Florida: A Fine Place To Get Shot And Killed

In Florida, a man shot and killed a teenager because he thought the kid looked suspicious. The boy was guilty of buying skittles and iced tea, and walking on the sidewalk in the gated community where his father lives.

The national media has picked up the story and run with it. "The guy was a racist," seems to be the prevailing opinion.

But the race of the boy (or the shooter, a hispanic man), is immaterial. The biggest issue is the law that let the shooter get away with murder.

In Florida, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone and kill them. You will not be charged with a crime. All you need to do is claim self-defense. And that's it. You're off, scot-free.

According to a state website explaining the law:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself? A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

The problem is... this is all pretty vague. "Serious bodily harm?" What is that?

The page cites an example of an altercation where Florida law wouldn't allow you to shoot someone dead:

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Now, Trayvon Martin didn't have a garden hose. He had a pack of skittles. Iced tea. The only weapon he had were his hands. The man who shot him outweighed him by several pounds and was much older.

We don't know for sure who physically attacked who first. What is clear is that George Zimmerman, the shooter, was following the boy with the intention of confronting him. If it hadn't been for Zimmerman's actions, no altercation would have taken place.

What we have then is a scenario quite different from the one imagined on Florida's government website. This is not two neighbors fighting with garden hoses. In this scenario, a man started a confrontation with a boy, and when the argument turned violent, that man whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the chest.

If this is allowed to happen, with no charges filed, no arrests made, then what precedent does it set?? If this is the way the police interpret Florida's self-defense law, then is anything preventing any of these scenarios:

1. Man decides he wants to kill somebody, anybody. Walks down the street, deliberately goads a stranger into a fight. Purposely loses the upper hand, whips out his pistol, fires. Stranger is dead.

2. Man decides he wants to kill his wife. He shoots her. Puts a kitchen knife in her hand. "It was her or me, officers," he says.

3. Man sees suspicious-looking youths loitering in front of his store. He calls them a derogatory cuss word, tells them to leave the sidewalk. The kids yell back. One youth approaches. The man whips out his pistol, shoots him, claiming he feared the boy had a gun.

In the first scenario, the guy is a deranged lunatic. But none of that matters, according to Florida's self-defense laws. There is no way to prove the man's intentions to kill. All the evidence we have is the encounter on the street. Witnesses who arrive late to the scene may never see what started to altercation. They only see a man being attacked. The killer walks.

In the second scenario, the guy is a calculated killer. But where is the evidence of his intentions? Maybe the wife confided in friends and relatives that she feared her husband. But if she didn't? All you have is a guy trying to protect himself from his knife-wielding wife. The killer walks.

In the third scenario, the guy is paranoid. He sees youths, possibly of a different race, and he assumes they're there to rob his store. He initiates the entire conflict with his paranoia and racism. But he was, after all, outnumbered, and its perfectly understandable that he thought he was going to be attacked. Does he walk?

My point is, the Florida law creates an enormous gray area, where the difference between murder and self-defense comes down to unknowable intentions and differing points-of-view. The law shouldn't be something that rests upon the nuances of a crime. It should rest on the facts. A sure sign that a law is no good is when it's seemingly applied at random.

Trayvon Martin is dead because of George Zimmerman. This is a fact. But the law that allows Zimmerman to remain free? That's based on nothing more than assumptions. What kind of legal system treats the facts of the case with contempt while giving priority to the paranoid feelings of a narcissistic neighborhood watch captain?

Well, the Florida legal system.

It's bad enough the state is known as a place where old people come to die. If shootings like this keep happening, it'll be known as a place where the young come to die as well.

UPDATE (3/20): Slate basically agrees with everything I wrote, in their article, which I read this morning. They provide a few real world examples beyond the Martin case.

UPDATE 2: The FBI and DOJ are now investigating the matter.

Apple Pays Its Shareholders, What About Its Workers?

