In contrast, Serbs have had a history of intolerance against non-Serbs and Muslims, and of aggression and forced expulsions to create a Serbian homeland in territories where they have historical claims — notably Kosovo, but also Bosnia.

Unfortunately, this "black and white" ethnic chauvinism is all too common, and perfectly acceptable in mainstream media when the victims of it are powerless. 100 years ago it was fashionable to hate the Irish and all Catholics. 50 Years ago anti-Semitism was rampant. Today, hating Serbs, and ironically the Serb's putative victims, the Muslims, is very much in vogue. 

For a detailed criticism of Mr. Phillips, see Prof. David Gibbs' review of Mr. Phillips' book "David L. Phillips. Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and U.S. Intervention."

Liberating Kosovo is useful primarily as an illustration of victor's history, and the problems that are inherent in this genre. But this book is not serious scholarship, and I am surprised that MIT Press agreed to publish it.

Prof. Gibbs also wrote a letter in The Economist "On Croatia, India, South Africa, service stations, free trade, Iraq, Yale, the Spartathlon, our cover" when mainstream corporate media white washed Tudjman's crimes against Serbs:

When discussing Balkan scholarship in a recent article (“Writing the past”, January 5th), you mentioned the flight in 1995 of ethnic Serbs from the Krajina region of Croatia and noted the uncertainty about whether this incident should be viewed as a case of ethnic cleansing or a consensual exit. The facts strongly suggest that the Krajina Serbs were indeed ethnically cleansed.

You can see Mr. Phillips' biography here, and his email address is dp2366@columbia.edu. The New York Times email address is letters@nytimes.com. I wrote him and the New York Times an email asking to remove the offensive paragraph from his commentary and apologize for its hateful content. I suggest all readers of this blog who find his language offensive do the same. My email was as follows:

Please remove the sentence in your New York Times commentary regarding Yugoslavia "In contrast, Serbs have had a history of intolerance against non-Serbs and Muslims, and of aggression and forced expulsions to create a Serbian homeland in territories where they have historical claims — notably Kosovo, but also Bosnia." Also, please apologize to all Serbs for such a hateful, not to mention incorrect, comment.

For more information on the neoliberal war against prosperous Yugoslavia, see Neil Clark's many articles here.

The testimony from defense expert on domestic violence Alyce Laviollete triggered an "unusual" cross examination by government prosecutor Juan Martinez regarding Snow White and the Seven dwarfs. Was it effective? Is Mr. Prosecutor right that Ms. Laviolette will say anything, even a fictional character is abused? Or is the government desperately attempting to distract the jury from the Travis Alexander emails?

ZoeB from Pitchforks will be my special guest as we examine the psychological testimony, evidence, and bizarre developments in this fascinating trial. Be sure to follow me on twitter @vlga, and like my facebook page. You can also go here to sign up for updates on future podcasts.

And be sure to see the excellent posts "Snow White’s Brush with Maricopa County Department of Social Services" and "Juggling Apples and Meatballs" by Pitchforks: 

[Jodi Arias Prosecutor Juan] Martinez is floundering now and is determined to make the associations that LaViolette had not made in her talk. He tries to portray her as “not wanting to talk about Snow White now”, when she did talk about her then. He has become ridiculous and is beginning to look sloppy. He obviously did not take the time to watch the video and is flying by the seat of his gaping pants.

Thus the government faces the following dilemma: either Ms. Arias is truthful and accurate when she testified she shot Mr. Alexander first. In that case the government would be validating, at least implicitly, her testimony that she killed Mr. Alexander in self defense. Or the government has to explain why if Ms. Arias stole a gun to kill Mr. Alexander did he die from knife wounds?

So far the government has not explained its position with regard to the dilemma during the entire course of the 6 week trial. My suspicion is that the government will cravenly wait until closing argument to try to do so. The most likely explanation I have heard of so far from the peanut gallery is that Ms. Arias tried to shoot Mr. Alexander first but the weapon jammed. Then after knifing him 29 times, she shot him while he was already dying or even dead. See "Gun Jodi used jammed, forensic expert believes":

HLN’s Dr. Drew welcomed forensic crime scene expert Randolph Beasley to the show. Although Beasley has nothing to do with the Arias case, he knew both Alexander and Arias and gave his opinion on what he believed happened on that fateful day nearly five years ago.

 “To me, what makes sense on this case is that Jodi did not bring a knife to attack Travis,” he said. “She brought a gun. It's obvious she premeditated this. When she shot him in the bathroom when he's in the shower, the gun jammed, so she couldn't finish him off.”

He added, “When the gun jammed, she panicked. She had to go ahead and find a knife … and finished him off.”

The only problem with this explanation is that, as far as I know, Ms. Arias was never a Navy Seal. It is not easy to unjam a weapon. It takes quite a bit of training and skill to be able to do so. Pulling the trigger on a jammed weapon will not accomplish anything. It is even harder during a life and death struggle to have the presence of mind to forgo a jammed gun and reach for a knife, especially when the opponent is much larger and stronger.

Whether or not Ms. Arias was the aggressor or victim, whichever the case, if in fact she first tried to shoot Mr. Alexander and the gun jammed, she was then in a struggle for her life. I have a very hard time believing what will probably be the government's final argument: she stole the gun to kill him, when she tried to kill him, motivated by sexual jealousy, the gun jammed; then, while in a life and death struggle with Mr. Alexander, she put the gun to the side and stabbed him multiple times; and after he was mortally wounded she shot him once in the head. So far the overwhelming evidence is that Ms. Arias knew next to nothing about guns and was not some Nikita-esq femme fatal.

