Justice Denied... No More?

Yesterday, legal observers across the nation were stunned. This was far from expected.

In a Florida courtroom, Michael Dunn was found guilty of the first degree murder of Jordan Davis. The jury had deadlocked on this charge during the original trial, though they ultimately agreed to convict Dunn of attempting to murder the other passengers in the car Dunn had shot into due to a dispute over "loud music". But this time, the jury only took 6 hours to reach a verdict.



Like George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn used Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute as his legal defense. Ever since the NRA and ALEC began promoting "'Stand Your Ground' model legislation" across the nation, more of these cases have popped up in the states that have adopted this "model legislation". We even have a "Stand Your Ground" case right here in Nevada, as Wayne Burgarello is using AB 321 as his legal defense in his murder trial in Reno.

Wayne Burgarello's next court date is set for October 15. He's been released on $150,000 bail. And he's plead not guilty in the murder of Cody Devine and the attempted murder of another woman at Burgarello's abandoned duplex. Burgarello claims he "stood his ground against trespassers", but Devine's family members say Cody didn't even know the duplex he & his female friend were staying in was Burgarello's.

Many have been wondering how difficult it may be for the Washoe County District Attorney's Office to convict Burgarello, especially considering the "ace in the hole" he has in AB 321. But now that a Florida jury has convicted Michael Dunn for murdering Jordan Davis despite "Stand Your Ground", perhaps there's reason for Cody Devine's family to continue hoping for justice here in Nevada.



Still, it's concerning to realize how difficult it is to prosecute murder cases in Florida, in Nevada, and in other "Stand Your Ground" states. It's hard for us to understand how George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn, or Wayne Burgarello to claim "self defense" in any other capacity. Perhaps the outcome of the Burgarello trial will be more like Dunn's and less like Zimmerman's. Or perhaps, the reverse will be true.

Regardless, we will likely see more AB 321/"Stand Your Ground" cases as time marches on. And going forward, the question for Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NRA) and the Nevada Legislature will be: "Did you agree to 'model legislation' that just let someone get away with murder"?

Still Standing on Troubled Ground

(This series has pretty much become our default 5 year anniversary commemoration. And in light of the latest Zimmerman family news gracing all the nation's finest tabloid outlets [along with more reputable outlets], we want to remind everyone of why we must endure this nonsense. So let's step back to July 2013 and remember why George Zimmerman is allowed to embarrass himself in front of the media cameras while the Martin family still mourn over justice denied.)

On Saturday, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Since the verdict was announced, protests have broken out nationwide.

Thousands of demonstrators from across the country — chanting, praying and even fighting tears — protested a jury’s decision to clear neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager while the Justice Department considered whether to file criminal civil rights charges. [...]

The NAACP and protesters called for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday in Martin’s February 2012 shooting death. The Justice Department said it is looking into the case to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case. The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed. [...]

In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. “You can’t justify murder,” read one poster. Another read “Don’t worry about more riots. Worry about more Zimmermans.” Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. “I was really devastated. It’s really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free,” she said. [...]

In Philadelphia, about 700 protesters marched from LOVE Park to the Liberty Bell, alternating between chanting Trayvon Martin’s name and “No justice, no peace!”

“We hope this will begin a movement to end discrimination against young black men,” said Johnathan Cooper, one of the protest’s organizers. “And also to empower black people and get them involved in the system.”

A young man was gunned down for walking outside while black. He was carrying Arizona iced tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie. This is what George Zimmerman found "threatening".

Somehow, a jury of six in Sanford, Florida, found Zimmerman's story possible. So they acquitted him. And protests have since spontaneously emerged nationwide. When is the slaughter of an innocent teenager justified?

That's what continues to be asked in Florida and nationwide. When did the victim become the suspect? When did racial profiling become "public safety"? Why is this happening?

Not only have the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." succeeded in recent years in making so many dangerous weapons readily accessible (even to criminals), but they have also passed "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country (including a limited version here in Nevada) that encourage the very vigilantism that George Zimmerman engaged in. And on top of that, these "Stand Your Ground" laws allow vigilantes like Zimmerman to walk away free after shooting innocent people.

