The Home Address of the Angry Mob

Politics & Current Events

I don't recall exactly when I concluded that Spike Lee is an asshole, but I think it was around the time he told Esquire “I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.” I've long viewed hostility to interracial couples a reliable tell for self-involved douchebaggery, and now that I have a multiracial family my impression is only confirmed. Nobody wants some fashion-victim goateed dwarf glaring balefully at them during a romantic stroll. It's liable to make you anxious about whether you set the DVR right for Game of Thrones.

So: color me utterly unsurprised that Spike Lee is acting like an unprincipled asshat in relation to George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin. I haven't written about that shooting yet; even though the undisputed facts trouble me. Right now the case seems to be a hot mess of unsourced rumors, punditry by Nancy Grace aspirants, racism, and this-fact-favors-my-side-so-it-must-be-true wankery. I advocate a thorough and responsible investigation followed by due process of law — a rare luxury, but good to have when you can get it.

So how does the shooting provide Spike with an opportunity to be like himself? Well, as the Smoking Gun documents, a Los Angeles man named Marcus Davonne Higgins found what he thought was George Zimmerman's address and began publishing it with exhortations to "REACH OUT & TOUCH HIM." He eventually tweeted the address with a request that EVERYBODY REPOST THIS. Spike Lee obligingly reposted the address, and substantially contributed to the tweet going viral.

Among the problems with this was that Marcus Davonne Higgins is dumb and/or a shitty researcher. He got the wrong Zimmerman family, and the wrong address. The Zimmermans who live at the address that Higgins and Lee tweeted are in their 70s; the wife is a lunch lady at a school. After getting hate mail and being pestered by dumb reporters, they left for a hotel. They assert that they attempted to reach out to Marcus Davonne Higgins, and received the response "Black power all day. No justice, no peace." This seemingly self-justifying response is odd. I've certainly litigated against people who are shitty researchers and frankly a little slow, and some of them seem proud of it, but I've never observed them to be disproportionately members of any ethic group.

But the issue is not merely that Marcus Davonne Higgins is a reckless idiot who tweeted the wrong address, or that Spike Lee is a gullible creep who retweeted it to a vast following. The issue is that both were highlighting the home address of a person accused of a crime with the rather clear intent to incite violence against that person or, at least, put them in fear. Exhortations to mob violence are the marks of thugs who are part of the American tradition of lynch mobs, not the American struggle towards justice. By urging angry followers to REACH OUT AND TOUCH Zimmerman at his home address, Higgins and Lee were urging violence, and risking not only Zimmerman's life, but the lives of his family, the lives of neighbors, the lives of law enforcement, and the lives of — as it turned out — the utterly unrelated people who lived in the house that the moron Higgins identified. That was the work of thugs. It deserves our open scorn.

As far as I can tell, neither Spike Lee nor Marcus Davonne Higgins has apologized — not for scaring the hell out of a lunch lady who shared the name of someone they hated, and certainly not for their mob-justice tactic of publishing a home address to angry followers. I doubt they will. If Spike Lee says anything, I suspect it will be something along the lines of "it's typical in racist America that the media is talking about this instead of about violence against African-Americans." The media might, indeed, not focus enough on violence against African-Americans — what with pretty white girls being so prone to getting lost — but that's really not the point, and if Spike Lee said words to that effect, it would be a contemptible dodge.

It's very rare that reporting a story legitimately requires emphasizing the subject's home address. Occasionally it's hard to tell a story without talking about public resources or documents that might lead a reader to a home address; in those cases, caution is warranted. But I submit that it is never anything but vile to publish a subject's home address and exhort followers to go harass them — not when the subject has a political position you don't like, and not even when the subject has been accused of a terrible crime. That's why I called out the asshole Mike Troxel (who, like Marcus Davonne Higgins, was a shitty researcher who published the wrong address, leading to harassment of the wrong party), and that's why the targeting of Michele Malkin was wrong.

Publishing twitter accounts, Facebook accounts, email accounts, and other methods of communication that can be cut off? That's fine. But publishing a home address and sneeringly pointing it out to followers and inviting them to "have a chat," or words to that effect? That's a threat. Threats are for thugs. Don't be a thug. Don't be like Spike Lee and Marcus Davonne Higgins.

Edited to add: Thanks to Bret for a link to this doubling-down tweet by Higgins:

I might be wrong, but I think "THEY" probably means "the Jews," or something.

