The politics of marijuana laws
I've commented much about a recent police-involved shooting in South Carolina and its social and political aftermath. The murder of Zachary Hammond was one of a great number of similar tragedies to arise from the War on Drugs. Because a young woman's possession of marijuana was what impelled to police in Seneca to a dazzling display, first of criminal incompetence and later of corruption, I think that it would be well for me to describe the history of marijuana and the reasons for which it was banned in the United States.

Marijuana goes by other names. Cannabis is the name of the genus. Hemp is what we call species in that genus that are especially well-suited as a source of textile fiber for making rope, canvas, and fabric. Marijuana is the word we use when referring to the plant's medicinal or mood-altering properties. The plant has, also, a considerable number of street names: pot, reefer, grass, weed, and so on. Besides cordage and canvas, species of cannabis provide seeds that can be used as a grain for feeding both animals and people, and the seeds can be pressed for oil that can be used in lamps and for cooking.

The plant and its many uses aren't recent discoveries. Marijuana has been recognized and used by humans since prehistoric times, and it has been legal for use and for trade for nearly all of the past 7000 years, with the century just past being the rather ugly exception. At times, the cultivation of marijuana has been encouraged, and, once in a while, even required by law. The earliest laws in North America in connection with marijuana required farmers in the pre-Independence American colonies to grow hemp. Between the years 1763 and 1767, a Virginia farmer could be imprisoned if he didn't grow any marijuana on his farm. In the year 1850, just before the American Civil War, there were 8327 plantations (or large farms) having more than 2000 acres of marijuana under cultivation.

The turn toward illegality in the United States began as a way of setting the blame for racial rivalries—between whites and Mexican immigrants in the West and between whites and Negroes in the East—upon a convenient environmental scapegoat. California was the first state to prohibit the possession, use, and trade in "loco weed," one of marijuana's intentionally pejorative monikers, because it was said to incite Mexicans to violence.

However, the truth is that Mexicans were (and still are) dangerous to whites because the two races are rivals for the possession of the lands that are, at present, the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Marijuana might remove the inhibitions of a Mexican immigrant, but not to a greater extent than alcohol would, and the actual reason for the threat to whites by Mexicans wasn't marijuana at all, but the simple fact that their race and ours were rivals for the same land. The rivalry is similar, in that respect, to that between the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine. (The two rivalries are dissimilar in that the Jews have a national government that is solidly on their side, whereas American whites have been betrayed by the US Government.)

Likewise, blacks are dangerous to whites because whites can out-perform, and hence out-earn, blacks in a free and civilized society. Social envy arises from economic differences—but those economic differences are, in turn, caused by differences in the relevant aptitudes. Putting the blame on marijuana for the behavior of blacks was a convenient thing for both liberals and ambitious politicians to do.

After California banned cannabis in 1913, Wyoming followed suit in 1915, as did Texas in 1919; Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Arkansas in 1923; and Montana and Nebraska in 1927. And so it went.

As you might remember, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1919 to enable the federal government to ban the sale of alcoholic drinks. A century ago, the federal government was still respecting some of the limits to its own legal authority imposed by its founding document. Back then, the courts wouldn't have allowed a federal ban of a drug (except alcohol) because the judges accepted the idea of constitutional limits on federal legislative powers.

The drive to ban marijuana at the federal level began with the creation of the Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, significantly as part of the US Treasury Department. The recreational drug prohibitionists determined to do with tax laws what they couldn't do directly. They'd try to burden the politically disfavored drugs so heavily with taxes that they would disappear, or so they thought, with the Bureau of Narcotics sending its agents to arrest any tax-evaders.

Of course, the politically disfavored drugs didn't disappear. Instead, the trade in them moved exclusively into criminal hands, and the legislation backfired. Instead of saving anyone from the adverse effects of drug use, the drug use continued and crime families and drug smugglers got rich. And richer criminals are more dangerous criminals, especially after they've become rich enough to influence the political regime from which the laws come. Do you suppose that the criminal syndicates who sell illegal drugs want those drugs legalized? Hell no. The drug lords lobby legislatures (and intimidate them where they can) so that the products they sell will stay illegal and so that the market will, therefore, remain their monopoly.

Harry J. Anslinger was the first boss of the Bureau of Narcotics. He was ambitious and wanted to become a very important man. He quickly realized that his office wouldn't receive enough funding to make him as important as he wanted to be, unless he convinced law-makers that marijuana was a danger to the public welfare on the same level as cocaine and heroin. So he began an anti-marijuana campaign of lies and scare-propaganda. Anslinger said, among other things:

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Marijuana leads to pacifism.”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

You'll notice that his statements aren't entirely consistent with each other. How does marijuana cause someone to be a violent pacifist? What is a violent pacifist, anyway?

The active chemical in marijuana is tetrahydracannibanol (THC). In most white people, a moderate consumption of THC causes a calm, relaxed feeling, an easy good humor, a disinclination to work, some loss of muscular coordination, some loss of good judgment, a reduction in the ability to concentrate, and a feeling of being hungry. It doesn't cause violence unless the person using it is a violent person already.

A marijuana high reportedly feels better than being drunk. And whereas the use of marijuana does have adverse effects, the extent to which those effects are experienced is usually less than what a person drunk on alcohol experiences.

People shouldn't drive vehicles, shoot guns, or use chainsaws while under the influence of marijuana. Someone whose job requires a strong mental focus (e.g., computer programmers) won't be able to make their best effort if they have recently smoked a joint. But for after-hours or weekend recreation, the joint is no worse than the cocktail.

The media joined the deceptive anti-marijuana crusade because of a conflict of interest. Specifically, their duty to inform the public with reasonable accuracy and completeness was at odds with the investments their stockholders had made in timber. Among the many things marijuana can provide more cheaply than conventional sources can is paper. Newspapers use a lot of paper. The owners of newspapers had vertically integrated themselves an interest in wood-pulp paper industry, and they didn't want any alternative paper made from legal marijuana to lessen their profits.

And likely the same could be said about the alcohol and tobacco industries. What they offered people, marijuana could better. So those invested in alcohol or in tobacco wanted marijuana to remain illegal, and whether by fair means or foul wasn't a significant concern of theirs.

Likewise, since marijuana does have medicinal value, and since it can be easily grown by anybody, the pharmaceutical industry saw legal marijuana as a threat to their profits, and its agents lobbied for laws banning it.

When marijuana became generally illegal throughout the United States about 1960, the crusade against it went international with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Treaty of 1961. Forty countries ratified it. The treaty defined marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic, along with cocaine and opiates.

The parasitical privately owned prison corporations appeared in the 1980s, and with their rise capitalists acquired a financial interest in the incarceration of US citizens. It is in the interest of the owners of private prison companies to keep incarceration rates high because the state pays them a profitable fee for each prisoner that their private prisons confine. The criminalization of marijuana, together with no-tolerance and three-strikes laws, was very profitable for Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group, Inc.

It wasn't the use of marijuana that caused problems. Rather, the banning of marijuana caused death, misery, political corruption, rise in crime, and economic waste that would not otherwise have occurred. The cost in lives and in wealth would be difficult to estimate, but the total would indisputably be very great. Slowly, very slowly, the world is waking up to the fact that marijuana should never have been outlawed. The prohibition of marijuana never was needed in the first place, inasmuch as the "reasons" for it were mostly lies.

All along, there have been people who knew that the official position on marijuana was based on corruption and lies, but the majority of people didn't know because they hadn't used marijuana and didn't have the political acumen to detect when they were being lied to. So the various hustlers among politicians and capitalists were able to deceive the gullible, and things stayed that way for more than half a century.

The State of South Carolina releases dashcam video, falsely claims it justifies Tiller
The South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has released, after a three-month delay, the dashcam video showing Seneca Police Lt. Mark Tiller shooting and killing unarmed 19-year-old Zachary Hammond in the parking lot of a Hardee's restaurant.

Here is a table of events, as you will see them in the video. The times are rounded to the nearest whole second.

3 secTiller's car enters Hardee's parking lot.
12 secTiller's car stops behind Hammond's car.
16 secTiller becomes visible on video for the first time.
16 secHammond's car backs up slightly, but not so much as to hit the police car behind it.
16 secTiller begins shouting. "Hands up!..."
18 secHammond's car begins slowly to move forward, toward the curb. Its front wheels turn toward the left. (However, Tiller is standing safely behind any path that Hammond's car might take.)
18 secTiller, standing hunched in a firing position on Hammond's car's driver's side, with his gun aimed at Hammond, continues shouting: "Stop! Stop! Stop!"
19 secHammond's car accelerates forward. Tiller prances toward his left to maintain his position at the side of the car.
19 secTiller begins shouting an obscene death-threat at Hammond "I'm gonna shoot your fucking ass."
19 secAs Tiller says the words "I'm gon-" (the first word and the first syllable of the second word of his threat), his left foot briefly touches down on a part of the pavement that is later passed over by Hammond's car. Tiller immediately repositions his foot, removing the danger.
19 secTiller makes brief hand contact with the Honda Civic's driver's door or front fender as he speaks the words "...gonna shoot..." This touch wasn't a powerful push-off, as Tiller's lawyer John Mussetto would later claim. Instead, it appears to be a means of steadying the aim of Tiller's gun at Hammond.
19 secAs Tiller utters the fourth word of his threat ("...your..."), his left foot makes a brief touch on another part of the pavement that would be passed over by Hammond's car moments later. Tiller again repositions his foot, removing the danger.
19 secTiller fires his first shot at Hammond, as the word "fucking" leaves his mouth. This bullet struck Hammond's left rear shoulder. Tiller was in no danger as he fired this shot.
20 secTiller fires his second shot at Hammond, as the word "ass" leaves his mouth. This bullet struck Hammond in the left side of his chest. Tiller was in no danger as he fired this shot.
25 secTiller says: "He tried to hit me." A man approaching Tiller on foot asks, "He did?"
33 secA distraught Tori Morton can be heard wailing off-camera, as a police officer screams at her to put her hands in the air. (I've heard, variously, that the officer was commanding Zachary Hammond's dead body to put its hands in the air.)
For the next few seconds the police are running around, barking orders, striking heroic poses, and repeating dramatic expressions such as "Shots fired! Shots fired!"
75 secTiller says, again, "He tried to hit me with the car."
83 secAnother police officer asks Tiller "Are you all right?"
85 secTiller replies "I'm good."
88 secTiller says, a third time, "He tried to hit me."
89 secThe other officer says, "I believe ya. You all right?"
90 secTiller says, "Yeah."

A careful examination of the video shows that at no time during the encounter was Mark Tiller in any mortal danger on account of the movement of Zachary Hammond's car. Furthermore, it looks as though Hammond did nothing with the intention of endangering Tiller, but was only trying to leave the scene to avoid arrest. The only danger to Tiller was possibly having his left foot injured as Hammond's car's left rear tire ran over it, if Tiller were so foolish as to keep that foot planted in a hazardous location.

It isn't at all plausible that Mark Tiller believed that he was in danger of being run over by Hammond's car. Almost certainly, Tiller knew that he was safe, and his reason for shooting Hammond was something other than self-defense.

Mark Tiller's utterance of an obscene death-threat at Zachary Hammond, which he carried out by shooting two bullets in accompaniment with the threat's final two words, implies that Tiller was experiencing an episode of irrational rage combined with a loss of impulse control. Whereas it is not possible that Tiller shot Hammond in order to defend himself, it certainly is possible that Tiller's emotional state was such that he wanted Hammond to die. That would explain why Tiller shot Hammond, and not the tires of Hammond's car.

Hence, there is sufficient evidence that Tiller's actions meet the legal definitions of murder or of voluntary manslaughter to try him on criminal charges.