So where do we go from here? What happened over the weekend served as a stark reminder of the many loopholes in our gun laws... And of the long road ahead to remedy continuing racial discrimination across this country.

Bloody "Rebranding"

We know they like to go there. But really, must they go there? Don't they realize how moronic they sound whenever they go there?

But alas, NRA "News" internet eye candy commentator Dom Raso insists on going there.



Really, Mr. Raso? Really, NRA? Jim Crow? Seriously?

We know the NRA is trying hard to "rebrand" itself as "the nation's leading civil rights organization"... But that doesn't mean this statement is true. After all, where was the NRA when Trayvon Martin was brutally murdered?



Oh, yes. That's right. The NRA was busy enabling more George Zimmermans to "stand their ground" against innocent people. And the NRA & its "TEA" tinged allies were busy attacking Trayvon's family & friends for daring to fight for #JusticeForTrayvon.

And for the record, we saw the same reaction from the NRA after the murder of Jordan Davis. That's because the NRA always turns to "philosophical arguments" over "framing & language" whenever it's confronted with the ugly truth about "Stand Your Ground".



Jim Crow? Seriously? But of course, it's easier for the NRA to turn to rhetorical nonsense than to address its own history of enabling the likes of Johnny Lee Wicks, Cliven Bundy, Wayne Burgarello, Jerad & Amanda Miller, and Brent Douglas Cole. The NRA can "rebrand" itself as often as it wants, but it can't "rebrand" away its own bloody record.

Mack the Gun

We know 2006 may seem like an eternity ago, but please pay attention. And please do join us on this little stroll down Memory Lane.

In 2006, Darren Mack was undergoing a bitter divorce with his soon-to-be-ex-wife, Charla. He was incensed when Washoe County Family Court Judge Chuck Weller ordered Darren to pay Charla $10,000 per month in spousal support in addition to $849 per month in child support. He didn't like Judge Weller's ruling, so Darren Mack responded by "standing his ground". He stabbed Charla to death, then he shot Weller in a sniper style attack.



Even though Darren Mack ultimately plead guilty to the murder of Charla and attempted murder of Judge Weller at a Las Vegas courthouse in 2007, he later recanted his guilty plea. And even though the Nevada Supreme Court ultimately rejected his appeal, Darren Mack is trying again. And wait for this, he believed he was justified in shooting who he saw as a "corrupt judge" and exercising "self defense" against his wife.

Sound familiar yet? During the murder trial, state & national media shined a spotlight on the heinous nature of Mack's crimes. Even today, one can find shows on cable TV detailing every lurid and horrid aspect of the Mack case. Yet now, it doesn't seem that extraordinary. It doesn't seem all that far-fetched. It doesn't seem all that shocking.

Since Darren Mack's name and face were splashed all over the front pages in Las Vegas & Reno, we've seen the rise of the "Stand Your Ground" Doctrine that can at least theoretically be used to justify Darren Mack's crimes. Hey, Wayne Burgarello went ahead and "stood his ground" against someone who didn't even know he was trespassing. And Johnny Lee Wicks "stood his ground" against a US Marshal and a courthouse security officer who had nothing to do with his denied Social Security claim. (And even if they did, was that shooting really justified?)

We've also seen the rise of Cliven Bundy and "TEA" powered "Range War" against state & federal law. Because the Bundy Gang don't like civil society, they think they can unilaterally impose armed madness upon everyone else.



And of course, this has aided the rise of "sovereign citizen" and "Patriot Movement" violence. Up north, Brent Douglas Cole opened fire on law enforcement agents on federal land. Down south, Jerad & Amanda Miller shot dead two Metro Police Officers and a civilian at a Las Vegas strip mall. And in other parts of the nation, "sovereign citizens" have sought armed conflict with the law... Because all of them refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of our nation of laws.

