Stand Your Ground Laws

Someone asked about stand your ground laws. I couldn't give an immediate answer, it's one of those things I had to think on for a while. I think a stand your ground law could work, but(like any law) it needs to be properly interpreted by prosecutors and judges.

The example on the news, Trayvon Martin is NOT under any sane interpretation a case of self defense. The person who killed him, George Zimmerman's only claim was that Martin "looked suspicious" (this is sometimes referred to as walking while black-NYC's stop and frisk works off of this principal). There wasn't even an initial confrontation, from all accounts Zimmerman chased after Martin, who of course ran from someone screaming at him for no reason. Even if they started fighting after that the aggressor clearly was Zimmerman, so under the stand your ground law it would have been Martin who had the right to shoot Zimmerman, not the other way around.

EDIT
Conflicting reports have since come in, it is possible there was an initial confrontation and that Trayvon was not run down. Even so, this is STILL a poor case to present an argument against stand your ground, as SYG didn't apply here!
Zimmerman shot Martin when Martin was on top of him. He was pinned down so at that time he had no option of retreat.

Chasing someone down for no reason and shooting them is pretty clearly murder; failure to prosecute in a case like has more to do with a racist/corrupt/inept police force than anything else.

This case is what a stand your ground law is SUPPOSED to prevent, prosecution of someone who is confronting an actual criminal. The public outcry did get the case dropped, but they had wanted to prosecute a guy who didn't even shoot or kill anyone, he just punched out a junkie who was trying to rip him off, and that was AFTER the guy took a swing at him.

So to sum it up stand your ground is like most laws, an honest judiciary can make it work, but it will fail under a corrupt one. Then again if the judiciary and the cops are corrupt you are in pretty deep shit overall; congrats you now live in a banana republic.

Who is Media?

Who is Media? If you asked that question, most people would probably name some large news organization, say, the NY Times, CNN, Fox, or maybe their local news channel. They may get more specific and name some news anchor or reporter who works for a major news outlet.

These corporations and people working for them are allowed to gather news under the first amendment of the constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. No one disputes this.

But with the advancement of technology, most notably the portable digital camcorder, now even a part of many cell phones, a new kind of Media has sprung up. The independent Media. So now anyone with a blog and or youtube account can post their video to the internet, making them available to millions, this kind of dissemination only big corporate media had previously.

The occupy movement is a good example, it was not initially covered by mainstream media, but millions of people became aware of it through video footage taken by people with small video cams.

So the question gets asked: are these people really Media, a part of the press, are they protected under the first amendment of the constitution, just like a NY Times reporter is?
You will get different answers depending on who you ask. Police officers generally will say no, they arrested numerous people recording the occupy movement claiming they were "not media".

Some in the mainstream press feel this way. If you view the video here you will see a univision videographer with a camera the size of a bazooka on his shoulder telling a Ron Paul supporter that he is not allowed to film him. The attitude seems to be that working for a corporation gives someone exclusive 1st amendment rights, rights which are NOT extended to the hoi polloi riff raff with their small digicams.

Even some people at the very occupy movement whose story was broken by independent media don't believe people are covered under the 1st amendment if they don't work for a corporation.

Is this true? I don't think so. Lets start by looking at the text of the first amendment it's self.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You will note that NOWHERE in that statement does it say that you need to work for a company to be considered press.

This is affirmed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has said that First Amendment protections extend to "'every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.'" von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir.) (quoting Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987).

Thats the good news here is the bad.

Case No. CV-11-57-HZ
OBSIDIAN FINANCE GROUP, LLC, and
KEVIN D. PADRICK vs CRYSTAL COX

Here Judge Hernandez states that defendant blogger Cox is "not media"

From:Boston.com

"Defendant cites no cases indicating that a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" is considered "media" for the purposes of applying a negligence standard in a defamation claim. Without any controlling or persuasive authority on the issue, I decline to conclude that defendant in this case is "media," triggering the negligence standard."

"Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting "the other side" to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not "media."

That means, to be a journalist, you've got to:

• Have studied journalism in school (college, I assume, which can get expensive).
  
  
• Work for a media outlet other than an independent blog (that rules out thousands of bloggers doing good journalism).
  
  
• Maintain established journalism standards (whose standards? Standards in journalism tend to be, um, fluid).
  
  
• Get both sides of the story (Hey, FoxNews and MSNBC and the Boston Herald and the Boston Phoenix and a whole bunch of other news organizations: From now on, you are no longer journalists).

So under THIS decision anyone who didn't take journalism classes and is not working for a company isn't media and is NOT covered by the 1st amendment. This decision if chosen over von Bulow v. von Bulow denies 1st amendment press protection to just about the entire independent media community.

So just who the fuck IS media? Well, according to 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and any SANE, RATIONAL person with the ability to read the actual text of the first amendment it's anyone who disseminates information to the public.

According to Judge Hernandez and all too many blowhards in government and corporate media-land the first amendment of the constitution only applies to people who work for a news media company. Under THIS strict and narrow definition when government tells citizens to put their cameras away, they have to obey.