However, be wary of anyone who tells you what you will see in the dashcam video. That's what I just did, and it is what others have also done. Different people, looking at the same evidence, have expressed different conclusions regarding whether Mark Tiller was justified in shooting Zachary Hammond, or whether he committed a crime thereby. So watch the video, which is linked below, and decide for yourself what the truth is. That's what a jury ought to be doing, but someone has decided to block the way.

Chrissy Adams.

The police cover-up of the murder of Zachary Hammond has moved from the municipal level to a level in which the government of the state of South Carolina is, to some extent, complicit. The key role in elevating the cover-up to the state level was played by the Solicitor of the state's 10th Judicial Circuit, Chrissy Adams. Solicitor Adams decided not to file charges against the killer. Like a cheating referee knowingly making a bad call at a baseball game, she called Tiller "safe" when a close examination of the dashcam video proves that he was "out" (liable to criminal charges).

If the pursuit of justice were compared to a trip along the highway, Solicitor Adams used her office to set up a roadblock. I am certain that she studied the dashcam video and intentionally came up with a moderately detailed description of it that is partly and significantly false. In order to obfuscate the obvious errors in her description of what the video shows, she has raised tangential and irrelevant points regarding Zachary Hammond's past behavior.

Why did Adams do this? The reason, I think, was recognized first by the Hammond family's attorney, Eric Bland: conflict of interest.

There is a kind of propaganda that is known by the acronym DARVO, which stands for "Deny, Attack, Reverse-Victim-Offender." Poor, dead Zachary Hammond has become the target of a DARVO attack by officials of the City of Seneca and of the State of South Carolina.

Zach Hammond might have been a smart-ass. He might have been a rebellious youth. He might have used or sold drugs. But none of that is relevant to the determination of whether Mark Tiller was justified in shooting him, or whether Mark Tiller committed a crime by shooting him. The only thing that does matter is whether the circumstances of the shooting gave Tiller any justification, and, as you can see if you examine the video, Tiller did not have any justification, assertions by himself, his lawyer, his chief of police, or Solicitor Adams to the contrary notwithstanding.

Besides the DARVO attack against the character and memory of Zachary Hammond, Solicitor Chrissy Adams has engaged in obfuscation. She makes emphatic discussion about the approach of Mark Tiller toward the car driven by Zachary Hammond, as if that were the point of the matter. Quite correctly, Adams says that Tiller's approach toward Hammond's car, though contrary to recommended police procedure, isn't a criminal offense. However, nobody has ever alleged to the contrary. Tiller approached in a very provocative and stupid way, but his doing that wasn't the crime.

Rather, Tiller's crime occurred when he shot Hammond. It was the shooting that is the criminal offense because was not justified as necessary self-defense. To manufacture a pretext for failing to charge Mark Tiller with murder or voluntary manslaughter, Solicitor Adams has tried to misdirect the public's attention to a question of less concern, that being the propriety with which Tiller approached Hammond's car.

Anyway, watch the video and see for yourself.

Listen at 0:25, at 0:75, and at 1:28 into the video and you'll hear Mark Tiller tell his "He tried to hit me" lie for the first three times. Another police officer, to whom Tiller was speaking, glibly responds with "I believe ya." Do you suppose that they were speaking for the benefit of anyone who might later review the dashcam video, or some part thereof?

Here it is in slow motion (YouTube).

The ancient Romans had an expression that perfectly captures the problems with the pursuit of justice for Zachary Hammond. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" When the authority established for the purpose of preserving justice becomes corrupt, what can then be done?

There is a second dashcam video that doesn't shows some of the aftermath, but not the shooting itself.


Seneca Police Lt. Mark Tiller shoots and kills unarmed 19-year-old Zachary Hammond

This is what 10th Judicial Circuit Solicitor Chrissy Adams
thinks self-defense looks like (when the police do it).

People in other countries will be using this image to prove that the police in the United States have become just as corrupt and as bloodthirsty as the KGB in the Soviet Union ever was. Imagine the tongue-in-cheek caption.

UK: "An American policeman must shoot the driver of a car in self-defence so that he is not to be run over."

Spain: "Policía estadounidense debe matar conductor del coche en defensa propia para que no se a ser dañado."

France: "Policier américain doit tuer pilote de la voiture dans l'auto-défense, afin qu'il ne soit pas d'être lésés."

Germany: "Amerikanischen Polizisten müssen Fahrer des Wagens in der Selbstverteidigung zu töten, so dass er nicht geschädigt werden."

Italy: "Poliziotto americano deve uccidere il conducente di un auto per legittima difesa in modo che egli non deve essere danneggiato."

Russia: "Американский полицейский должен убить водителя автомобиля в целях самообороны, так что он не будет причинен вред."

Any foreigner who sees the photo and the caption will think to himself: "Stupid Americans!" Countries that have been, in recent history, under tyrannical regimes will recognize this kind of police behavior, and they will certainly find fault with our intelligence for not recognizing it also.

Now I will admit some of the mistakes that I made, prior to the release of the video, while I was trying to understand what happened during the incident.

I formed two incorrect estimations about the contact scenario involving Tiller and Hammond.

• In the first of those estimations, I believed that Zachary Hammond was blocked by a police car at the Hardee's drive-through pickup window, and that he began backing up generally in the direction of Mark Tiller, who, I then believed, was approaching the drive-through pickup window from the rear of the parking lot. This picture of things turned out to be inaccurate. I discarded it upon reading the affidavit of Tori Morton.

• After reading the affidavit of Tori Morton, I formed another incorrect estimation in which Zachary Hammond had been about to park his Honda Civic in a parking spot in the lot, and that, furthermore, his car had not been moving at all when Tiller fatally shot him. I discarded this opinion upon viewing the dashcam video, which shows that Zachary's car was indeed moving when Tiller shot Zachary.

The dashcam video should, of course, have been released no later than three weeks of the shooting incident; that is, by the middle of August. That would have given SLED enough time to take witness depositions and would have prevented all kinds of misconceptions from circulating among the public.

Still, there were a few things I've been right about all along:

1. Zachary Hammond didn't threaten to harm Mark Tiller, neither by word nor deed.

2. The account of the shooting given by Seneca Police Chief John Covington, and the modified account given by Mark Tiller's lawyer John Mussetto, were largely false regarding events that transpired during the incident, and they were furthermore entirely false regarding the assignment of blame.

3. Mark Tiller's shooting of Zachary Hammond fits the legal definitions for murder or manslaughter. He should therefore be tried by a jury of his fellow citizens for murder or for manslaughter. If a jury of lawful, honest South Carolina citizens declares, by verdict following a trial, that Mark Tiller isn't guilty of unlawfully killing Zachary Hammond, then I'll shut my mouth and go back to doing astrophysics homework problems for college students on Yahoo Answers.

I'll bet that if Zach had been black, the police officer who shot him would be tried for murder.

John Mussetto.

Nor is Adams the only source of clever misdirection about the events of the shooting. Another is Mark Tiller's attorney, John Mussetto. Mr. Mussetto has proved to be quite expert at implying with his words something other, or something more, than those words really mean. Last month, we were treated to a delightful exhibition of Mussetto's cleverness with equivocation. But let me back up a bit.

Before the release of the dashcam video, the best description of events we had was the affidavit that Tori Morton gave to Eric Bland. At the time of the shooting, Morton was a badly frightened young woman. Although she remembered that Mark Tiller had issued a death threat at Zachary Hammond just prior to shooting him to death, she couldn't recall Tiller's exact words. She told Bland that Tiller had said "I'm going to blow your head off."

John Mussetto denied that his client, Mark Tiller, had ever told Zachary Hammond that he was going to blow Hammond's head off. Which is true. Instead, Tiller told Hammond that he was going to shoot his fucking ass. By denying that Tiller uttered a particular death threat, Mussetto contrived to appear to be denying any and all death threats from Tiller. See how it works?

Now, once again, we are going to review (and, we hope, learn from) John Mussetto's amazing skill in using the truth in a deceptive way.

Mussetto said: "Mr. Hammond rapidly reversed his vehicle towards Lt Tiller’s patrol vehicle."

The use of the word "rapidly" is technically incorrect, but not to the point that anyone is going to accuse Mussetto of telling a lie. He might even be able to assert that Southern idiom allows it.

In fact, while Hammond's Honda Civic was moving in reverse, it was going rather slowly. What Mussetto really means is that Hammond QUICKLY reversed his vehicle. That is, Hammond was swift to enact the backing up of his car, although his car did not move swiftly in reverse.

Mussetto said: "Mr Hammond then rapidly accelerated in the direction of Lt Tiller..."

Clever, clever! This is another technical truth that seems to mean more than it really does.

You see, Hammond's Honda Civic made, very nearly, a 90 degree circular arc (a quarter turn) with Tiller near the center. The acceleration vector of an object in circular motion is toward the center of the circle; however, the object in circular motion is never at the circle's center.

Mr. Mussetto contrived to instill in anyone listening a false idea (that Tiller was in danger of being run over by Hammond's car) by making a statement that seemed to imply more than the words actually meant.

Mussetto said: "...forcing the lieutenant to push off of Mr Hammond’s car to keep from being struck and run over."

Now this is false. Watch the video. The touch of Tiller's hand on the door, hood, or front fender of Hammond's Honda Civic isn't a powerful push-off. It's a guiding touch, helping Tiller aim his gun at Hammond. Tiller might be, in part, keeping his distance from the car by that touch, but he would not have been run over if the touch had not been made.

Still, Mussetto can assert that the touch looks like a "push off" to him. So nobody's going to accuse him of knowingly telling a lie.

Queen Disgusting
by David Sims, with credit to Tina Walker for the physical description of Disgusting.

The story of Queen Disgusting is fictionally ascribed to Brendalyn Jurarde, of the Jurardes of Wayrest, who did however fight on the side of the Ebonhart Pact in Cyrodiil during the Triple-Alliance War (2nd Era 582-5).


Once upon a time there were three sisters: Delicious, Delightful, and Disgusting. Now, Delicious and Delightful were both very pretty girls. But Disgusting was ugly. She was fat. She had a big nose. And she had a wart growing under her right eye.

One day a prince came riding along on a big, white horse, when he heard someone crying beside the road. Looking down from his horse, the Prince saw Disgusting sobbing into a handkerchief.

"Fai—um. Young maid, why are you crying?" asked the Prince.

"Because I'm ugly and nobody loves me," replied the young maid.

The Prince took pity on Disgusting. He climbed down from his horse, swept her up into his arms, and gave her a big kiss. Unfortunately, during the kiss the Prince's face made contact with the wart, and he became infected.

Two weeks later, back at the palace, the Prince woke up, looked into a mirror, and saw a big, ugly wart growing under his left eye. In a panic, the Prince called the royal physicians and told them to cure his wart.

"I can't be seen like this!" The Prince cried.

"Never fear, Your Highness," said the physicians. "We'll cure that wart right off your face."

The castle herb healers went to work, brewing up their strongest anti-wart potions. They painted the evil-smelling stuff on the Prince's face, covering up the wart. Alas, the wart just laughed at the concoction. It didn't go anywhere. It didn't even get any smaller.

When the herbalists failed, the castle chirurgeons went to work. They took a sharp knife and cut the wart off. But by two days later, it had grown back, bigger than ever. The palace physicians regretfully told the Prince that he was stuck with it.

By and by, the old King died, and the Prince became the new King. Now, it is a rule that all kings must beget an heir. If a King were to die without begetting an heir, there would be a civil war in the kingdom because everybody would suppose himself to be the logical choice to be the next king. Civil wars are very bad things because many people are killed in them. So to prevent such a calamity there is a rule that all Kings must produce heirs.

