While Daniel Adkins’ killer is protected by Arizona prosecutors, "due process" takes a hit in Florida.

“I rob, and kill to get my money.”

“I don’t have a short temper, I just have a quick reaction to bullshit.”

“You good bro I heard about what happen down there man.”

“Yea man some bs I’m good cuzo u knw I gota do me.”

“Eminem music will have you ready to kill somebody.”

“Im jus a eastside nigga, wit some eastside wayz bitch.”

Such is what you’ll read on the twitter page of one Cordell Jude, killer of Daniel Adkins. People may ask, given all the evidence that points to a shooting that had considerably less “justification” than the Trayvon Martin case—not to mention the apparent contempt for human life on exhibit here—why Jude has not been arrested and charged with second-degree murder, as has been recommended by local police. As I’ve written before, the reasons seem to be a combination of desire to avoid conflict with the black community, and enraging the gun rights lobby. Perhaps they hope that if a sufficient amount of time passes, concerned parties will simply lose interest. This is in stark contrast with the Martin case, in which the Florida “special prosecutor” ignored the recommendation of involuntary manslaughter—and bowing to pressure by the black community and the national media, charged George Zimmerman with second-degree murder, which the evidence and witness testimony does not appear to justify.

What particularly surprises me is that the local print media has been silent on the matter; the Arizona Republic has written only one paragraph on the case, and the “progressive” Phoenix New-Times has not written one single solitary word about it. In fact, it would appear that as little as has been said about the case by the national media, at least a little is more than nothing. Who are they trying to protect? Are they showing greater sensitivity to the black community, far more than they have ever shown the Hispanic community? At any rate, I wonder if I should be surprised that Hispanic leaders and media in Phoenix have not been more forceful in demanding justice in this case; maybe they just don’t want unwanted “attention.” However, they shouldn’t be afraid of accusations of being contrarian; on the contrary, they should be pointing out that the double-standards of the media’s handling of this case and the Martin case suggests racism—against Hispanics.

I wrote to the editor of the New-Times, Rick Barrs, in an email I entitled “Silent partner in murder?”: “I'm still fascinated by the fact that the New-Times has not waded into the Daniel Adkins case. What are you afraid of? At the very least this is a case about the abuses of the ‘stand your ground’ law, and it seems to me that your publication of all things should be aware of the media hypocrisy involved in this case--unless, of course, you are being hypocritical too.” I was less surprised by the fact that I received a response, than by what that response was: “What are the details of the case? Unfortunately, there are many murder cases in a big city. Where's the hypocrisy exactly?”

He had no idea what I was talking about. I asked him if he was joking, and if not, I gave him a few details and links to the CNN and USA Today stories, as well as a link to the petition for justice on the Change.org website. Barrs responded “A whole lot of stuff goes down here. Yes, I remember this, now that you attach names. What's your interest, BTW? Are you the attorney, related the victim, what?” No, I said, I do not have any horse in this race beyond my interest in justice, and the fact that hypocrisy disgusts me. “What about you?” I asked. He did not reply.

Interest in the Adkins case continues to move at a snail’s pace, but there are signs of life. The New America Media posted a story a day ago quoting the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, who in fact had received a recommendation of second-degree murder against Jude by the police only days after the shooting, two-and-half months ago. Spokesperson Jerry Cobb continues to say the case is “under review” by a “special committee” overseen by county attorney Bill Montgomery. The committee has yet to make the determination that is obvious to any objective observer; instead, they requested “additional evidence.” How much more “additional evidence” is needed to come to the conclusion that justification was non-existent to any reasonable person, that Jude shot Adkins in cold blood?

The story noted that a John Hurtado, a “certified” law student in California who practices law under the supervision of attorney, heard about the case and decided to investigate further. After “reviewing the available evidence and observing the actions taken by Maricopa County authorities, Hurtado felt compelled to take action…He wrote a letter to county officials, asking that Jude be charged with second-degree murder for unlawful use of deadly force… that Jude provoked the incident by almost running over Adkins…a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force…But if it’s determined that he provoked [Adkins], he might not have the right to (claim) self-defense.” However, from what Hurtado could determine, county officials was bending over backwards to find a way to provide Jude with “immunity” from prosecution. Hurtado might also have mentioned that "cursing" and "air-punching" by a man with the developmental aptitude of a 12-year-old hardly qualifies as "physical threats."