Of course, this all assumes the jury believes the government's assertion that Ms. Arias stole the weapon with which she shot Mr. Alexander. For a detailed criticism of this point, see the excellent post "Still in the Dark After Dark: “Pathological” Lying About The Gun(s)" by "Pitchforks". There is also quite a bit of good information at "You Could be Wrong".

For regular updates regarding the Jodi Arias trial, you can follow me on twitter @vlga and like my page on facebook. Pitchforks is also on twitter at PitchforksPost.

P.S. In response to all the comments and tweets that I have received along the lines of "premediation is just so obvious, etc...", I would suggest reading Nassim Taleb's wonderful book "Fooled by Randomness". "Black Swan" is also from Mr. Taleb and is much more famous but not nearly as good.  John Meynard Keynes, the economists of the 1930s who saved capitalism, wrote "A Treatise on Probability" that is along the same lines.

What I am specifically referring to is what Taleb and Keynes called decision making under uncertainty. No matter how much information we gather, we cannot know for sure what Ms. Arias was thinking in the moments leading up to her killing Mr. Alexander, and I doubt if Ms. Arias even knows for sure what she was thinking then. Figuring out what happened in the past is just as hard as predicting the future. Figuring out her state of mind is no easier than knowing what the price of gold will be in 50 years. We just don't know.

Under these sorts of conditions then, we resort to convention or what Keynes called heuristics. That is because even though we are operating under uncertainty, we still have the practical problem of deciding what to do in these sorts of cases. My position is that a thousand years of common law is pretty good convention, and it would dictate we do not find someone guilty of intent to kill without either direct evidence of premeditation or an overt act before the killing. The consequences of getting it wrong and convicting her of first degree murder are too great, much worse than being mistakenly too lenient and convicting her of murder in the second degree. 

Jodi Arias is a woman that many can't keep their eyes off of--a soft-spoken, small-framed 32-year-old who last year won a jailhouse Christmas caroling contest. But she is also an admitted killer who is now on trial in Arizona for the 2008 murder of her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander.

So what? Why has that simple statement generated so much attention around the world? An ex-girlfriend murdering her ex-boyfriend, while not as common as the other way around, happens every single day multiple times around the world.  What is so special about this case then?

The obvious answer is that while the procedural facts of the case are not that unusual, there has been quite a lot of attention focused lately on female killers. Everyone is well aware of the danger that single men armed with dangerous weapons pose, so when the killer is a young, attractive women, just like Casey Anthony, that fact in itself is unusual and interesting, at least from the media’s perspective.

So does she have a defense to the charge? Of course she does.  For example, despite Nancy Grace’s typically silly opinion that this couldn’t be self defense because the crime scene was so bloody (see “Jodi Arias' Self Defense Claim Is 'Really Disturbing' Says Nancy Grace”).

These crime scene photos make me nauseous, and I have seen all sorts of crime in my time. They are some of the worst I have ever seen, and I can see from the photos that this was not self defense. This murder cannot be justified as self defense.

At the risk of stating the obvious, every single crime scene where a knife and gun were used will be sickening, whether or not it was justifiable or a crime. That is just the nature of violent deaths, and Nancy Grace’s amateurish opinion is nothing more than someone saying “I think she guilty because I don’t like her”.

And that is my biggest concern with this trial. The prosecutor’s in the Casey Anthony case seemed to believe that Casey Anthony was guilty of murdering her daughter because she was a party girl with unusual habits. With that in mind, I hope that as this trial unfolds, the prosecution will have more than just Jodi Arias was a party girl too.

But could it be the case that in fact Mr. McDonald is not guilty and was unjustly convicted? First, the prosecutor who prosecuted the case, Jim Blackburn, has been disbarred for stealing client money, forgery, and lying to clients (see the disbarment order). Part of the defense strategy for Mr. McDonald's new hearing is the allegation that Mr. Blackburn suborned perjury by forcing a witness to lie about what she saw. 

MacDonald's lawyer said that Britt heard prosecutor Jim Blackburn threaten Helena Stoeckley, a troubled local woman whom MacDonald had identified as one of the attackers.

A previous MacDonald attorney has said Stoeckley was prepared to testify she was in the MacDonald home the night of the murders until Blackburn threatened to charge her with the slayings. She later testified she couldn't remember where she was that night.

Second, the defense lawyers also say there is forensic evidence, pieces of hair, that don't match Mr. McDonald and point to another attacker. The interesting thing about this case is that even though Mr. McDonald has been eligible to seek parole, he has refused to do so because he is not willing to admit to the parole board that he committed these murders. 

For more information on this case, see Jeffrey MacDonald, Green Beret Convicted Of Murdering Family, Gets New Trial In Light Of DNA Evidence by MARTHA WAGGONER. 