Edit 2: Thanks to commenter Phil for pointing out that Higgins is now tweeting apologies for tweeting the wrong address — though not for tweeting an address in the first place. Scumbag.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

71 Comments

71 Comments

  1. W. Ian Blanton  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:34 am

    Gosh, since it's news when a SWAT team busts into the wrong address, scaring hell out of and/or killing the wrong people, you'd think this would be a big-ish deal.

    Guess the rules are different when yer famous. But then, I guess we already knew that.

  2. Jonathan Kamens  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:37 am

    Ken, I know you're into the-best-weapon-against-bad-speech-is-more-speech, and I'm with you on that, but isn't it, um, a criminal act to incite people to violence? And shouldn't it indeed be a criminal act to "risk not only zimmerman's life, but the lives of his family, the lives of neighbors, the lives of law enforcement, and the lives of… unrelated people"?

    What are the odds of Marcus Davonne Higgins or Spike Lee seeing the incite of a courtroom from the defendant's table because of what they've done? And should the odds be higher than that?

  3. Matthew Cline  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:39 am

    They assert that they attempted to reach out to Marcus Davonne Higgins, and received the response "Black power all day. No justice, no peace."

    Did Higgins simply not listen to their explanation? Or did he listen, but think that it was the real Zimmerman lying about it being the wrong address?

  4. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:39 am

    I can't say I'm all that surprised. The bottom feeders at the fringe of what was once the Civil Rights movement have always strongly resembled their opposite numbers in the Klan. They make all their moral and ethical judgements by skin color, just as the Klan does. Therefore they reach similar conclusions.

  5. Chris  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:42 am

    and the "armed to the teeth homeowner" meme comes in handy in yet another situation…

  6. Josh  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:46 am

    I predict this will end poorly for Higgins, because threatening an elderly couple, and then doubling down on it when it becomes apparent that you made a mistake, is just such a good idea.

  7. David Pittelli  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:46 am

    Didn't you know?
    White person who hates interracial couples = racist!
    Black person who hates interracial couples = progressive!

  8. Matt  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:47 am

    I doubt we'll ever get to see the famously-black guy forced to defend his rationale in openly and publicly attempting to incite a lynching. But it would be entertaining to watch. (Not entertaining enough to justify the actual attempted incitement of a lynching, of course, but now that that's happened anyway, we might as well enjoy the spectacle of hypocrisy in the aftermath.)

  9. TJIC  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:50 am

    As much as I loathe the US court system, I will admit that it's better than every other alternative I'm aware of, including "Hey, guys, that looks like the dude that my sister said she might have seen – let's go F___ him up!".

  10. Ken  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:50 am

    @Jonathan:

    There are colorable arguments that Lee and Higgens have criminal exposure under some statutes under these extreme circumstances.

    Everyone else:

    It would be a mistake of reading comprehension and of judgment to conclude that any of the authors of this site are the "ha ha racist comments are funny" or "gosh white people sure are oppressed" sorts. I'm not pointing to anyone in particular. I just have a feeling it's going to be one of those threads.

  11. perlhaqr  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:56 am

    Didn't Spike Lee break into the mainstream with a movie about interracial couples?

  12. Jag  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:59 am

    I'm hoping the Zimmerman's reported this to the Feds and they pay Mr. Higgins and Lee a 'visit'.

    As far as due process in this case, SYG seems to remove that minor inconvenience since this case may never even see a courtroom.

  13. Bret  •  Mar 28, 2012 @9:02 am

    Higgins isn't just a bad researcher, he's now crossed into ass-hattery:

    https://twitter.com/#!/MACCAPONE/status/184831591997124609

    @SpikeLee THAT ADDRESS IS NOT WRONG THEY JUST WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT……

  14. Dustin  •  Mar 28, 2012 @9:04 am

    I checked Marcus's twitter feed and saw "@SpikeLee THAT ADDRESS IS NOT WRONG THEY JUST WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT……"

    But the address isn't even in a gated community. They didn't just invent those senior citizens. They actually live in that house.

    What a hateful guy to actually double down on this, asserting a paranoid conspiracy theory. The lynching must go on!!!

  15. Chris Berez  •  Mar 28, 2012 @9:19 am

    Wow, I hadn't heard that Spike Lee quote before. I've strongly disliked him for a while now, but that just settles it: what an utterly awful and bigoted human being.

    Regarding this Twitter incident, I have no idea whether Lee and Higgens can be held legally accountable but to the extent that they are, I hope any and all charges– criminal and/or civil– are pursued against them. Their actions are vile and inexcusable.