We can't help but wonder if Darren Mack has been noticing recent events. Back in 2006, and even in 2008, his crimes were almost universally condemned. But now, we have an entire "movement" of "patriots" and "sovereign citizens" who champion the kind of crimes Darren Mack committed. And we have the NRA backing them up. And we even have a number of G-O-TEA politicians standing in the way of any effort to rein in the gun violence these extremists regularly partake in.

While Darren Mack's latest appeal doesn't seem likely to succeed, it's frightening to think he even has a tiny opening today. And he has the "sovereign revolutionaries", their cheerleaders at the NRA, and their ideological soulmates to thank for this.

Redefining?

Here we go again. Once more, the NRA is trying to spin away the reality of gun violence. Apparently, it's not enough for the NRA to have its own online TV network. It also wants to dictate the terms of use for the English language.

No really, the NRA recently posted this video on the definition of "shooting".



How helpful. We were just thinking about this. What does the NRA think about the definition of "shooting"?

Still, we can't help but wonder who advised the NRA on the definition of "shooting". Did they talk with the family of Kenneth Brown? Did they consult with the family of Michael Landsberry? Or did they only speak with Wayne Burgarello?

But then again, this isn't new for the NRA. Last year, the NRA fought hard against modest background checks... Even though the NRA had previously endorsed universal background checks. Just as the NRA has tried to rewrite its own history, it's now trying to redefine the English language.

Has the NRA been consulting with Cliven Bundy? Has the NRA lost track of where it currently stands on Open Carry Texas? Or is the NRA so afraid of confronting the brutal reality of gun violence that it has to try to convince us that certain words don't actually mean what we think they mean?

So the NRA has shifted from merely "rebranding" its image to redefining words. But try as it might, the NRA can't redefine gun violence.

Standing on What Ground?

How could we have known? Sooner or later, this kind of tragedy was bound to happen. And now, we're bound to witness a hot mess explode in court... Even though it's crystal clear that Wayne Burgarello shot two people.

So why is this bound to be a hot mess? Wayne Burgarello admitted he shot Cody Devine dead and seriously wounded Janai Wilson. What else do we need to know? Ah, but Wayne Burgarello is now claiming "Stand Your Ground" as his legal defense.



Wait, what?! Remember when the Nevada Legislature passed AB 321 in 2011? We do. Oh, and we remember sounding this alarm in 2012.

They set up a dangerous slippery slope for justifying as "self-defense" what would otherwise be declared manslaughter or murder. After all, what we may consider murder can be twisted by a smart criminal defense attorney into a "Stand Your Ground" situation just by insinuating that the homicide victim was somehow threatening the shooter's life and/or property, even if there's little or no evidence that the shooter was really at risk.

So why are we now falling down this slippery slope? Why did we have to take this downhill course in the first place? And can we afford to keep making decisions out of political convenience while ignoring future public safety crises?

And this is exactly what Wayne Burgarello's defense attorney is claiming. He's claiming Burgarello had the right to shoot Cody Devine and Janai Wilson because he found them at his vacant duplex in Sparks. After all, isn't this what "Stand Your Ground" is for?

Ever since George Zimmerman was set free after murdering Trayvon Martin, we've had to confront this brutal reality. Zimmerman shot Martin dead for "committing the crime" of walking outside while black. Martin was "armed" with a hoodie, a bag of Skittles, and a bottle of Arizona iced tea. And yet, George Zimmerman now enjoys his G-O-TEA/"gun enthusiast" celebrity status while Trayvon Martin's family must go to the cemetery to visit him.

But wait, wasn't Cody Devine trespassing upon someone else's property? Possibly, though it's unclear as to whether he even knew he was not wanted there. Whatever the case, did Wayne Burgarello have the right to unilaterally impose the death penalty on him?

This is the central question to the "Stand Your Ground"/Shoot to Kill principle. Should anyone have the ability to unilaterally impose the death penalty on someone else for whatever reason? Do we really need to return to the "Old West Days" of shootouts anywhere, everywhere? Why did the Nevada Legislature & Governor Brian Sandoval (R) approve this? Might they be having second thoughts about this now?