On the other side of the country, the story is 180 degrees in opposition; officials in Florida are contorting themselves like Claymation figures in order to give Benjamin Crump—a personal injury attorney representing the Martin family, with a reputation as a media and money hound—as little ammunition as possible in a wrongful death lawsuit he intends to file; in the process, common sense and justice has been thrown out the window. First, the evidence and eyewitness testimony rather strongly suggests that George Zimmerman had a case for self-defense (the 14 times that Zimmerman was heard yelling for help on another 911 call would suggest a prolonged attack by Martin); as to Zimmerman’s motivation, the police were certainly aware of the recent crime wave in the neighborhood. But when pressed by increasing publicity, the police decided to bow to pressure and recommended an involuntary manslaughter charge. But in the face of a black community that seems less concerned about the gunplay within its own midst than with real and perceived racism as a way to “justify” community dysfunction, the governor of Florida decided that in order to ratchet down the publicity, he would appoint a “special prosecutor” who would take appropriate “corrective” action.

The problem with the choice of Angela Corey was that she was in the midst of a tough reelection campaign, and this was an opportunity to use the case as campaign fodder for a fellow Republican. It apparently didn’t occur to any thinking observer that Corey could not be trusted with giving a proper accounting of the knowable evidence. She proved this when she by-passed the grand jury, for she feared that it would not have decided bring the politically “appropriate” charge. As it happened, few non-media legal analysts who actually examined the evidence believe that any charge—let alone second-degree murder—was justified.

I have had people ask me if I believe in “due process,” and if Zimmerman is in fact not guilty as charged, then let a jury decide that. The problem is that the Martin camp has shown little interest in “due process,” with death threats against his lawyer, while a person who was given Zimmerman’s old telephone number was bombarded with similar sentiments. By-passing the grand jury and handing down a charge unjustified by the facts shows that Corey had little interest in “due process.” That lack of respect for due process has led to the inflated charge that also inflated the amount of Zimmerman’s bail. When it was discovered that the Zimmerman household did not have enough money to cover the bail, Zimmerman was re-arrested and thrown in prison, where he will likely sit for the next year or so until his trial begins. His wife, Shellie, was arrested and charged with perjury for the perfectly natural omission of not knowing exactly much money they actually had, and not wanting to see her husband sitting in jail for what he knows in his mind was an act of self-defense. Now both are in jail for reasons that at their core rest on injustice and abuses by the Florida justice system; they are political prisoners. Judge Kenneth Lester, in revoking Zimmerman’s bond, had the mendacity to claim that Zimmerman “demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process.” What “integrity?” There has been no “integrity” in this case from first to present, and primarily by the forces arraigned against Zimmerman.

And Cordell Jude remains free and uncharged in Arizona, his victim largely ignored by both local and national media.

Now, being an opponent of unlimited gun “rights,” my desire is that such incidents as the Martin case should never had the opportunity to occur. Of course, I’m not going to absolve Martin of any responsibility in what transpired as most people seem to be, but in a “perfect” world, he would have been allowed the opportunity to turn from a life which to all appearances was that of a petty criminal and unproductivity; remember that this was the kid whose parents claimed “dreamed” of being an airline pilot, yet was suspended from school three times, was both a user and seller of marijuana, and apparently broke into school lockers and stole money and jewelry—despite the fact his family was relatively well-off. This is far different from the aspirations of Zimmerman, who tried to start his own business in insurance (with a black partner) and whose graduation from a community college was stymied by the school’s “concern” about the “trouble” likely to visit it. The media has also continued to ignore the backstory—the community’s concern about robberies and home invasions, mostly committed by “young black males.”