  16. Linus  •  Mar 28, 2012 @9:31 am

    This story brings back bad memories for me. I have a second cousin with my exact same name, and I got a few calls in high school from guys who told me they were going to stomp me for (among other things) messing with their girlfriends, and I didn't have any idea what the hell was going on.

  17. Dustin  •  Mar 28, 2012 @9:45 am

    I cross posted with Bret apparently. I agree with Bret that this is just asshat behavior.

    I assume Marcus is judgment proof. That's a shame as he really deserves to stand in a courtroom and explain himself to these folks he's terrorizing for no reason.

    Marcus talks about love, too, but I think he doesn't mean love (or justice) for anybody but those who look like Marcus.

  18. Dan  •  Mar 28, 2012 @9:49 am

    My pretty darn smart younger brother was turned away from a university because the school mixed him up with another applicant with the same first & last name (but different middle initial) who had scored in the mid-teens on his ACT. It was my parents' alma mater, and they were really pissed off. Needless to say, that school no longer gets any donations from them.

    Also, rhetorically, how many "moron doubles down" stories can one blog publish?

  19. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Mar 28, 2012 @10:11 am

    Ken,

    If my comment struck you as "White folks is sooooo oppressed", then I can only say I deeply regret it. As I "white folks" myself I am well aware that I go through life with a head start on anybody of darker hue. What galls me is that the core racial policy of the Democrat Party – making legal and cultural decisions based on skin color – hasn't changed much since the War of Southern Idiocy … and if you mention this to a Liberal they get all offended.

  20. Ken  •  Mar 28, 2012 @10:13 am

    I specifically said I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, and meant it.

  21. C. S. P. Schofield  •  Mar 28, 2012 @10:40 am

    Ken,

    I didn't take it that you meant me only, but I regret if I was adding to a tone.

  22. Dustin  •  Mar 28, 2012 @11:05 am

    "As I "white folks" myself I am well aware that I go through life with a head start on anybody of darker hue. "

    Is that true? Maybe it's a basic general truth, but I don't think it's absolute. I think it makes more sense to get beyond race and look at the real 'head start' attributes. Things like dads doing their duty, good employment levels, schools that are pretty good. Yeah, some will just say this tracks racial lines to some extent, but why not get to the root of the issue? A fatherless white kid whose mom can't get a job and whose school is a joke does not have a head start over a black child of a dentist.

  23. Damon  •  Mar 28, 2012 @11:11 am

    So, I agree with the theme here. Totally unacceptable. That being said, let's follow this to the logical conclusion. Some idiot follows up and actually assaults/breaks in/terrorizes some innocent family, like these old folks, in the mistaken belief that they were involved in this shooting.

    Let's say the old guy pulls a pistol and puts a few rounds into the idiot and kills him. First, I'd have no sympathy for the guy killed in such a manner…hell I think he got what he deserved. But would Spike or Higgins bear any CRIMINAL liability? 'Cause a guy driving the getaway car during a convenience robbery that leads to a lethal shooting can be convicted on homicide. Can Spikey or his fellow tweeters?

  24. a different phil  •  Mar 28, 2012 @11:16 am

    Late news: after being informed by Inside Edition and MSNBC, Higgins is now posting contrite apologetic notes on Twitter and is talking about writing a letter of apology. No sign of anything from Lee. This does not take anything away from Ken's comments about posting people's addresses and thuggery, which I agree with 100%.

  25. Jess  •  Mar 28, 2012 @11:38 am

    Yep, I knew back when I posted about this the other day under the Nadia thread, someone would get stupid and something like this would eventually happen. Stupid people just can’t seem to help themselves from being well – stupid. I must say however that I didn't see it coming to the wrong Zimmerman. As a Caucasian I’ve been witness to unfair bias based on the skin color of some of my most valued and trusted business associates and it irks me no end. However, this kind of irresponsible behavior only exacerbates that very situation. The fact that Mr. Lee or Mr. Higgins don’t seem to understand this raises their asshattery to a new level of feebleminded stupidity – something along the line of “to be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.”

  26. Matthew Cline  •  Mar 28, 2012 @11:52 am

    Late news: after being informed by Inside Edition and MSNBC, Higgins is now posting contrite apologetic notes on Twitter and is talking about writing a letter of apology.

    I wonder why he didn't believe that he was wrong the first time he was informed of his mistake. Maybe he just didn't care until it looked like the media was paying attention to him.

    Also, one of Higgins' tweets: "LIKE I SAID AGAIN I SORRY FOR RETWEET THE WRONG ADDRESS OR ADDRESS PERIOD SORRY TO THE ELDER PEOPLE I CAUSE HURT TO."