On the same day that Apple was declared "World's Most Admired Company" by Fortune magazine, it launched its own internal investigation into the labor practices of Foxconn, the company in China responsible for assembling iPhone and iPad devices.

Currently, Apple has nearly a 100 billion--that's BILLION--dollars in its bank account. That's cold, hard cash. It's been well earned by Apple. They've given us a device that we care deeply about, can't live without. But at the same time, they earned it off the backs of the workers in the Foxcomm factory, and others like it. Workers who at the very least have been grossly underpaid, and at worst were treated like little more than slaves.

Did Apple know this? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that Apple has a very easy solution to this troublesome problem.

Shareholders want Apple to issue a dividend, repay the investors for the shares they bought. UPDATE: Apple announced today that's exactly what they will do. But we all know if there's this much profit, there must be some hair in the soup. Someone's getting screwed. And in this case maybe its that assembly line worker. The point is, pay him. Pay him a decent wage. You'll still make billions. And maybe you'll change the world too. Because when those workers in China owe their jobs to an American business, the world gets that much more connected. And it becomes a little bit harder to tear us all apart.

Apple has a decision to make. Do they spend their money helping the rich get richer? Or do they use their enormous wealth to make the world a better place for everybody--beyond just giving us new devices on which to play Angry Birds?

Anatomy of a Hoax, or "How The Web Makes Journalism Lazy"

Yesterday, many news sources, beginning with the Huffington Post, reported that a banker left a 1% tip on a check at a restaurant to make some kind of point about his wealth and to insult lowly paid restaurant workers. This story raised ABSOLUTELY NO RED FLAGS among these news outlets.

Then the website Smoking Gun did incredible, undercover investigating reporting that required hours of research, tons of money and all the manpower they could muster. No, actually, all they did was CALL THE RESTAURANT. Using the information on the picture of the receipt that had been plastered all over the web. You know, like you'd expect A REPORTER TO DO.

It took all of a few minutes to discover the story was a hoax.

Sadly, this is how the media operates these days. In this fast-paced internet-driven world, a successful news story is only successful if it appears first or second. The drop off after that (in terms of the click thrus and page reads their article will get) is huge. So news organizations jump on interesting nuggets quickly, sometimes Twittering about things before they even know what's going on, just so they can claim they "scooped" the story.

This is how "new journalism" works, in 6 easy steps:

1. An interesting rumor or unverified story appears on Twitter or Reddit, lazy journalists' web sources of choice.

2. News organization writes a quick summary, links to the original post, and says something like, "this has not been verified yet, but isn't it cool? Share with your friends!"

3. News organization never attempts to verify the story, instead, spends the majority of its time pushing the story out through its various social media arms and adding the story to the evening's television news scripts.

4. Hours later, the story is debunked by a blogger, a site like Snopes or the Smoking Gun, or an enterprising three-year-old with Googling skills.

5. News organization issues an "update," while leaving the original story up because that way it still counts towards their readership metrics.

6. William Randolph Hearst chuckles, Edward R. Murrow rolls over.

The Modern Family Teen Sex Controversy

Family teen sex? That title will get me some hits from Google.

Huffington Post writer Ann Brenoff is mad at the Writer's Guild of America, ABC, and presumably the majority of teenagers in this country because last week's episode of "Modern Family" mentioned that a 17-year-old high school senior was sexually active-- AND THEY DIDN'T USE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TURN IT INTO A TV-MOVIE-OF-THE-WEEK TEACHING ABOUT THE DANGERS OF TEEN SEX!

The gist of it is, she wants "Modern Family," about life in the year 2012, to depict life in the 1950s.

By not making the loss of the teen girl's virginity (never depicted on screen, only alluded to) into THE BIGGEST DEAL IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, Ann says the writers are sending the message that "everybody is doing it." Because everybody is not, she says. She cites this data:

"30 percent -- of both male and female teens -- still haven't had intercourse by the time they turn 19."