I have also made plain in the past that I believe that the Martin case—in conjunction with the Adkins case—has a plainly anti-Hispanic element to it. People might not choose to admit it to themselves, but their demonization of Zimmerman and refusal to accept any evidence that he did shoot in self-defense, and choosing to believe that Martin did nothing to bring on the tragic result, can only be explained by a visceral reaction to Zimmerman’s features: He “looks” like someone they don’t want to sit next to on a bus, he is “scary” looking, and he is how racists imagine a stereotypical “Mexican.” Whatever it is he is accused of, he is guilty. My general impression is that the conspirators in Zimmerman’s demonization—the media, Jackson and Sharpton, the lawyer Crump, the prosecutor Corey—know that they cannot get away with this unless they are aware of the underlying negative attitude of public discourse in regard to Hispanics. It simply doesn’t matter what the evidence in the police investigation shows; if there is political capital to be had, the media and community “leaders” will use it to “prove” that they are occasionally “socially-conscious.” And every time I come across a story on the Internet concerning the Martin case and read the “comments” section, I see nothing but social vigilantes and hypocrites who care absolutely nothing about facts and evidence—only about the politics of it.

I read a post by some feminist freelance writer named Robin Marty, the kind who doesn’t want you to think they ONLY care about themselves. She insists that gun rights advocates fouled-up their “defense” of Zimmerman by suggesting he acted in self-defense, because “Zimmerman ‘vacated’ any ‘right’ to ‘self-defense’ when he followed Martin.” So she would have been fine for that reason if Martin had caused a lethal head injury when no evidence suggests that Zimmerman actually touched Martin—let alone instigated a physical confrontation? The bankruptcy of the Martin camp is simply astounding. “Even if the new allegations are true” exclaims Marty, “and Martin really was beating Zimmerman at the point in which Zimmerman shot him, it was still murder rather than self-defense simply because Zimmerman, not Martin, escalated the situation into one that became deadly.”

It is clear that the people who demonize Zimmerman have no interest in his side of the story. He has been accused of racism, yet any examination of his background does not support this charge. “Racism” was not the reason why he called 911; the complete audio makes it clear that he did not initially know the race of the person he saw acting “suspiciously”—in the same manner of a man he saw a few weeks earlier, Emmanuel Burgess, who was discovered a few days later with a stolen laptop. The 911 operator asked Zimmerman to identify the race of the person who turned out to be Martin; he did not volunteer the information and he did not know until Martin approached closer. Zimmerman was also not a “self-appointed” watch captain; after the two black males terrorized a Hispanic mother and her infant son during a home invasion last summer—on the heels of a rash of break-ins and thefts by mostly “young black males” who were recent arrivals to the neighborhood—members of the homeowners association, who knew of his vocal concern about neighborhood safety, asked Zimmerman to be its neighborhood “watch captain.” Zimmerman was not paid to do this, and as is typical for such a job, largely thankless and possibly dangerous.

But the robberies and break-ins continued, most of them ignored by police. “The last time Zimmerman had called police, to report Burgess” as the Reuters account concluded, “he followed protocol and waited for police to arrive. They were too late, and Burgess got away. This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin. ‘These assholes,’ he muttered in an aside, ‘they always get away.’" Zimmerman, as made clear in his 911 call, did stay in his vehicle, reporting that Martin was approaching him and “looking” at him. As Martin passed his vehicle, he started running; Zimmerman informs the 911 operator of this, and decides to take off after Martin; we hear his vehicle door open at that point. But Martin was young, lithe and obviously in running shape; Zimmerman was overweight and hardly in running shape, and of course he “lost” him.

If we choose to believe Zimmerman’s claim that as he was returning to his vehicle to call police (and it shouldn’t be that difficult to), and Martin appeared out of nowhere and confronted and then sucker-attacked him, then who really was the “aggressor” in this case? Who really provoked an intensification of action? Was Martin trying to “provoke” a reaction out of Zimmerman by being a “smart alec” and suddenly running, as if he was guilty of something? The police in the same situation would certainly have had the same impression. And it wasn’t as if Martin hadn’t committed criminal acts in the past, in which he was “punished” only with school suspensions. Was it all part of some “plan” to prove he was some “tough guy” who would teach Zimmerman “respect?” Martin’s behavior—such as in “trying” to assault a bus driver only few days earlier—certainly suggested it.