    He's sorry for re-tweeting the wrong address? Is he now claiming that he wasn't the one who originated it? Or does he mean that he's not sorry for tweeting the wrong address, but rather for asking other people to re-tweet his original tweet? (Boy, am I feeling silly for typing "tweet" over and over)

  27. Dustin  •  Mar 28, 2012 @11:56 am

    Matthew, he's being evasive. The way he defended the address's accuracy to Spike, asserting there was a conspiracy… that makes it hard to buy he didn't originate the claim.

    I'm glad he's saying he's sorry, but he's only sorry for send the lynch party to the wrong house.

  28. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 28, 2012 @1:44 pm

    Jesus, am I the only one who wants that guy to suffer harm for no other reason than his continued brutal assault on English?

  29. SPQR  •  Mar 28, 2012 @3:43 pm

    No, not the only one.

  30. Laura K  •  Mar 28, 2012 @4:58 pm

    Definitely not the only one. Although I suppose I should appreciate Higgins providing even more evidence that he is dumber than a bucketfull of hair, and should have been sent to play on the interstate as a child.

  31. John Farrier  •  Mar 28, 2012 @5:05 pm

    No, Scott, you're not. That was my first thought while looking at his Twitter feed.

  32. David Leech  •  Mar 28, 2012 @5:08 pm

    Oh please, how do you expect people to react when they see the justice system will not prosecute someone for murder/manslaughter. Zimmerman should at least be facing charges, or show me the crime for wearing a hoodie while buying skittles. Yes their behaviour was both dangerous and stupid (sums up tweeter in a nutshell.) Though what option are you giving them (minorities.) Either play fair or expect a backlash and stop crying about it.

  33. Goober  •  Mar 28, 2012 @5:20 pm

    David;

    I was on your side as little as a day ago, but more info has come out and it doesn't look like Zimmerman did anything but follow Trayvon for a distance. He was walking back to his truck when Trayvon approached him and assaulted him. Trayvon was standing over Zimmerman and beating his head into the pavement when Zimmerman shot him. Trayvon, not Zimmerman, initiated verbal and physical contact. Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, not the othe way around.

    Original accounts had Zimmerman chasing Trayvon and shouting racial slurs, and my thoguhts were that Trayvon was the one acting in self defense, not Zimmerman. More info has come out now, and it looks like witness statements back up Zimmerman's account of the situation, which is to say that he was walking away after following Trayvon for a distance (which he has every right to do) and got assaulted by Trayvon, who was apparently pissed off about being followed (again, which he has every right to be, but that's it. it doesn't give him carte blanche to violently physically assault someone).

  34. ShelbyC  •  Mar 28, 2012 @5:23 pm

    Linus: "I have a second cousin with my exact same name,"

    IIRC there was exactly one other person in the US with the name "Monica Lewinski"

  35. Ken  •  Mar 28, 2012 @5:26 pm

    It's not strictly relevant to this post, Goober, but at this point of the proceeding I have no confidence whatsoever in second, third, and fourth-hand accounts of what happened, given the way advocates on both sides are acting.

  36. IGotBupkis, Noter of the Obvious  •  Mar 28, 2012 @5:51 pm

    >>>> So: color me utterly unsurprised that Spike Lee is acting like an unprincipled asshat

    You coulda just stopped it right there, Ken. It says all that needs to be said, to anyone who's heard Spike open his mouth.

  37. IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award  •  Mar 28, 2012 @5:58 pm

    >>> That was the work of thugs. It deserves our open scorn.

    It deserves a freakin' lawsuit. Not sure exactly what you could get them on, but any and all possible options should be thrown at both of them, and anyone who re-tweeted it.

    An inverted class action suit, perhaps? An individual suing an identifiable class of people, to wit, people who irresponsibly and recklessly re-tweeted an address resulting in public endangerment? That could make for interesting case law, as it's probably never happened.

    Some kind of joint suit between the real Zimmerman and the mistaken Zimmermans, I'd say, vs. ALL the tweeters, with Lee named as a primary.

  38. IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award  •  Mar 28, 2012 @6:15 pm

    >>> we might as well enjoy the spectacle of hypocrisy in the aftermath.

    Does no good, as you have to have shame to be ashamed. And racist blacks have none. Remember Whoopi and her "It wasn't rape-rape" comment? I've read the freakin' court transcripts. IT WAS RAPE-RAPE.