Could it be that OJ Simpson really was innocent, and the his much maligned jury got it right? In a fascinating new book "OJ Simpson is Innocent and I can Prove It", Texas private investigator William Dear goes through all the evidence and comes to the conclusion that OJ Simpson did not murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

So if OJ didn't do it, who did? Mr. Dear thinks it was O.J.'s son, Jason, who killed Nicole Brown and Mr. Goldman. Why does he think that? For all the reasons why, read the book. Not only is the subject matter of the book interesting, but it is a fascinating book in its own right. Mr. Dear wrote it as a first person detective story, and while I was reading his book, I forgot it was about a real life story. Instead, I thought I was reading something by Michael Connelly or John Grisham, only better. Mr. Dear's writing reminds me of a cross between Jeffrey McDonald and Richard Marcinco. And just like McDonald's Fletch, Mr. Dear even claims he once dressed up like a doctor to get copies of Jason's medical records. 

Regarding his conclusions, Mr. Dear makes the following points regarding the evidence. Police found DNA underneath Ms. Brown's fingernails that did not belong to O.J. Police found nine sets of fingerprints at the crime scene, and again, none of them were O.J.'s. The morning after the murders, O.J. hired a high powered criminal defense attorney not for himself, but for his son. About a year and half before the murders, Jason was charged with assault with a deadly weapon for attacking his boss with a knife. Jason was diagnosed with intermittent rage disorder, in which he blacks out during violent, rage-filled outburst. Finally, and most disturbingly, police never interviewed Jason. 

I also read Det. Mark Fuhrman's book about the O.J. Simspon case called "A Murder in Brentwood". The only thing I will say right now about Mr. Fuhrman, and this is based only on what I read in his book, is that I am convinced Mr. Fuhrman is a psychopath. 

I was in college when a jury acquited O.J. Simpson, and since that time, I alway thought, like most Americans, that O.J. Simpson got away with murder. Now, after reading both Mr. Dear's and Mr. Fuhrman's books, I am not so sure. And while I can't say I am completely convinced O.J. is innocent and his son Jason is the real killer, I can say without question that O.J.'s jury was smarter than us all. Just like the jury in the Casey Antony trial, O.J.'s jury reached the right verdict. 

A recent article in The Economist magazine makes the point clearly with regard to Louisiana, or as they call it, “Louisiana Incarcerated” ("Louisiana’s prisons: Sheriffs’ delight, While local officials cash in, convicts lose out"): 

EVEN in a country with the world’s highest incarceration rate, Louisiana is extreme. The state imprisons 26% more people, on a per-capita basis, than the next-strictest state, Mississippi. Louisiana’s incarceration rate is almost six times Maine’s and seven times China’s.

How sad that a nation that calls itself "the land of the free" puts so many of its own citizens in prison and jail. We go around the world forcing "democracy" down the barrel of a smart bomb, but we do this to our own people? Why? The George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin case is a perfect example of why, because it shows in crystal clear terms that social justice is incompatible with identity politics (see "Dharun Ravi Convicted of Cyber Hazing Tyler Clementi: A Masquerade of Justice"). 

I understand that many African Americans and others are concerned that George Zimmerman got away with murder, but in the putative quest for justice, ie, Rev. Sharpton and others, many, self-servingly at that, are doing far more harm than good.

The idea that Zimmerman is a racist murderer escaping justice will only push the public to support stricter and harsher laws and sentences. That, it turn, will put even more Americans in prison who ought not be there. And no single group bears that burden more than African American males. For all those who say they are concerned about racism, I wish they would step back and see the forest and not just the tree that is Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin.  

One of the common misconceptions of the people who believe George Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, whether it be manslaughter or second degree murder, is the claim that the 911 dispatcher ordered Mr. Zimmerman not to get out of his car and follow Trayvon Martin. This claim came up during my radio show when the caller claimed the 911 operator "ordered" George Zimmerman not to get out of the car and follow Trayvon Martin, and when he failed to comply with that order, that made Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter because Trayvon was trapped. This line of reasoning is wrong both legally and factually. 

First, the 911 operator never told or ordered Zimmerman not to get out of his car or not to follow Trayvon. According to the transcripts of the 911 call, Zimmerman was already out of the car when the operator asked him: 

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

The important point here is that the Zimmerman was already out of the car, so it could not be the case the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to get out of the car. Second, the dispatcher never told Zimmerman in clear, unequivocal terms not to follow Trayvon. The dispatcher merely made it a preference "we don't need you to do that".

Why wouldn't the dispatcher have been more forceful and have ordered Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon? That's because of the simple reason the orders of a 911 dispatcher are meaningless and carry no more authority than any random civilian. 911 dispatchers are not police officers and what they order do not carry the force of law.

And now we come to the most important point: assume for the moment that the 911 dispatcher unambiguously and clearly ordered Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon and further assume that the order has the same legal weight as the order of a police officer. If that was the case, then Zimmerman definitely would have been at fault, right?

No, because guess what, Zimmerman followed the dispatcher's suggestion. 

Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: Ok.

In other words, after the dispatcher's suggestion, Zimmerman complied and he stayed put. Zimmerman stayed on the line with the dispatcher to arrange meeting the police officers that were due to arrive shortly.

One point that I have not heard anyone mention yet where was Zimmerman's car in relation to the shooting location. If in fact the car was near the shooting location, then that would be convincing evidence that what Zimmerman said is true, namely that after he hung up with the 911 dispatcher, Trayvon came up him and attacked him. But if it turns out the car was far away from the shooting location, that would support the claim Zimmerman followed Trayvon.  