But before a King may produce an heir, he must have a wife, and the new King hadn't married yet. To seek a wife, the King decided to hold a ball in the palace and invite all the princesses from the neighboring kingdoms to dance with him. So the date was set and the invitations were mailed, and, since nobody outside the palace had yet found out about the King's wart, all of the princesses for many miles around were eager to attend the ball.

At the ball, the King danced with each princess, starting with the prettiest and working his way down the list. And as they danced, the King proposed marriage. But each of the princesses said, "Eww no! You are so ugly! I'm going to ask my Daddy to marry me to a king or a prince on the other side of his kingdom."

Since no princess in her right mind would marry someone who had a wart on his face, the King was forced to turn to the only woman who would have him.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present Queen Disgusting!

Moral: Never pretend affection for the unworthy.

Historical footnote: During her reign, Queen Disgusting outlawed feminine beauty throughout the kingdom and had her two sisters executed for the crime of being too pretty.

Will the police in Seneca SC get away with the illegal killing of Zachary Hammond?
I'm a resident of West Virginia. I first heard about the police perpetrated and probably criminal homicide of Zachary Hammond on 8 August 2015. I've been trying to figure out what happened ever since.

On 26 July 2015, Zachary Hammond and his new girlfriend, Tori Morton, were out on their first date. They visited a McDonald's restaurant, where Zach bought Tori a chocolate-dipped ice cream cone.

They drove from there to the Hardee's restaurant in Seneca, South Carolina—the street address is 1003 By-Pass 123; the zip code is 29678. Tori wanted to meet with somebody there, in order to sell him 10 grams of marijuana. Unknown to her, the buyer was an undercover cop.

Unaware of the trap, Zachary Hammond drove his Honda Civic into the Hardee's parking lot.

This is the Hardee's where Zachary Hammond was killed by police.
The photo was made for Google Earth on 11 February 2012.

As Zach approached a parking spot, a police SUV in the lot turned on its blue flashing light and two police officers got out of it. The cops started yelling death-threats laced with obscenities, e.g., "I'm going to blow your fucking heads off!" One of the two officers was police lieutenant Mark Tiller.

Zach reached toward the floor of his car to put it in park. He did not complete this action because, just then, Mark Tiller stepped up beside the Honda Civic and fired twice through the driver's side window. The bullets hit Zach in his left side, and one of them, going rightward though his body, killed him by destroying his heart and lungs.

The Honda Civic began to roll along the curb, scraping its front right tire against it. It was stopped when another police car (not the SUV) intentionally slammed into it.

Tori Morton was put in handcuffs as she and Zach's dead body were removed from the Honda Civic. One or more of the police called "Where's the gun?" and "Get the gun!" But there was no gun, other than those in the hands of the police.

Tori was then uncuffed, given a cigarette, and told to wait behind the Hardee's building. Alone. She waited for what seemed like a long time, and then one or another police officer would bring her back to the scene of the shooting. During the moments when she was able to see this area, she observed that the police were moving around the gun that was used to kill Zach, putting it in the trunk of one police patrol car, taking it (or a very similar-looking gun) back out again, and then doing likewise at the next patrol car.

The police eventually arrested Tori on a charge of Simple Possession and was later released from jail on a $620 bond.

Most of my description depends on the affidavit from Tori Morton, found here.

A police officer who showed up after the shooting, said that he observed Seneca PD officers mocking the dead Zach Hammond by raising his arm and giving the hand a "high-five." The same officer also said that he saw a Seneca PD officer take something out of the trunk of a patrol car and put it underneath Zach's body. This might be where reports of a "white powdery substance, consistent with cocaine" came from.

For eleven days, the identity of the Seneca police officer who shot Zachary Hammond was kept secret by the Seneca Police Department, in particular by its Chief of Police John Covington.

During those eleven days, Chief Covington said that one of his officers was forced to shoot Zachary Hammond in self-defense because, he said, Zach had been trying to run the officer down with his car. The obvious flaw in that story is the fact that the bullets hit Zach in the side, having come through the car window by the driver's seat. Bullets don't make right-angle changes of direction in flight. The Chief had told an obviously fishy tale, and people began to sense that a cover-up was afoot.

I'll call Chief Covington's early description of events Cop Story #1. In this version, Zachary Hammond allegedly accelerated his car directly toward an unnamed officer, and therefore the unnamed officer shot Zachary Hammond in self-defense.

Finally, on 7 August 2015, police lieutenant Mark Tiller was named as the gunman. Tiller, we learned, had been placed on administrative leave, which is sort of a paid vacation that public officials get receive when they are caught misbehaving. You're supposed to think that this is a punishment of some kind, but really the official who is on administrative leave still gets his paycheck, and the only difference is that he doesn't have to work for it.

Mark Tiller is somebody's favorite boy. Hired as a basic cop in 2010, Tiller was promoted to corporal in 2011, to sergeant in 2013, and made lieutenant in 2014. Zoom, y'all. It usually takes MUCH longer than that to reach the rank of police lieutenant. He's been fast-tracked up the ranks.

Further, it turns out that South Carolina has a Sunshine law that made it illegal for Chief Covington to conceal Tiller's identity for those eleven days.

Add it up. Tiller is someone possessing a certain amount of political favor.

Thomas Williams, who had been a police captain with the Seneca Police Department, where he was Mark Tiller's supervisor, said that in Mark Tiller's personnel file at the Seneca PD "there should be at least one formal written reprimand and possibly others." The written reprimand that Williams knows specifically of was written by Williams himself, regarding a failure of Tiller to appear in court.

Williams suspects that there were, or should have been, other reprimands in Tiller's file, one of them having to do with an assault rifle that Tiller allegedly had left on the trunk of a car and forgot to recover it before driving the car away. A citizen found the rifle on the ground and turned it in at the police station later.

In yet another incident, Mark Tiller allegedly lost his K9 police dog, which might have been stealing meat off backyard grills and frightening small children until it was found the next day.

Affidavit: Files missing on officer who shot Zachary Hammond

Chief John Covington says that there are no reprimands, in fact no blemishes at all, in Mark Tiller's personnel file at the Seneca Police Department.

From Mark Tiller's private attorney, John Mussetto, we get Cop Story #2. In this version of events, Zachary Hammond "missed" Lt. Tiller only because the heroic and muscular Tiller managed to "push off" of Zach's car. Tiller is said to have "fired twice in quick succession" at Zach as the car was going past him to prevent Zachary from possibly chasing pedestrians and trying to run them over, too.

Part 2. Jury Nullification.

In any criminal trial, jurors have a constitutional right to judge not only the defendant, but also the law itself. A jury might determine that a defendant broke a law, but refuse to convict him because they have also determined that the law that he broke is unjust, unreasonable, or unconstitutional.

That's jury nullification. Every juror has the right to exercise it. Judges don't tell them this, because they don't like it and because the US Supreme Court ruled in 1895 (in United States v Sparf) that jurors did not have the right to be informed that they had the power to nullify the law for the case they were hearing. Notice that the Court did not say that this right doesn't exist—it does—but only that judges don't have any obligation to tell them about it.

The American people should use their power to nullify laws if there is any doubt about their wisdom. Most of the laws are written to favor corporations and special interests—the status quo of the currently powerful elites. But they haven't gotten rid of jury nullification, which is just about the last potentially effective legal defense the people have.

The ELECTIONS are CONTROLLED. It costs so much money to run a campaign for high public office that the powers-that-be are able to restrict the field of visible candidates to persons of whom they approve, meaning that the people can't vote themselves a better government.

If you are named as a juror, and you have any doubt at all regarding the ethics or the wisdom of the law that your defendant is said to have broken, then by all means inform your fellow jurors about jury nullification and why you believe it should be used in the case before you.

If a child is arrested for selling lemonade without a license, nullify the law under which the child was charged.

If your neighbor is arrested for growing vegetables in his front yard, nullify the law under which your neighbor was charged.

If a government agency appears to be overzealous in hounding someone for trifling details of behavior, then NULLIFY THE LAW under which that person was charged.

It's simple. Nullifying unreasonable or unjust laws should not be a difficult thing to do. Don't go with the herd mentality. Do for your neighbor, the defendant, as you would have him do for you, if your place and his were reversed. Don't listen to official bombast from the judge about what you "must" do. As a juror, you have the right to nullify laws, and, if there is any doubt about whether the law is moral and is wise, then nullifying it is exactly what you should do.

Is Somebody Selling Citizen-Hunting Licenses to Bloodthirsty Cops?
{Please note. This multi-part post began when I first became aware of the shooting of Zachary Hammond by Mark Tiller. I will keep my earlier, poorly informed comments and speculations more-or-less as they originally were. My opinion will evolve as the series of parts progresses, as I gathered more information.}

Do you know how I keep saying that the media don't give national coverage to foul play when whites are the victims? Well, recently there has been an exception.

Fox Carolina US News and World ReportHuffington Post #1
Huffington Post #2Russia Today Gainesville (SC) Online
Washington Post Independent MailNBC News

If you read through all the above links, here's what you'll find out.

Undercover agents, setting up a drug sting in Seneca, SC, sold 10 grams of marijuana—a minimal amount with minimal legal consequences—to Tori Dianna Morton, a 23-year-old woman from Pickens, SC, who was described as the "first date new girlfriend" of 19-year-old Zachary Hammond. A mysterious unnamed officer, moving to arrest the woman, ends up shooting the man with Magic Bullets that entered the car through the driver's side door while it was allegedly trying to run him down. The woman was arrested, charged with simple possession of marijuana, taken to jail, and then released on $620 bond.

A fishy tale.

Further, no mention is made of what Hammond's allegedly moving car allegedly ran into, so that it allegedly came to a stop. Wouldn't there eventually, you know, be a crash with something, or a ditch with a car in it?

Meanwhile, an attorney says that an autopsy shows that the bullets were fired at Hammond from the side and from very nearby. He further says that Morton's car was blocked in by two other cars, at least one of which was a police car, and that Hammond's car had not been moving at all when the shots were fired.

Does anybody want to investigate whether Tori D. Morton was in legal trouble on other charges prior to getting into Zachary Hammond's car? Uninjured in the incident, she was charged with simple possession of a paltry amount of marijuana and promptly released from Oconee County's jail. Pickens and Seneca are both in the extreme northwest corner of South Carolina, being about 25 miles apart by the shortest highway route.

See? For the woman who supposedly was the reason for the sting, it was touch-and-go with the jailhouse. Her job, evidently, is done. I wonder what her payoff was.*

Senaca Police Chief John Covington, who supports the mysterious unnamed officer's story 100%, couldn't even confirm whether Tori Morton was the target of the drug bust. I'd certainly like to know why not.

Covington maintains that his officer "fired two shots in self-defense" as Hammond "drove directly at him." Does Chief Covington WANT to get caught lying? The bullets that killed Hammond went in through the open driver's door window, which would be impossible if Hammond were driving directly at him. I mean, maybe if the mysterious unnamed officer were on the driver's side of the front of an approaching vehicle, he could have gotten bullets through the open window, or a hit on the door itself, but the path of the bullets would then be into the back seat of the car, and not toward the driver's neck and chest.

*Apologies. The suggestion that Tori Morton was bait to get Zachary Hammond into an ambush was unfair. It is far more likely that Morton is being pressured by the implicit threat of the drug possession charge against her to conform her future testimony to the convenience of the Seneca Police Department. This is another reason that the "war on drugs" was a bad idea: it has demonstrated a tendency to induce official corruption.

This is the Hardee's where Mark Tiller shot Zachary Hammond.
The picture was made for Google Earth on 11 February 2012.

Thirsty? Try Killer Tiller, an English brown ale brewed with ghost peppers. Crafted by the 16-Mile Brewing Company of Delaware. Said to be Kick-Your-Ass hot. Two shots in rapid succession will do you in.

Part 2. Mark Tiller Stands Forth!