    His first noted film was "Do The Right Thing", which, of course, is what he's been endeavoring ever since to NOT do.

    But one of his followups that got a lot of notice was "Jungle Fever", which has that as a topic. Also notable as an early Wesley Snipes piece.

  39. Jess  •  Mar 28, 2012 @7:06 pm

    David, Goober, No no and no. Let me point out one important fact – everything known to date is second hand (or as Ken mentioned third hand, etc.) and nothing more than that. Opinions we are all entitled to express, but promoting retailation is just plain silly since NO ONE and I repeat NO ONE has all the facts nor can we reasonably expect to until after the trial. Let's not forget that attitude is what created the tweet issue in the first place.

  40. IGotBupkis, Chaneller of the Libtard Zeitgist  •  Mar 28, 2012 @7:35 pm

    >>> Let's not forget that attitude is what created the tweet issue in the first place.

    Trial?

    Trial?

    WEEEEE don' NEEEEED no STEEEENKIN' Trial!?!?!

  41. Jess  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:25 pm

    Yeah that's what the lynch mobs used to say too.

  42. Jess  •  Mar 28, 2012 @9:30 pm

    "An inverted class action suit, perhaps? An individual suing an identifiable class of people, to wit, people who irresponsibly and recklessly re-tweeted an address resulting in public endangerment?
    That could make for interesting case law, as it's probably never happened."

    An interesting concept. Aside from what I imagine are the legal issues in pursuing such a concept, I have to wonder how you would propose to identify the actual defendants given that not all users provide valid contact information or are necessarily traceable via IP address. My Twitter account goes to an email not associated to my name and an IP address not associated with either myself or my actual physical address. I know how to spoof an IP address or at the very least be virtually untraceable and I’m not even remotely the most technically adept person out there. I won’t even get into the whole mess of subpoenas to the ISPs and telco providers to actually find people. Multiply that technical challenge by the number of potential defendants, their lawyers and motions filed to consume the prosecuting attorney’s time and divide by the prosecuting attorney’s contingency budget = not a problem I imagine any lawyer wants to tackle because the discovery costs alone would seem to outweigh any financial gain in winning the underlying suit.

    Thuggery – absolutely. Just saying going after everyone or even a reasonable and financially relevant portion of the offenders would seem a statistical impossibility.

  43. Base of the Pillar  •  Mar 28, 2012 @10:04 pm

    Despicable Lee.

  44. David Leech  •  Mar 28, 2012 @11:30 pm

    Jess.

    So you are agreeing there should be at least a trail when some kid is shot?

  45. Jess  •  Mar 29, 2012 @3:17 am

    There should be a trial if the DA can find enough evidence to pursue. Otherwise it's a moot point. If there isn't sufficient evidence to secure a conviction and the case goes to trial then there is the risk of the individual winning and if they are found not guilty they can't be prosecuted again for the same crime. It isn't just about whether someone is guilty it's whether it can be proved. Patience and a non emotional focus on facts is generally the better course of action in these situations.

  46. John  •  Mar 29, 2012 @8:06 am

    Jess: I assure you that most users of Twitter are not technologically adept enough to spoof an IP. How do I know this? Because it's Twitter.

  47. Jess  •  Mar 29, 2012 @8:47 am

    @John – point well made ;-) The concept of an inverse class action lawsuit as described by Bupkis will never happen for a variety of reasons, only one of those being finding the defendants.

  48. Goober  •  Mar 29, 2012 @9:04 am

    Jess;

    Where did I promote retaliation?

    As for the other commenters who replied to me, I was merely trying to tell Dave exactly what you told me, only less eloquently. I'm taking a "wait and see" tack on this, too, based upon the new stories coming out that are diametrically opposite of what the original, breathless reporting on the situation had me believing. I used to be on Dave's side, which was that Zimmerman did wrong, but I've tempered that now that the other stories have come out.

    The fact is, the stories vary so widely that I doubt we'll ever know what happened.

  49. Jonathan Kamens  •  Mar 29, 2012 @9:45 am

    Spike Lee is now apologizing too: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/justice/florida-teen-spike-lee/index.html

    Ken, what makes you think that "THEY" in Higgins's tweet means "The Jews"? Is there evidence that Higgins is specifically antisemitic, as opposed to just racist? Seems like it could just as easily be a generic reference to all the people in the world who want to keep black people in their place, if you know what I mean.