The signifigance of whether Zimmerman followed Trayvon is that most people who claim Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter somehow believe Zimmerman provoked Trayvon's attack on Zimmerman and thus, Zimmerman lost the right to use deadly force. But that's not the case. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and imagine if the police officers had shown up right when the witnesses claim Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman hitting him multiple times "MMA style". Could at that point Trayvon have successfully claimed he was hitting Zimmerman out of self-defense, ie, not guilty of aggravated assault because he was merely defending himself from Zimmerman?

From everything I have seen so far in the police reports, no. Trayvon did not have the right to beat the hell out of Zimmerman, and there is no evidence that Trayvon had no other choice but to pummel Zimmerman into submission to save himself. And if Trayvon could not have successfully argued self-defense when he was pounding Zimmerman, then Zimmerman did not lose his right to use force to defend himself against Trayvon. 

Last, while I adamantly believe Zimmerman is innocent of both manslaughter and second degree murder, one thing troubles me about his testimony at the bail hearing. At that hearing, Zimmerman said he did not realize how young Trayvon was and he said the thought Trayvon was only a little bit younger than he was. Zimmerman is 28 and his point was that he thought he was confronted by a grown man, not a minor. 

But on the 911 call Zimmerman says Trayvon looks like a teenager: 

Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?

Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.

Obviously, Zimmerman said one thing on the 911 call and something completely different at the bail hearing, and the distinction between his belief he was confronted by a minor versus a grown man is a significant one. The prosecutor should have hammered Zimmerman on this point, but instead, the prosecutor delved into nonsense and lame arguments (see "Free George Zimmerman: Prosecutors Angela Corey and Bernardo de la Rionda Step into Disgrace"). 

Jerry Sandusky, the assistant coach and friend to recently deceased Penn State coach Joe Paterno starts his criminal trial on June 11. The allegations are quite serious ("Jerry Sandusky trial: 4 of 9 jurors so far have ties to Penn State" by Michael Muskal): 

Sandusky, 68, is charged with 52 counts of abusing 10 boys over 15 years. He is accused of abusing boys from the Second Mile, the charity he founded for at-risk children. Prosecutors say some of the incidents took place at Penn State, where he would bring the boys on field trips.

The fact that an man has been accused of molesting a number of boys is what has made this a world wide attention gathering story. Of course, the main draw is Joe Paterno: what did he know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it?: 

McQueary, then a graduate assistant, said he told his boss [about the molestation McQueary claims he saw], head football coach Joe Paterno, who took the report to the university president, Graham Spanier. Both Paterno and Spanier were fired last year by the board of trustees for not acting forcefully enough in dealing with the report. Paterno has died of cancer.

My own feeling is that the media and public have far too hard on Joe Paterno and his legacy ("Should Joe Paterno Have Done More? What Did He Know and When?"): 

I have heard far too many people say the most complimentary things about Mr. Paterno. Many Penn State football players, from all walks of life, have stated how much Mr. Paterno has changed their lives for the better. Isn't that enough to give him the benefit of the doubt?

I am also very surprised and disappointed that Mrs. Sandusky, Jerry Sandusky's wife, has gotten a free pass on this whole affair when she is the one who was in the best position to stop Mr. Sandusky ("How to Stop the Next Jerry Sandusky: A "Person" Under Arizona's Duty to Report Law Should Mean Everyone"): 

In the Penn State child molestation case, there's a lot of reason to believe Mr. Sandusky's wife knew exactly what he was doing. In the 1998 bowl game Penn State went to, a child (victim #1) stayed in the same hotel room as Mr. Sandusky. And in another instance, victim #4 went to Mr. Sandusky's home and stayed for the night in the basement. If it is in fact true that Mr. Sandusky has been a child molester for his entire adult life, I am next to certain his wife was aware of the fact.

Something still stinks in Scottsdale. But now it is now the stench of death and corruption faintly perfumed over by Scottsdale Police media apologists. In the never ending media rush to defend Scottsdale Police department's unlawful killing of Sgt. Prostrollo, the media conglomerate of Arizona Republic and KPNX has proclaimed yet another defense of Scottsdale Police. First there was Ofelia Madrid's abysmal "reporting", then there were tedious and worthless commentaries by EJ Montini and Laurie Roberts. Now there is the story above by Chris Hrapsky.

Mr. Hrapsky never asked Sgt. Mark Clark why did Scottsdale Police issue a press release that claimed it was too windy to use a taser or pepper spray when not a single officer on the scene said that was the case. Mr. Hrapsky, if you read this post, then I suggest you reread the police reports. Not one officer claimed it was too windy for non-lethal force. Mr. Hrapsky never asked why did Det. Lockerby of Scottsdale Police internal affairs spoon feed the answer "too windy" to the officers the day after the shooting. He never asked why did Scottsdale Police show more concern for their canine than Sgt. Prostrollo. Mr. Hrapsky never bothered to go the national weather service website, which would have taken all of two minutes, to find out the night of the shooting wind was average, and confront Sgt. Clark with that fact.

I am so dissappointed with the KPNX story for the following reason: if local media had been more interested in actual investigation of the Prostrollo shooting, maybe then John Loxas would still be alive. 

Of course, there is also Sgt. Clark's "cookie cutter" defense and his informal, casual, and quarter-hearted condolence to Mr. Prostrollo "we get it".  

Officers are trained to confront the situation that's presented to them. So to say that there is one cookie cutter approach for a specific situation, you can't do that... We understand that Mr. Prostrollo is upset... we get that... 