Independent Mail Washington Post
Fox Carolina NBC News

The Seneca, SC, police officer who shot and killed 19-year-old Zachary Hammond on 26 July 2015 is Mark Tiller. The story we heard from Chief Covington has changed just a bit, now that we are hearing a new version from Tiller's attorney.

According to attorney John Mussetto, representing Mark Tiller, Hammond was "concealing his hands" and "not responding to Tiller’s commands." According to Mussetto, Hammond "reversed" his car and "accelerated" toward Officer Tiller.

Okay, how good are your visualization skills? Play this sequence of events through your mind and see if they make sense.

Mussetto said that Officer Tiller "pushed off Hammond's car to keep from being struck" and fired twice to "stop the continuing threat to himself and the general public." Mussetto said that Tiller would have been struck by Hammond's car if he had not pushed off of the car.

Well, that sounds good, except for the implied thought that an accelerated car with a dead driver is somehow a safe thing for the public to have around. But look at the picture showing Officer Tiller. He is a large, heavy man. How fast was Hammond's car going when Tiller allegedly pushed himself off it? Is Tiller a gymnast, then? He sure doesn't look like one. Hammond's car must have been going very slowly. Although it is obvious that an initially stationary car must "accelerate" in order to move at all, Tiller's likely inability to sustain, with his arms, any substantial change of momentum indicates that Hammond's car didn't accelerate much.

And, remember, the story has changed. The bullets were fired from the side of the car at close range, just as Hammond's parents' attorney, Eric Bland, said earlier.

Now, there remains conflict between the two accounts. Eric Bland said that Zachary Hammond's car wasn't moving at all because it was blocked between two other vehicles, at least one of which was driven by law enforcement officers. So somebody's still lying.

Further, Mark Tiller's self-justification is a weak one: " stop the continuing threat to himself and the general public."

Once the front fender of Hammond's car was past Tiller, Tiller himself was in no further danger, so, contrary to his words, there was no "continuing threat to himself."

Now, let us suppose that Tiller is telling the truth about his mighty push-off from Hammond's "accelerating" car—and about his making a recovery so quick that he was able to shoot Hammond accurately twice through the driver's door's open window. Have you got that fixed in your imagination? Now think about it. Is Hammond likely to start chasing pedestrians with his car, or is he more likely to just drive home? Is there really a threat to the general public? No, probably there wasn't.

As I said, Tiller's self-justification is weak.

Nothing Tiller said in defense of his actions suggests that there was any continuing threat to himself. If there ever was a threat, the threat was past when he fired his weapon.

Also, Tiller's story seems to emphasize Tiller's own physical abilities. Just as an experiment, try pushing yourself away from the front of a car that is bearing down on you with some speed, say 10 miles per hour. You're in front of the car. Here it comes. SMACK! You grab the hood with your mighty hands and lift yourself out of harm's way... somehow or other. Perhaps a somersault was involved, with Tiller landing "catlike" on his feet and with his shots at Hammond already lined up.

Batman himself couldn't have done it better.

Or, maybe Tiller is still lying.

And where was Tiller's gun while he was performing his calisthenic miracles? In his hand? So Tiller "pushed off" from Hammond's car, absorbing the change of momentum, while one of his hands was holding a gun?

Part 3. Wikipedia Weighs In

Wikipedia: Shooting of Zachary Hammond
At around 8:00 p.m. on July 26, 2015, Hammond, and a 23-year-old female passenger with whom he was on a first date, drove his 2001 Honda Civic through a parking lot of a Hardee's restaurant. His car was stopped at a drive though window for several minutes before being blocked by Tiller's police vehicle. Tiller fired two rounds from his .45 caliber handgun through the open driver's side window of Hammond's car. Bullets struck Hammond in the left chest and left rear shoulder. According to police, Tiller feared being run over by Hammond's vehicle when he backed it up and then pulled forward toward the officer.

Following the shooting, Hammond's passenger was issued a summons for possession of 10 grams (0.35 oz) of marijuana.

Seneca police chief John Covington initially refused to release Tiller's name in violation South Carolina's sunshine law, but did finally release it 12 days after the shooting in response to freedom of information requests. Covington referred to Tiller as a "victim" of "attempted murder" in an incident report, and stated that Tiller fired his weapon in self-defense because Hammond "drove his vehicle directly at the officer". Hammond's family disputes the police account of the shooting.

Hammond's death was ruled a homicide by the Oconee County coroner. An independent autopsy commissioned by Hammond's family indicated that the bullets penetrated from the back of Hammond's left shoulder and the left side of his torso. The shooting is under investigation by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. Dash camera video footage of the shooting was turned over to the agency for analysis."

You know there's a pattern to the delays in transparency. When Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown (which really was self-defense), the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, immediately made Wilson's identity public. No delays. When Sean Groubert, formerly a South Carolina state trooper shot a black man, the dashboard camera record was released at once. No delays.

Why are there all these delays this time, with the shooting of Zachary Hammond by Mark Tiller?

All right then. According to Wikipedia, Zachary Hammond had just gone through the Hardees drive through window, maybe getting some food for himself and the woman in his car. He begins to go forward. Suddenly a police car comes racing up the wrong way (entering via the exit lane from the drive-thru window) and blocks Hammond's car.

Hammond at this point is probably thinking "What the hell?" and swerves to the right to avoid a collision with the police car. Swerving to avoid the police car somehow brings the direction in which Hammond's car was moving toward where officer Mark Tiller is standing. Tiller, already holding his gun, dodges and maybe makes some hand contact with Hammond's car.

Poorly judging the circumstances, Tiller incorrectly thinks that he has reason to shoot Hammond, so he does. Hammond dies.

That's what I believe happened now. Tiller didn't premeditate the murder of Hammond. Instead, he got excited and let his anger, his fright, or his outraged authoritarian pomposity lead him into making a tragic and fatal error.

So Mark Tiller shouldn't be charged with capital or first-degree murder, but only with second-degree murder or manslaughter. Chief John Covington, by accusing Zachary Hammond of attempting to murder Mark Tiller, is probably guilty of defaming the dead. I don't know whether that is a crime in South Carolina.

Also, these unfortunate events can be considered more generally as the aftermath of police fucking up a set-up arrest on manufactured drug possession charges. The cops always THINK that they know how everything's going to go, that they have the choreography perfectly arranged, but somehow their target (the person being set up for arrest) or someone who is with the target didn't attend all of the dress rehearsals, so he doesn't know his part in the play. Since he doesn't perform as expected, the police shoot him dead.

My opinion is, as always, subject to revision in the light of new and creditable evidence.

Part 4. Oooooh, the gun-slinging cop got almost straight A's on his report card

Greenville Online

Hey, guys, check out Tiller's career progress.

Hired as a basic cop in 2010, Tiller was promoted to corporal in 2011, to sergeant in 2013, and made lieutenant in 2014. Zoom, y'all.

Doesn't it usually take more than four years for a newly hired police officer to make lieutenant? It sounds like Mark Tiller is somebody's favorite boy, to be firewalled and fast-tracked up the ranks like that. That might help to explain why the SPD is breaking the Sunshine laws left and right on Tiller's behalf, and why Chief Covington initially "misspoke" about the shooting geometry, and then issued a new set of misspeaks when the first set was proved inaccurate.

The story on the cop-side has clearly been altered. The first tall tale account by Seneca Police Chief John Covington said that Hammond "drove his vehicle directly at the officer," so the officer fired two shots to avoid being run over.

Later, he said "the shots were fired through the driver’s side window as the vehicle was turning toward him." I put part of the quote in purple because that's the part that seems to be suspicious now. If the front of Hammond's car was already past Tiller—as it must have been, since Tiller "pushed off" the front of the car as it was going by—then it is impossible for the car to turn toward Tiller without making an extended maneuver, such as going out and turning around prior to coming back.

"Bland and Hammond’s family dispute those reports."

Police reports often contain valuable information. So much the better if it is correct.

The Huffington Post
Lawyer For Cop Who Killed Zachary Hammond Tries To Change The Story
But new details still don't explain why the officer chose to shoot.

Part 5. The Mendacious Hidden Motive of "Black Lives Matter"

Let me use current events to illustrate how dishonest people often make progress for their causes.

The organization Black Lives Matter has come forward to sympathize with the surviving friends and relatives of Zachary Hammond, the white teenager who was shot to death in a Hardee's parking lot in Seneca, South Carolina, on 26 July 2015 by Seneca Police Lieutenant Mark Tiller.

Black Lives Matter is merely trying to gain legitimacy for itself. It is trying to insinuate that, despite its name (which can be taken to mean that non-black lives don't matter), it isn't racist, oh no. It is trying, also, to suggest that there is a general similarity between Tiller's shooting of Hammond, and George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, on 26 February 2012.

That's what's really going on. The group Black Lives Matter, with all it's slogans and paraphernalia, arose in reaction to the not-guilty verdict in George Zimmerman's politically instigated jury trial, in Florida, on a barratry charge of second degree murder.

There was no reason for Zimmerman to have stood trial in the first place, since the evidence had made it abundantly clear that Zimmerman shot Trayvon Marin in self-defense, and a homicide justified by reason of self-defense is not a crime. It isn't even a little crime, much less second degree murder—the offense with which Zimmerman was falsely charged.

As you might recall, George Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman who pursued Trayvon Martin during the earliest part of the night on 26 February 2012. Zimmerman's job was to be alert for strangers, for unfamiliar persons who might be the burglars who had broken into some of the homes in the neighborhood in the recent past. Zimmerman wanted to ask Martin who he was and why he was in the area. If Martin had stopped to answer those questions, all would have been well. There would have been no violence there that night.

But Martin ran, which made Zimmerman even more suspicious. Being overweight, Zimmerman could not keep up with Martin and lost him in the darkness. Trayvon Martin was secure enough in a place of concealment that he could afford to speak on his telephone to his friend Rachel Jeantel.

Zimmerman, giving up the chase, turned to go back to his vehicle. At that point, Martin, who was near his father's girlfriend's home, could have gone indoors and relaxed for the rest of the evening. If he had, then there would have been no violence there that night.

But Martin began to feel that his "manhood" had been affronted, and with that feeling came a desire to avenge his honor with a fight. In a rage, Martin began running toward Zimmerman. He caught up with him and, after a verbal challenge, Martin hit Zimmerman in the face, knocking Zimmerman down and breaking his nose. Martin then bestrode Zimmerman and began repeatedly slamming his head down on a concrete curb, thereby endangering Zimmerman's life.

Martin's roughhousing caused Zimmerman's jacket to open, exposing Zimmerman's pistol to view. Both men grabbed for the gun. Zimmerman got to it first and shot Martin with it. Then, after it was all over, the police arrived in response to Zimmerman's earlier 911 call.

The point is this: THERE IS NO COMPARISON between Zimmerman's shooting Martin and a true act of murder. The group Black Lives Matter is trying to obfuscate the difference what Zimmerman did and what Mark Tiller might have done—time will tell. It's an old liar's trick: using one truth to sweeten many lies. By standing up to condemn the shooting of Zachary Hammond, Black Lives Matter is trying to legitimize itself and its dishonest founding idea, which puts upon George Zimmerman the blame that properly belongs to Trayvon Martin.

Little insinuations that the shooting of Zachary Hammond can be validly compared with the shooting of Michael Brown or with the shooting of Trayvon Martin have appeared in the media.

Consider, for example, the first paragraph in this article:

"The U.S. Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation into a fatal officer-involved shooting — though this one, in South Carolina, is different than others given that the victim is a white teenager."

It differed in one further respect, namely that this time the killing might actually have been a murder.

A grand jury cleared Darren Wilson for any crime in relation to his shooting of Michael Brown. It cleared Wilson BECAUSE Brown had attacked Wilson, and Wilson was defending himself from that attack, when he shot Brown.

