their church, and start shooting at everyone in sight. It is a society of frustrated people who want their way in everything.

Argument with your spouse, kill her/him. Argument with your boss, kill him/her. You look suspicious as you walk through my neighborhood I will kill you and ask questions later.

Well it’s all about Second amendment rights. The NRA (National Rifleman’s Association) says, Defend Your 2nd Amendment Rights, Help Protect Hunters’ Rights. There is nothing in the Second amendment that says you have the right to bear arms for your protection or to hunt. It does say, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The problem is the people of the United States. They really believe that their freedom hinges on their right to own weapons. Sales have dramatically increased in the past four years because many believe that the Obama administration has plans to enforce new gun controls. No laws have been suggested or proposed. Still, there are those who continue to believe that their weapons will be confiscated. The gun manufacturers are happy with this situation.

It is a puzzle to me that a nation of so many wise and smart people believes that owning a gun is a necessity of life.