How on Earth Sgt. Clark is still the public information officer for Scottsale Police is beyond me, but it speaks volumes about the Scottsdale Police administration that he still has that job. If, Sgt. Clark, Scottsdale Police "get it", why did SPD lie about the wind? Why did the Scottsdale Fraternal Order of Police slander Sgt. Prostrollo and humiliate his friends? Why did Scottsdale police show more concern for a dog than Sgt. Prostrollo? 

I can almost imagine the following conversation taking place at Scottsdale Police Headquarters: 

Chief Rodbell: dude, guess what? Rambo's old man is totally bummed, and guess what bro?  

Sgt. Clark: No way, bro, what? 

Rodbell: the old man is suing us for freakin' killing his kid! Totally a bummer cuz our dog almost bit it.

Sgt. Clark: no way!! someone, should like, you know, tell him 'hey dude, chill bro', we like totally 'get it'. Ya know, it was like, totally too windy and gnarly. Ya know, what we do ain't cookie cutter. 

For some background information on this topic, see my posts on Scottsdale Police, Sgt. Jason Prostrollo, and John Loxas. 

UPDATE: For some very good news, the Prostrollo family filed a notice of claim against the City of Scottsdale seeking $5,000,000. You can see the notice here at NOTICE OF CLAIM.pdf The family hired Robbins and Curtain for the lawsuit, which is excellent news as I know that both Mr. Robbins and Mr. Curtain are excellent attorneys. 

While personal injury attorneys get a lot of grief for a variety of reasons, this is a perfect example of an attorney suing in the pursuit of justice. I hope and pray that Mr. Curtain and Mr. Robbins succeed in their pursuit of justice, that the Prostrollo family gets some relief, and the Scottsdale Police Department learns the error of their ways.  Maybe, after all is said and done, Scottsdale police will finally learn they can't kill unarmed civilians and lie their way out of trouble.

Finally, I was reading through the police reports of this case, and I saw Det. Lockerby's report. This is signficant because he was the internal affairs officer in charge of the investigation:

Offender threatened to commit Aggravated Assault with pool cue sticks against listed Scottsdale PoliceOfficers while at 12074 North 135th Place in Scottsdale, Maricopa County, Arizona. Listed Offender was shot and killed by Lt. Ron Bayne #559 while committing the Aggravated Assault.  

So, I ask again, if this is the official Internal Affairs summary of what happened and why Lt. Bayne killed Sgt. Prostrollo, what wind?

Is this the right result? 7.5 years in prison for a panic induced flight accidentally injuring one person? Or maybe is this so obviously wrong that something needs to change, like maybe sentencing reform? Is this maybe the straw that shows what America's vile Prison Democracy truly is?

I know Mr. Larsgard's defense attorney Criss Candelaria. When I graduated from law school, he was the County Attorney in Navajo County and I interviewed with him. He is a very good lawyer and I have no doubt he did everything he could to represent Mr. Larsgard. I suspect that the prosecutor overchaged Mr. Larsgard and he had no choice but to plead guilty. (see "Norwegian man gets 7.5 years for running over woman's toe" by Lindsey Reiser of KPHO Channel 5): 

"Completely a misunderstanding and blown out of proportion," said Larsgard's attorney, Criss Candelaria, to VGTV. Local defense attorney Vladimir Gagic, who is not connected to the case, agrees. 

"I feel bad for the guy, it's something that's completely out of proportion with decency and common sense," Gagic said. He added that while the sentence seemed a little harsh to him, it's not very surprising and is consistent with federal and state laws. That's because from the law's point of view, Larsgard used the car as a deadly weapon.

Also see "Winslow wrong turn leads to prison for Norwegian man-Norway captivated by countryman's collision with U.S. justice system" by Scott Craven, "A frenzied, 8-minute ordeal ended up with Larsgard facing 36 criminal counts, including attempted second-degree murder." 

If you agree that this sentence makes no sense, then the only realistic option left is clemency by Gov. Jan Brewer. I sent her the following tweet, which you can retweet by clicking on the link below: 

Show the world that Arizona is fair and honest. Plz commute John #Larsgard sentence to time served and let him go home @GovBrewer

One point needs to be made though. While a lot of people from Norway are claiming, with quite a bit of justification I may add, that this sentence is far too harsh, I would not jump to the automatic conclusion that Norway's criminal justice system is better. As I wrote before in "Female Sex Offenders and Punishment: Europe Does it Better?", while it is the case American sentences are too harsh, European sentences are too lenient: 

For example, Norway might sentence mass murderer Anders Breivik to only 21 years in prison (Norway shootings: Anders Breivik cannot get more than 21 years- Despite his mass killing spree, the maximum sentence Anders Breivik could be handed by a court is just 21 years.) The thinking in Europe is that 21 years is enough time to reform and deter Mr. Breivik from committing crime again.

But what Europe does not realize is the message it sends to the public at large: while 21 years in custody may stop Anders Breivik from committing more crime, it is no where near enough punishment to deter future Anders Breiviks from thinking "I kill 90 children, spend 21 years in prison, and then come out as a celebrity? Sounds like a good deal to me."

Bernardo de la Rionda's Nancy Grace-ish cross examination of George Zimmerman is maybe the most despicable part of this entire tragedy. Yes, even worse the the doctored 911 call because Mr. de la Rionda, like every prosecutor is supposed to be, is supposed to be a "minister of justice" speaking for the The People. 