A jury acquitted George Zimmerman of a politically instigated barratry charge of second-degree murder in connection with the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.

Part 6. A Senaca police officer who was at the scene of the Hammond shooting resigned during an internal investigation

There may be signs that a purge is going on in the Seneca Police Department. Of course, they may be coincidence, but here's something to keep in mind.

Officer resigns, civil rights investigation launched in Seneca police shooting (WACH FOX 57)

Heh. Look at the message suggested by the illustration accompanying the article. Put into text, it might say something like: "A loud Bang! Bang! came from the direction of the blue lights, and people on the nearby sidewalks began falling down dead."

Yessa, who be da Stasi now?

A former Seneca police officer, Anthony Moon, has resigned from the SPD during an internal investigation of some kind. We don't know what the investigation was about, though it was said to be "a personal matter." The news media didn't report...

...whether he was accused of sexual harassment, or
...whether he got caught smoking marijuana off duty, or
...whether he playfully fired his service weapon into the air inside the city limits, or
...whether he didn't see what Police Chief Covington would prefer he had seen just outside a Hardee's restaurant last July 26th.

The subject of the investigation could be any of those, several of those, or something else entirely.

Part 7. My evolving opinion: what it is now (13 Aug 2015)

Remember, this is only an OPINION.

• I think that Tori Morton was solicited by undercover police to procure and sell them 10 grams of marijuana.

Previously, I believed that she had been the buyer of the weed because she still had it on her person when the arrest was being carried out. If the transaction had occurred, then she wouldn't have had the pot any longer. But I've adjusted my opinion to match the more recent media portrayal of the circumstances.

• I think that Zachary Hammond was surprised when another car suddenly drove up and blocked his car as he was on his way toward the exit of the Hardee's restaurant parking lot.

• Mark Tiller stepped out of a marked police car (not the car that did the blocking)...

(Scenario #1) ahead of Hammond's car (and nearer the parking lot exit)...
(Scenario #2) behind Hammond's car, further back in the route to the drive-through window...

...and began approaching Hammond's car on foot with his gun drawn.

• I think that Tori Morton deduced that she was the target of a police sting and became alarmed by her impending arrest. She might have urged Zachary Hammond to flee, to "get us out of here."

• Possibly in response to his passenger's urging, and possibly not yet aware of what was going on, Zachary Hammond backed up his car to get steering way around the (possibly unmarked) car that had blocked him in front.

(Scenario #1) He then pulled around the side of that car and tried to maneuver into the clear, so that he could proceed out of the parking lot exit. Hammond's path brought his car close to where Mark Tiller was standing or walking.

(Scenario #2) While he was backing up, Hammond's path brought his car close to where Mark Tiller was standing or walking.

• For one reason or another, perhaps because of a distraction by Tori Morton, Hammond did not see or hear Tiller and was unaware of Tiller's presence until after Tiller was bumped by, or had "pushed off" the side of, Hammond's...

(Scenario #1) front...
(Scenario #2) rear...

...fender. Only when this happened, did Hammond become aware of Tiller.

• I think that Tiller became angry over having been brushed aside by Hammond's car.

• I think that Hammond slowed down in preparation for stopping his car, and possibly he actually did come to a stop, putting his car in park or in neutral gear. That is why we never heard about Hammond's car crashing into anything. It also explains Tiller's accuracy and the nearly identical angles of his two shots.

• I think that Hammond intended to apologize to Tiller, to ask whether Tiller was hurt, and to ask what Tiller wanted. I think that Tiller was in a blind rage, and that he fired his gun twice at Hammond, killing him in the heat of passion.

• Hence, it is my opinion at this moment that Mark Tiller has committed second degree murder against Zachary Hammond.

• I think that Mark Tiller is someone with political connections. He has climbed the ranks at the Seneca Police Department with a very unusual rapidity. His chief of police made false representations regarding the circumstances of the shooting at least once, possibly twice, so that Tiller's actions wouldn't seem so bad.

• Given the less-than-customary level of integrity so far shown by senior officers of the Seneca PD, I consider it likely that Tori Morton might be under some pressure with regard to her future testimony at Mark Tiller's possible future trial for murder. Her charge of simple possession of 10 grams of marijuana could be escalated into a charge of dealing marijuana, for example. Whether she spends a few months in jail or several years in prison might be a matter of discretion with the police. The power of the SPD to decide how much misfortune will befall Morton could carry a degree of corrupt influence intended to alter her testimony in Tiller's favor.

As always, my opinion is subject to change in accordance with new evidence of which I become aware.

Part 8. Chief Covington's Son Accused of Stealing Illegal Drugs

Although this is an apparently unrelated matter... you never know.

The Freethought Project: Police Chief Justifies Killing Teen Over Pot While His Criminal Cop Son is Arrested With No Violence

The son of Seneca Police Chief John Covington is Adam Covington, who on 5 January 2014 was working as a reserve guard at the Oconee County Detention Center (the county jail) when he stole some drugs from Peggy Smith, a female prisoner, allegedly intending to use them himself. According to arrest warrants, Adam Covington, 26, was charged with misconduct in office and theft of a controlled substance. He resigned from his job in February 2014. When Adam Covington faced a judge over his theft charge and his drug possession charge, he was let off easy with two years of probation and time served on the theft and drug charge, and one year in prison as his punishment for official misconduct.

I wonder how long it will be before Tori Morton has to stand trial for her own drug possession charge, and what her punishment will be. Just curious! It must be nice to have connections if you live anywhere near Seneca, South Carolina.

Part 9. My evolving opinion: what it is now (14 Aug 2015)

Remember, this is only an OPINION.

• I think that Tori Morton was solicited by undercover police to procure and sell them 10 grams of marijuana.

• I think that Zachary Hammond was surprised when another car suddenly drove up and blocked his car as he was on his way toward the exit of the Hardee's restaurant parking lot.

• Mark Tiller stepped out of a marked police car (not the car that did the blocking) behind Hammond's car, further back in the route to the drive-through window and began approaching Hammond's car on foot with his gun drawn.

• I think that Zachary Hammond put his Honda Civic into reverse to back clear of the obstructing car ahead of him.

• I think that Hammond, observing the approach of Mark Tiller in a rear-view mirror, stopped his car and reached toward the gear-shift on the floor to take his car out of gear and to activate the parking brake. Source: Los Angeles Times.

• I think that Hammond planned to wait for Tiller to explain the situation to him.

• I think that another police officer, observing Hammond reach toward his gear-shift, misinterpreted the action and shouted "He's Got A Gun!" Source: Sky News.

• I think that Mark Tiller decided to shoot first and ask questions later, with the result being he killed an unarmed teenager who had done his best to cooperate with the police.

• Accordingly, at this moment I believe that Mark Tiller has perpetrated either negligent manslaughter* or second-degree murder against Zachary Hammond, with the significant aggravating factor of trying to conceal his error by falsifying official documents and by a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

This version of events, bounced off two media sources, probably comes from the Hammond family's attorney, Eric Bland, who probably obtained his information during an interview with Tori Morton. If it's true, then probably Mark Tiller and/or other officers of the Seneca Police Department made up the whole "officer threatened by accelerating car" story.

It also means that if you live in a place where there are cops around, you really just never know when one of them is going to run up and shoot you. And then forget to mention it in the original police report, because, you know, a freshly dead corpse is just a detail that isn't worth mentioning. And later tell a bunch of lies about what happened to the media.

As always, my opinion is subject to change in accordance with new evidence of which I become aware.

*My error. Tiller's crime can't be negligent manslaughter because that charge would require that Tiller be unaware that Hammond might die from his gun shots. Obviously, Tiller was aware of it. His crime might, however, be voluntary manslaughter, which requires that Tiller act in the heat of passion, i.e., without thinking rationally, when he fired his gun. If Tiller was thinking clearly, and if his "self-defense" argument is a bunch of lies, then Tiller's crime is second degree murder.

Part 10. The spot of a mysterious white powder

I just noticed what looks like a planted distraction, or else an attempt to traduce, posthumously, the character of Zach Hammond.

"The statement added that a white powdery substance 'consistent with cocaine' was found on Hammond’s body."

A white powdery substance consistent with cocaine isn't necessarily cocaine. It might be flour, either plain or self-rising. It might be powdered sugar. It might be limestone sand. It might be powdered chalk. It might be BC Headache Powder. It might be "Clabber Girl." Cocaine is far from being the only exemplar of white and powdery substances.

I have, on my front porch right now, a jar partly filled with washing powder and a plastic baggy partly filled with borax. Both are white powders. In my kitchen cabinets, I have plastic jars full of salt or baking soda. Both are white powders.

White powdery substances are not strange things to have. They are unremarkable, and the police should expect to find them whenever they search people's homes or clothing. Finding a white powdery substance of unknown composition is not suspicious, and it certainly isn't probable cause to go searching for illegal substances. A cop might think otherwise, but that could be where the expression "In a pig's eye" came from.

Furthermore, the "white powdery substance" that police ALLEGE they found on Hammond's body has nothing at all to do with either the shooting of Hammond or the marijuana possession by Tori Morton.

A witness to the shooting told reporters that he saw Mark Tiller get something out of his police car and place it under Hammond's dead body. Maybe this was an attempt to muddy the legal waters?

Part 11. SLED refuses to release dashcam video

SLED denies request to release dash cam video in Seneca police shooting

The State Law Enforcement Division on Friday denied a request from The Greenville News to release video from the dashboard camera of Seneca Police Lt. Mark Tiller’s patrol car on the night he shot and killed unarmed, 19-year-old Zachary Hammond.

The newspaper had made a request for the video under the state Freedom of Information Act.

“Be advised that this is an active and ongoing investigation pursuant to which no arrests have been made,” a letter emailed to the newspaper Friday from SLED spokesman Thom Berry says. “As such, the records you seek are sensitive law enforcement records not otherwise available by state and federal law that were compiled in the process of detecting and investigating crime the premature disclosure of which would absolutely harm SLED and its prospective law enforcement action in this matter...”

I had written here, a short while ago, a lengthy criticism of SLED's refusal to release the dashcam video. But I uncorked too hastily. There is a good reason for SLED's keeping the dashcam video For Official Use Only for now.

The reason is that a release of the dashcam video would enable dishonest people who weren't witnesses to impersonate witnesses. This happened, for example, in Ferguson MO. The whole "hands up, don't shoot" movement turned out to be fraudulent. Once the dashcam video is made public, witness testimony becomes less reliable.

Of course witness testimony is always inferior to physical and video evidence. But there's no sense in spoiling the apples (the witnesses) simply because you have a watermelon (the dashcam video).

The potential difficulty with false witnesses might not be as much of a problem this time as it was in Ferguson, since this time it was a white teenager who got shot. But nonetheless the same principle applies. The percentage of dishonest whites might be far lower than the percentage of dishonest blacks (at least among the civilians), but less isn't the same as none.

Part 12. Seneca SC cops said to have misbehaved after teen-slaying

Well, this certainly is eyebrow-raising.

SENECA, SC (FOX Carolina)—FOX Carolina has obtained a copy of the letter sent to the U.S. Attorney General and the FBI Director, asking for a federal civil rights investigation in Zachary Hammond case.... The letter was written by Eric Bland, the attorney for Hammond’s family. The letter is five pages long and is addressed to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey.

...The letter goes on to state, “…a police officer with a neighboring police force has confirmed to SLED that the Seneca Police Department celebrated the killing of Zachary by desecrating his corpse. After Zachary had been shot and killed, member(s) of the Seneca Police Department lifted his dead hand and ‘high fived’ Zachary Hammond.”

That seems like a rather unprofessional thing for the cops to do. So, the Seneca cops are proud to have made a killing, eh? Here's a fellow who had a similar attitude.