Um. So, Ann, you're saying that 70 percent of teenagers have had sex by age 19??? ANN, WHY ARE YOU SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT EVERYBODY IS DOING IT!!!???

Somehow, in Ann's warped mind, the fact that, yeah, almost everybody is doing it, supports her argument. HOW DARE THE SHOW MENTION TEEN SEX WITHOUT GOING COMPLETELY CRAZY ABOUT IT!!!!

Perhaps Ann believes every TV show mentioning the fact that teens have sex should just copy the plot of "For Keeps?"

Great movie, by the way.

Ann actually cherry picks the 70% fact from a report that also mentions:

"On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17."

You mean... gasp... like the character on the show!?!?!

It goes on to say...

"The majority of sexually experienced teens (78% of females and 85% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex."

And...

"In 2006–2010, some 86% of female teens and 93% of male teens reported using contraceptives at last sex. These proportions represent a marked improvement since 1995."

And yet...

"Some 90% of publicly funded family planning clinics counseled clients younger than 18 about abstinence."

and oh...

"Only 5% of American high schools made condoms available to students."

Let's put it all together now, people:

Most American teens are having sex at age 17. Most are using condoms and birth control. The vast majority do not get pregnant and do not get STDs. The ones that do probably do because our society discourages the use of contraceptives.

Imagine if our country had a traffic safety committee getting mad about all the car crashes while at the same time yelling that there's no need to provide busy intersections with traffic light. ITS BEST TO JUST AVOID THAT INTERSECTION, KIDS!!! UNTIL YOU'RE OLDER!

Now, this "very special episode" of Modern Family doesn't mention whether the 17 year old is practicing safe sex. But the big moment in the episode is when the dad says to his daughter that he trusts her to make the right decisions. This approach-- creating a safe, non-judgmental relationship with one's teenager-- is a far better tactic than the reprimand-and-push-them-further-and-further-away-causing-them-to-star-in-the-next-season-of-Teen-Mom approach.

Perhaps if people like Ann didn't treat teen sex like an automatic disaster and blight on society, more parents would feel comfortable talking to their kids about safe sex. Maybe people would stop ignoring the power of hormones and start giving teens the tools they need to avoid tragic outcomes.

And maybe we should stop flipping out every time a TV show shows us something real, rather than insisting every plot be a morality play.

NYMag's Vulture blog might have the best take on this:

Phil is ready to have a “cool dad” moment with Haley — he looks at the camera and says everything he wants to say to us, the audience: that he realizes that sex is a natural part of life, and that he hopes that she’s being safe and that she feels free to talk to him about it. He manages to say none of this to Haley, and yet it’s enough, when she asks him whether he’d prefer a counter or a booth at the mall food court, he says, “Whatever seems right to you, I trust you.” Hug. No need for a heavy-duty Danny Tanner–style speech here, or a PSA. He’s said everything we wanted to hear to us, and he doesn’t need to say it again to Haley because she already knows. Haley, back on the couch at home, looks at the camera with a tear-stained face — not even a hint of sarcasm — and says, “I have a cool dad.” Such restraint, even more so than a grand emotional outpouring, is what makes this episode special.

Hmm. Maybe it is a "Very special episode" after all.

Google Glasses, and Is Apple On The Wrong Side Of Innovation?

The New York Times Bits Blog has a piece yesterday about Google's new technology venture: Google Glasses. According to the blog's sources, the glasses will resemble a bulky pair of late-90s Oakleys, cost $250-$600 dollars, and feature augmented reality--data showing up before your eyes when you look at something, like a star review when you look at a restaurant you're passing by.

The concept isn't new, but it is a prominent vision of where we're headed in mobile computing. Today's smartphones require us to look down to access information-- there's a clear advantage in a smart device that allows us to look up.