  50. Jess  •  Mar 29, 2012 @11:24 am

    Goober – apologies – this was not meant to be taken that you personally were promoting retailation – although it did appear on the surface that David was saying it was OK – and it's not. My main point was along the lines of what Ken has said – the distortion and dilution of the facts by parties not present at the actual incident.

  51. David Leech  •  Mar 29, 2012 @2:12 pm

    Jess.

    I certainly was not advocating mob rule as I can’t think of anything more distasteful. I was just expressing a ‘what do you expect’ when perceived injustices come to light, there are frequently riots over this type of thing. It’s all very well dismissing the stories going about but they are still out there. Right wingers will believe one set of stories and left wingers and minorities will believe another and with that tensions will rise. An unarmed youth was shot dead, so therefore at least charges should be pressed and let the courts decide. At least then we get to hear the facts that are known to be heard.

  52. Jonathan Kamens  •  Mar 29, 2012 @2:22 pm

    @David Pressing charges for political reasons, to appease the public's appetite, is not justice, it's pandering.

    The police have a solemn duty to only arrest and charge people whom there is probable cause to believe have committed a crime.

    Similarly, prosecutors have a solemn duty to only bring a case to trial when they believe they have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime of which s/he is accused.

    From what I've seen, which is less than what the police and prosecutors have seen, there is ample room for reasonable doubt within the bounds of the evidence that would be admissible at trial. If the prosecutor looks at all the available evidence and concludes that there's no way in hell a case can be made for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then I'm sure many people will be outraged.

    However, as if often the case, that outrage will be based more on how people believe the world to be than how the world actually is.

    To be clear, I am not making any statements here about what actually happened that night… I have a lot of opinions about that, but I recognize that they are opinions, not fact, and they are irrelevant to the point I am making. All I am talking about is whether it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that what happened was a crime.

  53. David Leech  •  Mar 29, 2012 @4:16 pm

    Jonathan. I'm not asking for a trial for political reasons, I'm asking for a trial because an unarmed youth was shot dead. We all at least should have the right not to have our life terminated and if that happens then it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was unavoidable.

  54. Jonathan Kamens  •  Mar 29, 2012 @4:28 pm

    David,

    You're really missing the point.

    The criteria for when there should be a criminal trial in this country is not "an unarmed youth was shot dead and people are angry about it."

    The criteria is, "the state believes that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a crime."

    As abhorrent as it may be that Zimmerman might get away with murder / manslaughter / whatever, that doesn't mean that there should be a trial.

    If there is no compelling, credible evidence that his claim of self-defense is invalid, then it is not possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of a crime.

    If it is not possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of a crime, then the prosecutor would be failing in his duty by bringing the case to trial.

    These are the facts of how our justice system works. They do not change when we find them to be unpleasant or even repugnant.

    Hot-heads like you who are demanding that Zimmerman be arrested and put on trial, before all the facts of the case have been explored to determine whether that is in fact an appropriate course of action, do not help the cause of justice.

    See also: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-case-special-prosecutor-pleads-for-patience-20120327,0,1949206.story

  55. Sabba Hillel  •  Mar 30, 2012 @10:02 am

    Actually, based on the reported "facts" of the case, we may not even be able to "prove" that a Klingon did not port into the gated community and start the sequence of events that led to the young man's death.

    It may be that the only thing that can actually be proven is that Mr. Zimmerman got out of his truck. This, by the way is grounds for immediate dismissal in the Citizens' Watch group that I have been involved with in the past. All cars had to have a lighted sign on the roof, and there were always supposed to be at least two people in the car. The "Watch Commander" (for that shift) always drove with a uniformed officer who acted as liaison. All communications with the police were funneled through him. There is another watch group that can get involved more directly, but even there, there must always be witnesses around in any confrontation. Noone is allowed to confront anybody without other people around. Also everyone involved must be readily identifiable as a member of a legitimate group.

  56. dfbaskwill  •  Mar 30, 2012 @1:31 pm

    My 11 yo adopted Chinese daughter already knows on her own that Spike Lee is, at best, an idiot.

  57. Jess  •  Mar 30, 2012 @2:23 pm

    Sorry David, Jonathan is absolutely correct on this one. Same point I was making earlier but his is much more complete.

  58. Jonathan Kamens  •  Mar 30, 2012 @2:27 pm

    David, I want to comment on one thing in particular that you wrote: "…and if that happens then it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was unavoidable."

    That standard you are advocating is essentially guilty until proven innocent, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the standard to which our justice system aspires is exactly the opposite, innocent until proven guilty.

  59. Joe  •  Mar 30, 2012 @6:34 pm

    Jonathan – and thank God for that fact.