How do you tell when a South Carolina cop is a rookie? He doesn't have any notches on his gun. And if somebody calls him "Killer," it's a joke.

How do you know when you're in the living-room of a house owned by a South Carolina police officer? Stuffed heads of shot suspects mounted on the wall.

Here's another quote from the same article:

In one section, Bland writes that a witness “…states that the officer who opened Zachary’s door and pulled his dead body from the vehicle then went ‘to the trunk of his police car and pulled (SIC) something out. The officer walked back over to the man on the ground rolled him over to his side, put something underneath his body, and then rolled him back.’”

That might be where the spot of "a white powdery substance consistent with cocaine" came from.

Part 13. The Curious Crime of Nicholas Blake Garland

Damn, but there's a lot of DIRTY DEEDS going on in Seneca, South Carolina, just now.

SENECA, SC (FOX Carolina)—One man is behind bars in connection to a break-in at the home of Zachary Hammond's parents. The family reported court and legal documents were among the stolen items.

At first reading, I figured that one of the sinister officers of the SPD, or someone hired by such an officer, using the fictitious name "Scottie," had recruited Nicholas Blake Garland to swipe important legal documents from the home of Paul and Angie Hammond.

However, I've become suspicious of Garland. His statement to Fox reporters didn't sound convincing. It sounded like something a young man might say when he was afraid to say too much, lest he trip himself up by saying something that could be disproved. He mumbled when he should have been emphatic. He hedged when he should have been certain. He appeared to be trying to elicit sympathy for himself when he should have been angry, instead.

He seems to have falsely claimed that Paul and/or Angie Hammond had promised to give him the Honda Civic formerly owned by the late Zachary Hammond. He stole not only the legal documents mentioned in the newscast, but also electronic gadgets, a pair of sunglasses, and a flashlight. Why would he grab that other stuff if all "Scottie" wanted was the legal papers?

I'm thinking that there was no Scottie. I think the Seneca Police are in the clear on this one. I think that Garland was being an opportunistic thief, stealing legal papers along with everything else he stole in order to throw blame on the SPD.

Factoid from The Militant: About half of the 585 people killed by cops so far this year were Caucasian, the Post reported. Twenty-five percent were Black, although African-Americans make up only 13 percent of the population. [Omitted: ...although blacks commit about fifty percent of the crimes.]

Part 14. My evolving opinion: what it is now (15 Aug 2015)

Remember, this is only an OPINION.

My opinion remains as it was in Part 9, with the following change(s):

• At this moment, I believe that Mark Tiller has perpetrated either

Voluntary Manslaughter
Second Degree Murder

against Zachary Hammond, with these significant aggravating factors:

(1) misconduct in office
(2) trying to conceal a crime
(3) falsifying official documents
(4) planting false evidence
(5) giving false testimony
(6) conspiracy to obstruct justice

Tiller's crime would be Voluntary Manslaughter if he killed Hammond in the heat of passion; i.e., if he let his anger or fright toward Hammond override his judgment to the point of shooting him. In other words, this charge assumes that Tiller was so full of emotion that he wasn't thinking, and he shot Hammond as a purely impulsive reaction to his feelings.

Tiller's crime would be Second Degree Murder if Tiller shot at Hammond knowing that Hammond's death was a distinct possibility, without any real and sufficient justification for doing the shooting (i.e., self-defense). In other words, this charge assumes that Tiller wasn't acting upon an emotional impulse, but was thinking clearly, if immorally, when he shot Hammond.

I've removed Negligent Manslaughter from the list of crimes that, in my opinion, Mark Tiller might have committed. In order that the shooting be Negligent Manslaughter, Tiller would have had to shoot Hammond without knowing that Hammond's death was a possible result. Which is not possible.

Certain persons have suggested that it would be appropriate to charge Mark Tiller with First Degree Murder for shooting Zachary Hammond. I am skeptical. First Degree Murder requires premeditation, and although it is probably true that Tiller-the-Killer did decide, shortly before he pulled his trigger, that he was going to kill Hammond, the amount of time between the choice and the act seems insufficient to support a First Degree Murder charge.

As always, my opinion is subject to change in accordance with new evidence of which I become aware.

Part 15. A hypothetical scene at a possible future murder trial of Mark Tiller

Let us imagine that Mark Tiller on the witness stand, undergoing cross-examination.

"Now then, Lt. Tiller," said the prosecuting attorney. "You say that you fired your gun at Zachary Hammond because he accelerated his car toward you, and you feared that he intended to run you down?"

"Yes sir," said Tiller.

"So his car was moving when you shot him?"

"Yes sir."

"And your bullets killed him?"

"Yes sir."

"So tell me then. Who stopped the car, so that it remained where it was when you shot Mr. Hammond?"


"Let me rephrase my question. Since Zachary Hammond died as the result of your shooting him, he could not (being dead at the time) have applied the brakes of his Honda Civic and stopped his car."

"Uhhhh now wait a sec—"

"Yet the car didn't continue moving until it crashed into something. It remained where it was when you shot Hammond, didn't it?"

"Yes, but—"

"Lt. Tiller," said the prosecuting attorney with a sarcastic smile. "Are you sure that Hammond was trying to run over you when you shot him?"

"I guess maybe the suspect managed to stop his car after being hit by the bullets, but right before he died," Tiller explained.

"You were beside Mr. Hammond's car when you fired your gun, and therefore not in immediate danger of being run over," continued the prosecuting attorney.

"It was a close call, but that's correct."

"You stated that your reason for shooting Hammond was, in part, to protect the public from the 'continuing threat' of someone like Hammond?"

"Yes sir."

"So you were of the opinion that Hammond would begin chasing pedestrians with his car if you let him live?"

"Something like that."

"And in your opinion, an accelerated car with a dead driver is a safe thing for the public to have around?"

"I knew that Hammond would be able to stop the car in his final moments of life."

"But if that's so," said the prosecuting attorney, scratching his head. "That is, if Hammond would be so conscientious as to stop his car as he was dying, then doesn't it seem likely that he would NOT have gone chasing pedestrians with his car, had he lived, but instead simply have driven it home?"

"OBJECTION!" yelled the defense attorney. "Calls for speculation!"

Reminder: This is fiction. It is not part of any actual court document or transcript.

Part 16. Seneca SC cops initiate sting screaming profanities

Source: Without Video, Police Shooting of White Driver Draws More Muted Response, New York Times article by Richard A. Oppel Jr., 16 August 2015.

They also say the deadly confrontation, in which officers approached with their guns drawn and screaming profanities, evolved from an absurd sting effort to trap his date into selling a tiny amount of marijuana, a drug now decriminalized in much of the country.

Law-Enforcement professionalism just never did reach South Carolina.

Part 17. Yet another summary of my opinion

Lt. Mark Tiller was identified in the Independent Mail as "the night shift supervisor." Since the shooting happened at about 8:30 pm, I'm going to guess that Tiller had only recently come on duty for the approaching night. The same source alleges that the police did not have a warrant to search Hammond's car until 1:06 am on the following morning (27 July 2015); it was signed by signed by Municipal Judge Danny Singleton.

Judging by all the reports available in the media that I have so far seen, the shooting probably happened something like this.

I'm thinking that Mark Tiller, recently come on duty, and not being informed as to how the expected drug sting against Tori Morton was planned to take place, unfortunately parked his patrol car in the place where the undercover cop had arranged to meet with Morton for the marijuana buy.

Along came Zachary Hammond and Tori Morton, driving into the Hardee's parking lot. Noticing Tiller's police car, they nixed the drug deal. It just didn't seem to be very smart to conduct illegal business in close proximity to a policeman. But they decided to get ice cream cones before leaving.

Just after Hammond and Morton received their ice cream cones from the drive through window, the undercover cops, having surmised that the deal was off, and wanting to get something for all their effort, zoomed into the Hardee's parking lot through the exit lane and blocked Hammond's Honda Civic with their own car.

Hammond might or might not have been aware of the circumstances. But he wanted to get away from whatever situation seemed to be developing. So he put his car into reverse and began backing up, trying to get steering way around the undercover cops' blocking car.

While backing up, Hammond's car's projected path came close to where Mark Tiller (who had left his patrol car) was walking. Observing Tiller in his rear-view mirror, Hammond decided that he had better see what the police wanted. So he reached down to the floor of his Civic to put his car into park.

Another police officer misinterpreted Hammond's arm motions and yelled, "He's got a gun!"

Tiller, who already had his gun drawn, took a few steps forward and shot two bullets through the drivers' side window, killing Hammond.

When Hammond was found to be unarmed, a rather sordid police cover-up began to be fabricated, complete with crucial omissions from the police report, the probable planting of false evidence, the mockery of a dead person, and lies to supervisors who pretended to believe them.

In connection with those lies, there might be some collusion between Seneca PD Lt. John Crum with Lt. Mark Tiller. It was Crum who wrote the warrant for the search of Hammond's car, and that warrant implies (though logically speaking does not quite state) that Tiller was in danger of being run over by Hammond's car when he fired his two shots.

“...traveled in the direct direction of Lt. M. Tiller, causing Lt. Tiller to fear for his safety and fire two rounds.”

One cop lessens himself professionally to help another cop evade responsibility. Or, depending on how strict you want to be, Crum might have joined Tiller's illegal homicide as an accessory after the fact.

There is a news item on that alleges that Tori Morton, herself, was an undercover cop and that the actual target of the sting was Zachary Hammond. The 19-year-old was unarmed when he was shot twice on July 26. He was sitting in a car with a woman who was there to sell him weed. She turned out to be an undercover cop.

That's contrary to all previous media narrative, and I don't know whether it is true or not. Personally, I believe it's just confusion.

A more credible speculation was given by Global Research:

Officer Mark Tiller shot Zachary Hammond, a 19-year-old white youth, twice, once in the back of his shoulder and once in the chest, during an undercover drug sting operation in Seneca, South Carolina on July 26. New information released by the lawyers of Hammond’s family points to the possibility that the youth was murdered to intimidate Hammond’s date, the target of the sting operation, Tori Morton.

In a letter from attorneys Eric Bland and Robert Richter addressed to the US Justice Department, the lawyers assert that Morton “had additional criminal information regarding Adam Covington,” the son of Seneca police chief John Covington and a former reserve officer for the Seneca police. The letter notes that Adam Covington has a history of receiving illegal favoritism within the department...

The theory seems to be that maybe Tiller's crime is indeed First Degree Murder, a premeditated killing of Zachary Hammond calculated to terrorize Tori Morton into keeping quiet about what she knows concerning any additional guiltiness on the part of Adam Covington.

I'm not sure that I buy that theory though. I mean, if the villainous cops of the sinister police department were going to first-degree murder somebody, then why not Morton herself? Still, it's a plausible enough motive.

Part 18. Documents might have been removed from Mark Tiller's personnel file

Source: Independent Mail.

An affidavit from former Seneca Police Captain Thomas Williams, who had been Lt. Mark Tiller's direct supervisor, says that "there should be at least one formal written reprimand and possibly others." The written reprimand that Williams knows specifically of was written by Williams himself, regarding a failure of Tiller to appear in court.

Williams said that he suspects that there was another such reprimand regarding Tiller's reported negligence in connection with an assault rifle. A citizen turned it in to the Seneca PD, having found it lying on the ground where it fell upon sliding off the trunk of a car, according to Williams.

Part 19. The City of Seneca Hires a PR Firm

It would appear that the administration of the City of Seneca is joining the police in the cover-up conspiracy—thereby becoming accessories to whatever crimes the Seneca Police Department might be hiding.