However, it doesn't seem like Google Glasses are ready for prime time, and it doesn't look to me like they will be. There are a couple problems I see:

1. It's a pair of bulky, late 90s Oakleys.

Many people say that the iPhone is a fashion statement. Which refers to its smart, sleek design and ubiquitous popularity. But it's also something that you keep in your pocket. Glasses are, quite literally, "in your face." Sunglasses are a deeply personal object, unique to one's style. And there's a reason why Oakleys' heyday was over a decade ago.

2. They're glasses.

People who don't need glasses don't wear them, unless they're sunglasses. People who do need glasses have eyeglasses that won't fit under a pair of Oakleys. The 3D trend is stuck on this same obstacle-- people feel uncomfortable with glasses (or extra glasses) on their face.

3. The money quote from the NY Times article: "The navigation system currently used is a head tilting to scroll and click. We are told it is very quick to learn and once the user is adept at navigation, it becomes second nature and almost indistinguishable to outside users.”

Oh boy. Engineers are in love with finding new ways to navigate the devices they put in front of us. First, they came up with punch cards. Then scroll wheels. Then the mouse. The joystick. Finally-- the touchscreen. Apple's navigation system worked because it was so intuitive: when we pick up something to take a closer look, we "pinch," when we drop something, we spread our fingers. This is the way we've always navigated with real objects-- Apple translated it to the smartphone.

This head tilt thing? "Quick to learn," and "second nature" and "almost indistinguishable" to people looking at us? Read between the lines and the picture you get is a twitchy man bobbing his head about while onlookers wonder if they're witnessing epilepsy or a the beginnings of a stroke.

And our heads move a lot. Can the device tell our intentions with such precision? If I turn my head to look at a hot chick or move quickly to dodge falling bird doo, will I accidentally email my mom or dial a number in Taipei?

Why not create a navigation system based on iris movement and the simple "double blink?" Looking around would move the cursor or scroll, and a double blink (which people would normally not do) would make a selection. That's far more intuitive than nodding and bobbing.

4. The biggest hurdle is response speed. The reason augmented reality apps are nothing more than a novelty right now is that they don't work fast enough. By the time something loads, your gaze has shifted. If you have to stare at something for a long time in order for Google Glasses to show you the relevant data, then why not just pick up a smart phone instead? No one likes to uncomfortably stare at something for more than a second or two. Is 4G fast enough to deliver the data? Are the GPS, the cameras and the chipset all integrated to generate results fast-- as fast as the blink of an eye?

With all this said, Google is at least on the right track. Some type of heads-up display is the future, I'm convinced. Which is why a line near the bottom of the blog post gives me concerns about Google's competitor, Apple:

"Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist."

Yikes. So Google cops Oakleys, while Apple goes after the Casio Calculator Watch?

There's a reason the watch market collapsed following the explosion of cell phones. Watches are no longer a utility. They've become merely a fashion item. Like glasses, people buy they to match their personal style. Expecting to mass market one style of watch the same way Apple sells one style of cell phone is a boneheaded expectation.

The wristwatch concept doesn't solve any problem... indeed, it creates new ones. Yes, your hands are free, but in order to navigate, you're forced to keep one arm immobile while the other one touches. You're looking down, not up. You require a separate device to hear (glasses, at least, are close enough to the ear to incorporate a built-in headphone. I mean... wristwatch? Really?

This revelation comes on the heels of new photos that show the new iPad 3 will be THICKER than the iPad 2. While it seems the difference is no more than 1.5 millimeters, and improvements to the display and camera account for the extra space, its hard to believe Apple couldn't shave down the extra millimeter to avoid the perception of going backwards. If faster, smaller, lighter are the watchwords for future tech, Apple's fatter iPad sequel has been set up for obsolescence.

For Apple to continue its lead in the mobile computing field, they need to show they're thinking forward. Google's Glasses concept at least shows an eye looking ahead. Apple's wrist watch and belly-busting iPad 3 seem to indicate they may be staring at their feet.