  60. Joe  •  Mar 30, 2012 @6:40 pm

    Oh at as a second to my last post – not in necessarily in the literal sense. Although, it would be Hell to live in a country with a system that wasn't founded on innocent until proven guilty. Too bad the concept of innocent until proven guilty gets squashed far too often. We've had numerous recent cases of individuals jailed for as many as 20 years, released after DNA evidence has proven they were in fact, not guilty. Given Texas fondness for the death penalty, heck we've put in an express lane, I'm reasonably confident we've likley killed someone who was in fact innocent. Emotions are what make us human, unfortunately they're often what get us in trouble.

  61. croaker  •  Mar 30, 2012 @8:11 pm

    And let's not forget the New Black Panthers and their $10k "dead or alive, dead preferred" reward offer.

  62. Robert  •  Mar 31, 2012 @3:40 pm

    Can't the same laws that put Dharun Ravi in jail also be used to put Spike Lee, Rosie O'Donnell, etc in jail? Don't forget Ravi wasn't convicted of causing Clementi's suicide. It was the Tweets.

    I read there was a settlement. I hope it was for enough money. I wouldn't have settled for less than $5 Million if it happened to me. You want enough to move to a new location, and to have a private armed security for a year.

    BTW: Many in the black blogosphere have blamed "the Jews" even though most Zimmerman are Lutheran or Catholic, and there was absolutely no evidence that there's any Jewish blood in this Zimmerman. And, interestingly, "Martin" has an association as a Jewish name, too (from "Marti"). See Wikipedia. But nobody has suggested that Trayvon Martin was Jewish.

  63. Robert  •  Mar 31, 2012 @3:42 pm

    ( I should add that I think the shooting of Trayvon Martin was a despicable act, and that "Stand Your Ground" makes no sense outside the walls of your home. I don't want pretend cops shooting people on the street. Often, when I'm critical of the African American response, people think I somehow think the shooting was a good thing. It wasn't. It was a horrible thing.)

  64. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 31, 2012 @4:05 pm

    Many in the black blogosphere have blamed "the Jews"

    Yes, well, Teh Joos are well known for working through their favorite agents – The Hispanic Male.

  65. AlphaCentauri  •  Mar 31, 2012 @6:02 pm

    Shouldn't a grand jury hear that facts before anyone concludes there is enough evidence to charge Zimmerman or not? The system is already set up to deal with situations where it isn't clear whether there is enough evidence to go to trial.

  66. Jess  •  Mar 31, 2012 @6:04 pm

    Well, Clementi jumped to his death days after his college roommate Ravi spied on him supposedly while Clementi had an intimate encounter with another man in their dorm room. Different level of violation of personal privacy and harrassment versus the tweets of the Zimmermans home address. It’s perfectly natural in the wake of such a situation to want to lay blame in an attempt to make sense of what happened and decide who was responsible. The very same thing is going on with the Zimmerman situation currently. With Ravi and Clementi, that impulse proved irresistible yet again. We all know that Ravi didn’t physically push Clementi to his death, but it apparently it made sense to blame him because people assumed his reckless and callous actions were more than just potential triggers. It looked as though his actions made the events that followed inevitable. Maybe they did – and maybe they didn't. I just don't think it is that simple. We don’t REALLY know why Clementi took his life – we can only assume. What we do know is that bullying, intimidation and humiliation don’t automatically lead to suicide. If they did, few of us would have survived adolescence – myself included. At best, we can say that Ravi’s spying and subsequent Twitter messages might have triggered Clementi’s suicide, which is different from actually causing his suicide. I may seem to be splitting hair here but it's an important point. Let me be clear I hate bullying I think what Ravi did was reprehensible and a violation of personal decency in every sense. A charge against invasion of privacy yes, jail time for Clementi's life I'm not so sure. As far as the Zimmerman situation is concerned I think most folks know by now of the mistake and the Zimmermans could get police protection in the interim if needed. Frankly Higgins and Lee should take up a collection as part of their "apology" to pay for the gross inconvenience they have caused the Zimmermans. It would be the decent thing to do.

  67. NLP  •  Mar 31, 2012 @7:31 pm

    Dragging the discussion back to the tweeting of addresses, it would be nice if everyone, including national media, avoided doing so. During the Universe vs Duke Lacrosse Team matter Newsweek published pictures of the homes of the men accused. I was really dumbfounded at that.