Zimmerman: I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.

After that statement, the prosecutor begins his terrible cross examination with the silly, tedious point about how Mr. Zimmerman didn't make the comment to the judge, but to Trayvon Martin's parents who were sitting in the courtroom. I suppose the prosecutor was trying to make the point Mr. Zimmerman's statement was not sincere but only an act for the media.

Watch the video above and tell me who was acting the for the cameras, Mr. Zimmerman or the seemingly mad, blood-thirsty prosecutor, Bernardo de la Rionda. As a side note, if Mr. Zimmerman was acting, he is the best actor I have ever seen. I seriously doubt he is a emotionless, pathological psychopath as no psychopath would tell police he felt bad for the victim's parents, nor would one say as much in open court against the well-placed advice of his lawyers. 

Prosecutor: Sorry sir, you are not really addressing that to the court. You're doing it here to the victim's family. Is that correct?   

Zimmerman: They are here in the court, yes.

Prosecutor: I understand, but I thought you were going to address Your Honor Judge Lester, but not... that's really addressed to the family and where the media happens to be. Isn't that correct Mr. Zimmerman? 

Zimmerman: No, to the mother and the father. 

Then the prosecutor accuses Mr. Zimmerman of having only apologized at the bail hearing- implied in the prosecutor's accusation is that he only did it now to get out jail- but not the police at the scene. 

Prosecutor: Tell me after you committed this crime, you spoke to the police and did you make that statement to the police sir? You never stated that?

Zimmerman: I don't remember what I said, but I believe I did. 

After that exchange, there is a tedious line of cross examination regarding when and to whom Mr. Zimmerman made that statement. Needless to say, Mr. Zimmerman does not remember the specific details, but I don't think anyone doubts he made a statement along to the lines of "I felt sorry for the family" to the police, and he hoped the police would tell the family of his sorrow.

Then Bernardo de la Rionda really steps in it and makes his biggest mistake. It's sad that a prosecutor forgets that the victim's bill of rights forbids criminal defendants from contacting the family of victims, and even if it did not, Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers would have told him to keep his mouth shut.  

Prosecutor: Why did you wait so long [the 54 days from the day of the shooting until his testimony] to tell Mr. Martin and the victim's mother, the father and mother, why did you wait so long, to tell them?

Zimmerman: I was told not to communicate with them.

It is without a doubt a horrible tragedy that a 17 year old boy is dead, and that his family has to grieve his loss. The only thing worse than that sad fact is that the media crucified an innocent man, George Zimmerman, to sell more papers, that a NBC producer doctored the 911 call to make it seem Mr. Zimmerman was a racist, that glory seeking prosecutors like Bernardo de la Rionda are embarrassing themselves and the American legal system to gain fame, and that putative community activists like Al Sharpton are mocking the entire notion of social justice and civic responsible. As bad as all that is, I can only hope that is the extent of it, and that latent anti-Semitism played no part in the rush to convict Mr. Zimmerman. 

My point is not that Mr. Zimmerman is a good person, just that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever he is guilty of second degree murder. He should not be going through this indignity. I hope he is free soon, and when he is free, I hope he sues the state of Florida for malicious prosecution and sues everyone and anyone who falsely accused him for slander, libel, and defamation.

If you would like to share your opinion regarding this case, then call in to my internet radio program this Thursday June 7 at 12:30 Arizona time or you can leave a comment on this post or tweet me @vlga. See this link for more information: "George Zimmerman" Thu, June 7, 2012 12:30PM Call in to speak with the host (718) 305-6376.

Mark O'Mara, Mr. Zimmerman's defense lawyer is on twitter @Markomaralaw. I sent him a tweet as I am concerned, not as a criminal defense lawyer, but a free, proud, American citizen that Florida prosecutors are persecuting, that's right persecuting, Mr. Zimmerman because of the contrived, vile media campaign against him. I am worried that his client will plead guilty to a lessor charge to avoid facing trial on the second degree murder charge.  

It may be the right thing to do legally, but if so, that is a very sad commentary on our democracy, legal system, and the Bill of Rights, allegedly the finest in the world. If you agree, tweet him your own message or retweet mine: 

.@Markomaralaw Plz don't plead guilty just to avoid trial. This case is bigger than just Zimmerman/Martin. It is about our democracy.

Also see the video below of Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz as he accuses Angela Corey of unethically overcharging Mr. Zimmerman. 

After Scottsdale Police killed Jason Prostrollo, I made the obvious point that if no one held Scottsdale Police accountable, his sad death would not be the last one. A short two weeks later, as everyone else is aware, Scottsdale Police killed John Loxas. In between the two shootings, Ms. Madrid, the Arizona Republic public safety reporter covering Scottsdale simply repeated Scottsdale Police press releases back to her readers. She could have saved everyone the trouble and just given Sgt. Mark Clark, the Scottsdale PD spokesperson, the by line on her stories.

After the Loxas shooting, Ms. Madrid did the exact same thing yet again. But even worse, she made it seem as if it was her own story, thereby giving the story the credibility of an independent investigation (from my comments on twitter):

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral Plz tell me you are going to do more than just repeat what @scottsdalePD tells you back to us

.@ofeliamadrid Will reporters ask SPD basic questions (ie, investigate) or just repeat SPD's statement word for word to the public?

Plz someone, anyone ask @scottsdalepd why No TASER!!