Seneca hires PR firm to handle ‘bombardment’ of media requests

Instead of Releasing Dashcam, Cops Hire PR Firm to Help Cover Up Murder of Unarmed Teen

It be funny to see the entire municipal government get tossed into federal prison over a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Since there are law enforcement officers in other jurisdictions who, because of previous employment in Seneca, know about reprimands that were, or that should have been, in Mark Tiller's personnel file, but which are in that file no longer, it appears that there is a cover-up afoot.

The Seneca PD's emphasis on Mark Tiller's allegedly spotless past official record is supposed to mean that Mark Tiller could not have done anything wrong on 26 July 2015 because he had never done anything wrong before. Or maybe it's supposed to convey that Tiller is so peerless a police officer most of the time that he should be allowed to get away with a recreational murder once in a while.

The crucial evidence is the dashcam video, which has now been sequestered for official use only for more than a month. That's long enough for SLED to have taken affidavits from all the important eye-witnesses. The delay in releasing the video to the public has grown so long that, when a video finally is released, it will have to be checked for authenticity and, then, for suspicious editing.

You see, it isn't IMPOSSIBLE for the Seneca Police Department to put on a play, a reenactment of events that doesn't proceed in quite the same way that the events of 26 July 2015 went. It isn't IMPOSSIBLE that corrupt law enforcement officials would create a fake dashcam video at the rear of a Hardee's restaurant somewhere, using a different, but similar-looking Honda Civic of the same year and color. Whereas this is surely an improbable thing for the authorities to do, it isn't IMPOSSIBLE. Thus does a long delay in the release of information to the public generate suspicion against government.

Tori Morton's Affidavit Released

I'll have to revise my opinion about what happened, once again.

Passenger in unarmed teen’s car describes deadly police shooting: Tori Morton gives different description of Zach Hammond's death.

Tori said that she and Zach had acquired a chocolate-dipped ice cream cone (apparently, only one, which they planned to share) from a McDonald's that they had visited a short while earlier.

Tori was holding the cone while Zach prepared to park his Honda Civic somewhere in the Hardee's parking lot. While they were pulling into a parking spot, a nearby police SUV turned on its blue flashing lights. Out of the SUV came two police officers, who began yelling death-threats laced with obscenities (e.g. "I'm going to blow your fucking heads off").

Without further delay, one or both of the officers began firing their guns.

Tori said that Zach, hit by two of the bullets, died instantly—before he could put his car into park. Zach's Honda Civic rolled along the curb, with its right front tire possibly scraping the curb, until another police vehicle stopped it.

Several police officers surrounded the Honda Civic. One or more of the officers yelled, "Where's the gun?" and "Get the gun." One of these police officers put Zach's car in park, after dragging Tori Morton and Zachary Hammond's dead body out of it.

Tori said the police handcuffed her as they removed her from the car. She said that she was later unhandcuffed and given a cigarette and told to wait behind the Hardee's restaurant. Tori said that she was there for quite a while. Alone.

The police would fetch Tori closer to the scene of the shooting and then put her back behind the restaurant to wait again: this happened several times. During the moments when Tori could see the police officers at the scene of the shooting, she saw the police officers move the gun that killed Zach from car to car, putting it in each car's trunk, and taking it out again.

Finally, the police arrested Tori for simple possession of marijuana.

The last thing Zach Hammond did while alive was partially turn toward Tori Morton to look at her. Possibly he turned only his head. The bullets were fired into the side of Zach's body, just a little to his rear, through the open driver's seat window of his Honda Civic.

What might have happened is that the police SUV blocked Hammond's car from behind, but the police killed him before he could put the car in park, resulting in the Civic's continued scraping roll along the curb.

I'm not too clear on how the second police car stopped this rolling by hitting Zach's car on the left rear side.

The Courts In Canada Are Dirty
A deceased white nationalist, chemistry professor, and coin collector named Robert McCorkill left, in his Will, his estate to the National Alliance, a white nationalist organization in the United States. It was valued at about $250,000.

The Jews of the Southern Poverty Law Center didn't think this was proper because the National Alliance espouses political views opposed to their own. So they filed a lawsuit in Canada challenging McCorkill's Will. There is absolutely no precedent for what happened next.

The Jews won. Even though McCorkill had spent part of his life working for the National Alliance, and even though McCorkill had bequeathed his valuable coin collection to the National Alliance unconditionally, the Jews succeeded in having McCorkill's Will voided. The Jews stood up in court and called the National Alliance a few politically-charged nasty names, such as "white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi," and the judge agreed that a group that could be described in such a way wasn't worthy of being anyone's beneficiary, no matter that the deceased benefactor, himself, had believed to the contrary.

"This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all," said a spokesperson for the SPLC.

"The concern is that the most dangerous neo-Nazi group in America will be very much brought back to life,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Alabama-based civil rights group and a top expert on hate and extremist groups."

That had indeed been possible. What the money from the sale of the McCorkill coin collection would have allowed the National Alliance to have done, had they won the lawsuit, is set their message before the American people, along with supporting evidence that they could check, and decide for themselves whether or not the National Alliance was a group worthy of their endorsement and patronage.

What the Jews of the Southern Poverty Law Center and their judicial lackeys in Canada have done is interpose their own judgment about the National Alliance's worthiness of support so that the individual members of American and Canadian civil society would not get the opportunity to make their own choices.

And the lawyer for the white nationalist group, upon filing an appeal to the judge's decision, was fined for having the temerity to appeal the decision.

If this precedent is consistently followed, then any legacy, any bequest, any devisement — in any Will — can be challenged by the Jews and, more or less, stolen with the court and its judge being an accessory to the theft. By the evidence, Canada doesn't have a judicial system so much as an organized crime ring pretending to be a judicial system.

Both the original judge and the judge of the appeals court in New Brunswick spoke quite as if they were mouthing words from a script that the Jewish groups had written.

In a sense, the world has been changed by this case. Now, if you would leave a lot of money, or something of significant value, to an unpopular group or to a person who is in general political disfavor, then you must do so while you are still alive. The Jews have used the courts to sabotage your right to bestow your property posthumously through your Will in accordance with your wishes.

Comments transferred from Facebook

Diane Strelnikova: This is why you need to establish irrevocable trusts in a friendly jurisdiction.

Wayne Sims: The old guy probably had no idea the courts of his country would betray him in this way. Nothing like it had ever happened before.

Diane Strelnikova: I agree, he wrote a proper will. I believe the SPLC used his sister to challenge it. It's very important when making a will to name the people that you deliberately want to exclude from inheriting.

Jeff T Rowed: Good to know now. I'm sure the kikes will figure out a way around that too. This was blatantly illegal and immoral.

Wayne Sims: Jews say, "We don't like your opinions, so you will not be allowed to own anything."

Jeff T Rowed: It's literally down to "If we don't like you, we can break and remake the rules."

Wayne Sims: When the law works as it is supposed to, which is to say impartially, the friendliness of a jurisdiction is irrelevant. When jurisprudence is correctly done, its issue does not depend on politics or on personal relationships. Special treatment, whether in privilege or in penalty, in the absence of legislation to warrant it, is always corruption.

As I think upon it, the politically motivated voiding of Robert McCorkill's Will and the nullification of his bequest to the National Alliance is another instance in which a civil rights group has violated the freedom of association of persons. In this case, it was Robert McCorkill's right to associate posthumously with a political activist group that he had endorsed and supported during his life. His freedom in carrying out his very last act was denied by the Jews and by the Canadian courts, which the Jews seem to have under their control.

Did you know that the National Alliance paid Dr. McCorkill's funeral costs?

Part 2. An impolitic remark, typical for me in conversation with ladies

Oh I get it. There are three ways in which a big diamond beats a small diamond, all else being equal.

First, you get to brag about how big your diamond is, or, better than bragging, just flaunt the thing in front of women whose diamonds are a whole lot smaller than yours is. That will put those women in their places and make you cock of the walk. Hm, I shouldn't say "cock" in reference to females, but you get the idea.

Second, a big diamond catches more light and makes a better array of refracted rainbowy sparkles, which is prettier than a small diamond with fewer, smaller, and spectrally less dispersed sparkles.

Third, if you ever lose your MAN and need some emergency cash, but you have become too old and dowdy to attract a new billionaire into your life, then you can sell your diamonds for maintenance money. If you have the diamonds to sell, that is.

The virtuous combination of chocolate ice cream and peach yogurt
Try it. With or without a split banana. It shouldn't be necessary to add chocolate syrup for extra chocolatiness, but beware of cheap chocolate ice creams that are brown-colored but essentially tasteless. You have to get the good chocolate ice cream to produce the harmonious resonance with the taste of the peach yogurt. Proceed as follows. Let the chocolate ice cream get creamy soft, but definitely not melted. Then dip some of it on a spoon and drag it through the peach yogurt. Eat it. Yum? You bet. Repeat until finished.

Part 2. The Bulk Composition of Pluto and Charon.
Reference: @ 51:56.

Alan Stern says that the New Horizons team had not been able to get a new mass estimate for Pluto. That isn't correct. They certainly did.

As New Horizons approached Pluto, it increased the precision in the measurement of the two quantities needed to calculate the mass by Kepler's laws: the sidereal period of the Pluto-Charon orbit and the separations of Pluto and Charon from their mutual barycenter. With that done, an improved estimate of the masses of Pluto and Charon became possible.

The subsequent precise measurement of their radii made possible improved estimates of their average densities, which allowed better estimates of the ice- and rock-fractions for each body.

The calculation goes like this. Let subscript 1 denote Pluto. Let subscript 2 denote Charon. d is the distance to the Pluto-Charon barycenter. P is the sidereal period. M is mass. R is radius.

d₁ = 2035 km
d₂ = 17536 km
P = 6.387230 days = 551856.7 sec
G = 6.67384e-11 m³ kg⁻¹ sec⁻²
M₁+M₂ = 4π²(d₁+d₂)³/(GP²) = 1.45603e22 kg
M₁ = (M₁+M₂) d₂ / (d₁+d₂) = 1.3046e22 kg
M₂ = (M₁+M₂) d₁ / (d₁+d₂) = 1.5140e21 kg
R₁ = 1186000 m
ρ₁ = 3M₁/(4πR₁³) = 1.867 g cm⁻³
R₂ = 603500 m
ρ₂ = 3M₁/(4πR₂³) = 1.644 g cm⁻³
b = density of rock = 3 g cm⁻³
a = density of ice = 1 g cm⁻³
fraction ice by volume = (b−ρ)/(b−a) = (3−ρ)/2
→ Pluto: 0.5665
→ Charon: 0.6778
fraction ice by mass = a(b/ρ − 1)/(b−a) = (3/ρ − 1)/2
→ Pluto: 0.3034
→ Charon: 0.4122

If that was done correctly, then Pluto probably has a rocky core with a 897.6 km radius, overlaid by an icy shell of 288.4 km thickness. And Charon has a rocky core with a 413.7 km radius, overlaid by an icy shell of 189.8 km thickness.

I kept the general form of the density calculation visible in case someone wants to adjust the values of a and b. Methane ice has a density of about 1.35 g cm⁻³ and nitrogen ice has a density of about 1.25 g cm⁻³ at Pluto temperatures. Water ice's density is about 0.94 g cm⁻³. Pick the mix of water, nitrogen, and methane ices that you think is the right one, figure its density, and assign that value to a.

Similarly, maybe you think there's a small metal core inside the rocky core, which would increase the value of b. (Earth's moon's average density is 3.34 g cm⁻³ because it has a metal inner core.)

Then refigure the fractions of ice for Pluto and for Charon by mass and by volume.

Part 3. On the Blacks and Their Lies.
Reference: Panic in Pittsburgh: Media Struggling to Ignore Black Mob Violence.

You can't imagine the nonsense that political correctness has some people believing. Or pretending to believe. I'll try to explain it clearly, difficult though it will be due to the sheer outrageousness of the aforesaid pretenses.