  68. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 31, 2012 @7:57 pm

    We don’t REALLY know why Clementi took his life

    Yeah, I guess he could have been lying in his suicide note, in which he didn't mention his roommate once…

  69. Jonathan Kamens  •  Mar 31, 2012 @9:39 pm

    Shouldn't a grand jury hear that facts before anyone concludes there is enough evidence to charge Zimmerman or not?

    My understanding is that, at least in Florida, the prosecutor gets to decide whether to go to the grand jury or just go ahead and indict. One justification for going through the grand jury is to give the prosecution a chance to "try out" their case to see if it's going to stick, and perhaps to polish it a bit based on the reaction of the grand jury. Another justification is because the grand jury has subpoena power, so they may be able to squeeze more information out of witnesses.

    But another justification, which is probably the one that will apply most in this particular case, is to insulate the prosecutor from blowback on the decision of whether to charge Zimmerman. Whether the grand jury decides to indict or not, the prosecutor can claim that it was the grand jury's decision, not the prosecutor's.

  70. Jess  •  Apr 1, 2012 @3:02 pm

    Now if I could just get the local county who is kind enough to publish our tax records on line to remove my name associated with my address that would be great. All that trouble to be unpublished, removed from Spokeo and other websites and the idoits at the local county tax office publish my name next to my home address. Why? Seriously I cannot find a single reason my name should be attached to my home address on this kind of public record when the only important piece of information that needs to be provided are the taxes paid on the property. Their response when I requested to have my name removed was not unless I was the victim of a crime. And silly me thought the who intention was to prevent that in the first place by NOT putting that information out there – especially given that I travel. Wouldn't surprise me if that is how someone found the Zimmermans.

  71. Jess  •  Apr 2, 2012 @5:07 am

    Clementi's suicide note aside, one fact is certain, Clementi had other alternatives for dealing with his ass-wipe roomy – what a shame he didn't use them.

    The main reason I posted originally on this case was that it was referred to by another poster who said

    "Can't the same laws that put Dharun Ravi in jail also be used to put Spike Lee, Rosie O'Donnell, etc in jail? Don't forget Ravi wasn't convicted of causing Clementi's suicide. It was the Tweets."

    God I hope not. Which brings me back to the original intent of this thread and post – tweeting someone's address. Despite the general outrage over both the Zimmerman and Clementi situations, I still believe it is wrong to censor what can be posted on the internet over and above existing statutes regarding slander and libel.

    If someone is being a bully like Cyrstal Cox, shining a light to expose them is the best medicine. Additionally, it now seems many of those who were in a rush to punish Ravi are now saying his sentence is too harsh. Can't have it both ways. Frankly the caliber of people who post here regularly on Popehat seem to get that. What happened in both situations was shameful – but both can be addressed using current law without the need to elevate that speech to a "hate crime" status and attempt to censor what everyone can and can't tweet, post, blog, etc.

    Someone else put it far better than I could hope to and this does a better job of articulating why I disagree with Roberts post. The following is an excerpt from the Noboby's Business Blog

    "THOUGHT EXPERIMENT NUMBER ONE: Let’s say that Clementi never jumped off that bridge, but everything else about the case remains the same. Do you believe that Ravi would have even been prosecuted for what he did, much less convicted by a jury and facing ten years in jail? More to the point: If you’d been on that jury, and Tyler Clementi was alive and appearing in court as the plaintiff, would you have felt compelled to put Ravi behind bars for up to a decade? I don’t know, but I doubt it. Remember, Ravi’s awful behavior would still have been the same. But few people would probably choose to convict him in the absence of a dead body.
    What does that tell us? It says that his actions only amount to a crime when there are certain outcomes that he had no control over. (It’s not like he handed Clementi a gun and advised him to shoot himself. And even if he had, that final deed would still be Clementi‘s choice, and no one else’s.).

    "And here is my comment on how this relates so the Zimmerman situation – as stupid and thuggish as Lee and Higgins behavior was, had someone in fact assaulted the Zimmermans, the fault would and should rest directly on the person commiting the assault."

    The Nobody's Business Blog further states
    "Ravi doesn’t deserve to get of scott-free. Rutgers could have suspended or expelled him, which seems like good comeuppance. Clementi, had he decided not to step off that bridge, could have sued Ravi for invasion of privacy, and won a monetary settlement as well as moral vindication. Both of those remedies address the actual problematic behavior, rather than what may or may not have been on Ravi’s mind at various times."

    And the Zimmermans are free to file a civil suit for monetary damages against Higgins and Lee. And, they should- it's the appropriate way to handle the situation.