@KimRSchofield even worse the poor question reporters were asking at the PR conference. That's why SPD gets away with this behavior

@ofeliamadrid @azcentral If gun found in "lunge area" why 2hrs ago SPD said no gun recovered? anyone bother to ask SPD that question?

Wonderful how local media falls over backwards to exonerate/congratulate police who shoot 2 kill.

I take it from local media coverage of police shootings they are terrified of upsetting @scottsdalePD

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral "Search warrant"?? why would @scottsdalePD have needed a search warrant for? that smells really rotten

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral is @scottsdalePD saying he was shot and dropped the gun or didn't have it when shot? did you ask SPD that?

@kinseyschofield @KFisher15 I hate to say it, but local media doesn't care or is scared. S.Cal doing much better on Loggins shooting

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral Did you ask why no taser or dog used?

And when Scottsdale PD finally released the Prostrollo police reports, she simply cut and pasted the police reports as her story. She only added the obvious point about wind not being an issue after I criticized her on twitter (her replies to me start with Ofelia Madrid and my direct replies to her start Vladimir Gagic):

.@azcentral if I want to apply for a job, can I just cut and paste someone else's resume? Thats how ur reporters get write their stories

@kinseyschofield @ofeliamadrid @scottsdalepd "in love" with cutting and pasting police reports and making it her story. Cushy job...

Working for @azcentral would be super easy. All I would do is cut and paste from police reports like this one story http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/21/20120221scottsdale-police-officer-report-outlines-fatal-shot-fired.html

Am I the only person who thinks that some members of media are either too close or too scared of law enforcement to report accurately?

Ofelia Madrid ‏ @ofeliamadrid @vlga Of course.If you're read my response to you, I said, several officers mentioned that it was windy. I didn't add the rest about Tasers

Vladimir Gagic ‏ @vlga.@ofeliamadrid Most important part of shooting is @scottsdalepd blatantly lied about why they had to kill him. How you don't see that...

@ofeliamadrid Don't you think its important @scottsdalePD said 2 windy for taser but no officer does?? how does that not make ur story?

Ofelia Madrid ‏ @ofeliamadrid@vlga Actually several officers mentioned windy conditions that night. Here's the report if you want to read it: tinyurl.com/8yg8gcv

Vladimir Gagic ‏ @vlga.@ofeliamadrid I hope u understand diff b'w "too windy" to use taser and "it was windy", which was spoon fed to them by IA afterwards

@ofeliamadrid I've read it many times. NOT ONE OFFICER said it was too windy to use taser or pepper spray. You should reread the report.

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral Why didn't you mention @scottsdalePD said it was "too windy" to use taser, but that excuse not in report?

Even then, her paragraph regarding the wind was pathetic. She did not even check it for grammar as she had a comma separating two independent clauses. 

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral wrote the lame, timid paragraph re wind in a rush and b4 proof reading? ; b4 "however" not ,

Mr. Montini's commentary was just as bad. It is obvious to me his days as Arizona's progressive voice are long gone. Either he is terrified of offending law enforcement, or he actually believes police never lie. Either way, it is time for both Mr. Montini and Ms. Madrid to go; maybe that way we can a police force that actually "protects and serves", and even more importantly, local law enforcement will finally know hunting season of unarmed civilians is over. 

For a clear example of the point I am making, compare the NC Times commentary "Shameful Acts in the OC" regarding the shooting of Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. and Mr. Montini's lame commentary "Marine, vet, patriot ... and threat".

And watch the video below to see what a motivated reporter can actually accomplish. If only we had someone...

Whether or not that is true in general, according to Glendale police activity, it appears to be true in at least one particular case ("Glendale missing girl: Mother arrested, according to family" by John Genovese and Lisa Halverstadt): 

Jerice Hunter, the mother of a missing Glendale girl has been arrested, according to her mother Shirley Johnson. Police told Johnson they have not found the missing girl, Jhessye Shockley, and they had not given her a reason for Hunter's arrest. "I have no answers right now," Johnson said.

There is no indication whether the arrest was because Glendale police Ms. Hunter was responsible for harming or even killing Jhessye Shockley, or if they arrested her for another reason such as hindering prosecution (see ARS 13-2510). Certainly, having watched Ms. Hunter bizarre interviews with local media over the past few weeks, she did not seem coherent or sympathetic.  

One of the important points of this case is that I think the public tends to believe only men harm their children physically, and that mothers usually only harm their children emotionally. For more information on this point, see "Perpetrators of Child Abuse & Neglect" by the US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. 

This time I am referring to a very disturbing story in the Arizona Republic by JJ Hensley: "Peoria man sues Sheriff's Office, cites abuse by deputies". During a recent NASCAR event in Phoenix, Michael T. Wyman, saw his friend, Ernie Griego, and gave him a bear hug. Apparently, in the eyes of Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies providing security at the event, that was enough to attack Mr. Wyman, arrest him, and then charge him with multiple felonies.  According to Mr. Wyman, Deputy Preston Boyer even came up behind him and started to choke him, and another deputy tasered him in the back, and his son as well. 

Fortunately for Mr. Wyman, the Maricopa County Attorneys' Office, responsible for prosecuting this case, dismissed all the charges against Mr. Wyman. Now Mr. Wyman is suing Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Michael T. Wyman, 50, maintains in his lawsuit that he greeted an old friend with a bear hug near the track's Speed Cantina during a NASCAR race last November when, without warning, a deputy put him in a choke hold. The deputy threw him to the ground, Wyman alleges, and another deputy began shooting Wyman in the leg with a stun gun.

Wyman was charged with resisting arrest, aggravated assault and disorderly conduct for his role in the Nov. 13 incident, but a judge dismissed the charges in March at the request of prosecutors.

The important point about this case is that all the available evidence indicates the deputies overreacted, and then, to protect themselves from sanction, blamed everything on Mr. Wyman, even though he did absolutely nothing wrong. According to the story, "a handful of witnesses acquainted with Wyman, including a firefighter and a 911 operator, could verify Wyman's claims."

According to Mr. Wyman's attorney, Daniel Treon:

Wyman continues to experience nerve damage from the stun-gun shock and has undergone surgeries, including a skin graft, to repair damage from the weapon and broken bones from a deputy stomping on Wyman's foot...

The injuries appear to be so bad that Mr. Wyman cannot go back to work at his job with Ricochet Excavating. 

If it is true that the deputies overreacted, I don't understand why the worst thing that will happen to the deputies is that the department and Sheriff Arpaio get sued. It does not even seem like they will lose their job. But imagine if these were not law enforcement but regular citizens who overreacted at a bar fight. Wouldn't they be facing jail time for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and charges for false reporting? Why should deputies get off easy just because they wear a badge? 

Even as bad as the injuries Mr. Wyman suffered seem to be, by far the worst part of this story is the fact it seems the deputies were perfectly willing to use their authority not only to cover up their wrong doing, but were even willing to charge an innocent man with multiple felonies.  

I wish the next time the media does a story in which they think an guilty person is acquitted, for example Casey Anthony, they would also do a story in which an completely innocent man is wrongly accused. Imagine if in this case there were no civilian witnesses to corroborate Mr. Wyman? He would now be facing decades in prison for simply being the victim of police brutality.

My own experience with Maricopa County Sheriff deputies, usually at the Maricopa County Superior Court, is that while plenty of them are polite, plenty of them are cowboys as well, for example Deputy Adam Stoddard. And my experience with the always courteous and professional Pima County Sheriff deputies puts Sheriff Joe's gang to shame. 

Why are so many Americans in prison?  The statistics are overwhelming.  The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At year-end 2009 it was 743 incarcerated per 100,000 population. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 7,225,800 people at year end 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population. 9.2% of African-Americans are prison, and 70% of the American prison population is non-white.

While the United States only has 5% of the entire world's population, we have 25% of the world's prison population.   Our incarceration rate is so high, that second place Russia has an incarceration rate 40% lower. In modern history, only Stalin's pre-World War Two Soviet Union- the one that had the ideologically driven purges and dreaded NKVD- had a higher incarceration rate than our nation does now.  The median for all other nations is an incarceration rate 1/6th of the United States. 

Some might say these rates are necessary to keep Americans safe from violent crime, but is that the case? For a great discussion of this point and the absurdly high incarceration rate, see "U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations" by Adam Liptak of the New York Times. 

I can't but help the fact part of the reason we have such a high incarceration rate is the importance the criminal justice system has in creating jobs.  For a detailed exposition of this point and comparison between Military Keynesianism and Penal Keynesianism see "Can Penal Keynesianism Replace Military Keynesianism?" by L. Randall Wray. 

The Casey Anthony murder trial in Florida is the biggest criminal justice story since the OJ Simpson murder trial. And just like OJ, it has inflamed passions on all sides.  I did not watch the entire trial start to finish, but I do have some observations.  

First, it is crystal clear the prosecution put too much time and energy in trying to prove Ms. Anthony was a bad person- "party girl" character assassination- and not enough energy into proving how and why Caley died. How Ms. Anthony behaved after Caley died only proves how she behaved; it does absolutely nothing to prove she murdered Caley.  Slaughterhouse Five is a Vonnegut classic devoted to the single point that normal people react abnormally to unusual events.  That is exactly what happened here.  Anyone who thinks he or she knows Ms. Anthony murdered Caley based on Ms. Anthony's partying or tattoo choice has been fooled by randomness. As Nassim Taleb would say, that person- and the prosecution- has confused noise for information. 

Second, the "CSI effect" was in full force.  It seems that the state of Florida simply could not prove how and when Caley died, but unfortunately for the prosecution, a jury pool used to the fantastic Hollywood world of CSI did not know that.   As such, the prosecution should have devoted more energy to educating the jury as the modern limits of forensic science, and less energy to a seemingly random, left field statement like if you hit a animal while driving, any reasonable person would check the trunk; and the prosecution should have completely scrapped its chloroform fixation.  

The prosecution should also take heed of Mr. Baez' calm and even mannered demeanor.  Juries dislike dramatic prosecutors who seem vindictive and blood thirsty. And sometimes they vote against the prosecution not because they believe the defendant is innocent, but because the prosecutor scares them.   While I don't think that happened here, I do think the prosecution would be well advised to tone down the drama and ditch the Nancy Grace theatrics.  

Finally, this jury did not make a mistake.  Juries don't make mistakes; bad lawyering and bad facts make mistakes.  This jury knew full well the consequences of their decision and the possibility of public scorn. We should thus assume this was their well reasoned and considered opinion.  

To see my interview with Nicole Crites of KPHO see the video above.