Blacks have always been a race distinguished, very conspicuously, by the violence of its members. You've heard the expression "chip on the shoulder"? Most blacks have chips on their shoulders. Blacks aren't a courageous race; they haven't produced their share of persons willing to defy long odds for a good cause. Instead, blacks are savages, always looking to attack someone who can't fight back, for an excuse to stomp on someone smaller than themselves, or to gang up on someone who is by himself.

That's why urban areas with a high population density and high black demographic percentages always, without exception, have higher rates for murder, rape, arson, assault, and robbery than anywhere else. Blacks are violent and vulgar by hereditary predilection, and no amount of ostensibly remedial socialism will ever change their basic nature.

But blacks don't like people noticing the worthlessness of their sadistic inner character, so they manufacture a torrent of lies to explain their violence in ways that make them seem blameless, or, indeed, seem to be victims of oppression.

In 2011, black leaders in Pittsburg PA came up with one of these self-serving, bogus "explanations" in which, they said, the reason blacks are so violent is that the media keep calling attention to episodes of black violence. The theory is that drawing attention to black crime causes more black crime to happen, "which draws more attention, which creates more crime. And so on until black crime is six, ten, 50, 100 times greater than white and Asian crime. Where it is today."

Mind, this works only with blacks. Calling attention to the crimes of other races doesn't seem to have this vicious cycle of positive feedback.

The civil rights laws versus the Freedom of Association
The people who are saying that an impartial application of the civil rights laws would not require a gay bake to bake a "God Hates Gays" cake are wrong. Gays don't get to set limits on the rights of other people to hold religious beliefs. They think that they do. But they do not.

It can be a religious belief for someone to think that God hates gays. The people who attend the Westboro Baptist Church probably do hold this particular belief. If a religious group with that religious belief asks a gay baker to bake a "God Hates Gays" cake, and the baker refuses because he holds contrary beliefs, then he is just as much liable to a legal action for redress, under the civil rights laws, as is a Christian baker who refuses to bake a cake saying "God Loves Gays."

The gays who say otherwise are spouting arrogant, politically motivated nonsense. If homosexuals can sue Christians for refusing to bake a cake that violates the Christians' beliefs, then so may Christians sue homosexuals for refusing to bake a cake that violates the homosexuals' beliefs. To interpret the civil rights laws in any other way would be to give one group more protection of the laws than the other group gets, and that would violate the "equal protection" clause in the 14th Amendment.

HOWEVER. There remains the question of whether the civil rights laws are bad laws in a general sense.

American government, as it was intended to work, is a government of limited powers, and one of the limitations is the First Amendment. That being so, the authority of our government to prevent discrimination is limited to the policies and practices of the government itself, to ensure that all citizens are equals before the law. The citizens themselves may discriminate all they want to, and the government has no constitutional authority to dictate contrarily. The government may not require that any person must treat all others equally. For that reason alone, the civil rights laws were laws made in error—namely, the error of a government exceeding its constitutional authority by making laws beyond the scope of that authority.

But there's more to be said along those lines of thinking. Not only does the government have no right to require or to forbid associations among citizens in disregard of their preferences, neither may it (constitutionally) lend its coercive powers to the predatory use of unscrupulous citizens who would abridge the freedom of association of their fellow citizens.

Let us suppose that I want to have sex with you, but you don't want to have sex with me. You have, or ought to have, the right to refuse. It doesn't matter what your reasons are. You don't have to tell me why not. You don't have to "explain yourself" to anybody at all. You are not liable to a legal action for redress on account of your choice to avoid the association that I wanted to have with you. If I do sue you, then the jury should laugh at me, and the judge should dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice and maybe fine me for filing a frivolous legal action.

Does the principle change when the association involves a business proposition instead of a sexual one? No. Why should your opening a business, i.e., initiating a relationship with other people so that you can gain money, differ in principle with initiating an intimate relationship with other people so that you can gain in another way? As well as I can judge, it doesn't.

If I want to hire you, but you don't want to work for me, then you can say no, and I must accept your choice whether I like it or not. Your reasons for not wanting to work for me don't matter. They may not be questioned. It is sufficient that you have made your choice of your own free will.

If I want to work for you (as your employee), then I may ask you for a job. I may submit an application. But I can't force you to hire me. You can refuse. It does not matter what your reasons are: they don't depend anyone else's approval. It is sufficient that you have made your choice of your own free will.

The freedom abrogated by the anti-discrimination parts of the civil rights laws is the freedom of association, by which no contract can exist without the free consent all the parties to it. The freedom of association is the same right whether its application is a business relationship or an intimate one. The establishment of either sort of relationship morally requires the free consent of all parties to it. No one may be coerced, whether by force, or by the fear of harm, or by the threat of legal penalty, into an unwanted relationship. If the law requires you to have sex with someone, it's still rape even though it has the color of law. If the law requires you to trade with someone, it's still extortion (or slavery) even though it has the color of law.

Remember that slavery was once legal. The reason it isn't legal now is that the law began to recognize the freedom of association for blacks.

And that is a further reason for why the civil rights laws are laws made in error: they violate the fundamental political rights of man.

Part 2. The Real Family: Man, Woman, Children.

We've all seen the rainbow colored Flag for Fags. The Moscow city branch of the parliamentary majority United Russia party has created a flag for straights, which they want to use it in their campaign in defense of traditional values against aggressive LGBT propaganda. I took their idea and produced a different version of the flag, keeping the Russian national colors and the Russian word Ηастоящаясемья, pronounced NAS-toh-ya-scha-ya-SEEM-ya, which means "A real family."

Straight Flag.png

Black Lies
Part 1. Invalid Generalizations in Black Revisionist History.

Quotes from "Aspects of the Family and Public Life of Antoine Dubuclet: Louisiana's Black State Treasurer, 1868-1878," by Charles Vincent, published in The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 66, No. 1, Spring, 1981.

"Until recently, Reconstruction scholarship has treated with much severity the black Reconstructionist. Black office holders, such as in Claude Bower's Tragic Era, have most often been seen as the cause, in large part, as well as the effect of a time of gross mismanagement, misrule, and moral qualifications always consistently demeaned."

Heh. Correctly so, for the most part. The Journal of Negro History is a black publication that will delve as much as it must into pseudo-scholarship in order to revise black history into something that isn't absurd and disgusting.

That black Reconstructionist-era state officers abused their powers and stole money isn't at all a surprise, since that's what we've found black politicians doing in our own times to an extent that surpassed similar misconduct by white officers by several orders of magnitude. This is true worldwide, not merely in the United States alone. Wherever you find blacks in charge, whether in Louisiana, or Haiti, or an African country (pick one), you find levels of corruption and vice so large as to be tragicomical: tragic if such malfeasance affects you, comical if you are at sufficient distance to laugh in ridicule from a position of safety.

"More current scholarship, however, has attempted to correct these unfortunate misconceptions."

Whitewash, Mr. Vincent. The proper term for most such exertions is whitewash.

"What follows — a brief review of the life and work of Antoine Dubuclet, a man of color highly praised for his work as State Treasurer not only by his own Republican Party, but by the Democratic opposition as well — is another endeavor in this very necessary task of revamping."

It only makes sense for someone attempting to create a "scholarly" work such as this one to scrutinize US history with as powerful a microscope as he can possibly get his hands hold of, and identify the finest example of black official rectitude as there is to be found, and use him as if he were the illustrative typical case, which of course he is not.

Nonetheless, the historical hoaxes perpetrated by Afrocentric scholars of later times shouldn't put a bad smell on any actual black historical personage who did manage to be honest in the conduct of a high public office. Even if he did own slaves.

Part 2. An Answer to Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer's "Open Letter to White Men in America"

My comments at 555 nanometers and in [brackets].


Dear White Men,



You are persons of privilege.

[We are not.

Since you think that we are, you should identify the source of those privileges. Who's privileging white people? Other than us, I mean. It isn't a privilege if we work and keep what we make. That's a right. It isn't a privilege if we earn, and then keep our earnings. That's a right, too.

Whites and non-whites should the same right and the same opportunity of doing things for themselves. And, to the extent that the rights are augmented by privileges, the favor is most definitely on the non-white side. Those non-white races are the ones privileged with official favor, with Affirmative Action, with welfare money, and with political correctness. The non-whites are persons of PRIVILEGE, the source of which are laws and governmental policies which, by right, should not exist.

The reason whites are still better off, despite not having the privileges that non-whites have, is that Whites are just better people.]


You didn't earn it.

[On the contrary. We did earn what we have. We still do. The non-white races are the races that get most of the benefits that they didn't earn. Such benefits are a privilege that require whites to labor, so that non-whites could enjoy.]


More than likely aren't yet prepared to either admit to it or lose it.

[Admitting to lies would make us liars like you. Why should we lose what we have earned? We already do lose (to the blacks) money that we have earned, but why shouldn't we act to redress the injustice of these robberies-under-color-of-law?]


This letter, written by one of you, is offered to invite you on a journey of insight, honesty, hard truth and just living.

[Your letter, whatever your race is, is pure deception, and you invite us on a journey though a pile of bullshit.]


Privilege can be hard to see, mostly because of what doesn't happen to us when we have it.

[Privilege, where it actually exists, can be easy to see. An EBT card, for example, is easy to see. The stuff you can buy with it, with money you didn't work to earn, is also easy to see. The reason so-called "white privilege" is hard to see is that it isn't there. It doesn't exist. The only privilege whites have is their own nature, which is distinguished from that of lesser races by being relatively more intelligent, more honest, more willing to delay gratification, and less violent.]


One of the four reasons James Cone offers in his landmark essay "Theology's Great Sin: Silence in the Face of White Supremacy" for why men of privilege remain silent in the face of so much racial injustice is: "They don't have to speak."

[This isn't one of theology's sins, and James Cone is a black radical preacher who has been very vocal in his resentment of white people. He thinks whites are privileged, but he is wrong. Nobody has privileged whites, unless it is God doing the privileging by making whites a better race in general. And God can do whatever He wants to do, even if it seems "racist" to those who don't like what He did.]


We aren't getting arrested at four times our population rate.

[We aren't committing murder, arson, rape, assault, and robbery at ten times our population rate, either.]


We aren't being followed when walking through a department store wearing a sweat shirt with a hood.

[Because experience has shown those who guard department stores that we aren't exceptionally likely to steal merchandise.]


Real estate agencies didn't write codes, rules and laws that kept us out of the high rent districts and middle class neighborhoods.

[Those rules were a good idea, while they lasted. It makes sense to distance oneself from groups who DO commit murder, arson, rape, assault, and robbery at ten times the population rate.

While we're on the subject of quality neighborhoods, there are some good questions to be asked and answered. First, who made the places where white people live nice places to be? The answer is: whites did. Second, who made the places where black people live awful places to be? The answer is: blacks. Whites aren't preventing blacks from doing what whites did to make their neighborhoods into nice places. The reason blacks aren't doing those things is that blacks and whites aren't equal in ability, nor do blacks behave as whites behave, and neither of those things is the fault of whites.]


Property values don't go down when more than 10 percent of our neighborhood is saturated with people of our race.

[The market price of housing in an area is not set by a conspiracy. It is set by how much people are willing to pay to buy a house in that area. If an area is saturated with people from a race whose per capita rate for committing violent crimes is ten times the population rate, then not many people will bid high for the right to live there. They'll bid higher to live in safer places. That isn't privilege. It's wisdom.]


Our children aren't sitting in classrooms with teachers who are likely not to have even a minor degree in the courses they are teaching.

[Then let non-white teachers get those degrees. Whites aren't stopping them. Non-whites are the ones with apparently no end of favor with providers of financial aid for college. If non-white teachers don't have degrees, then they probably don't have the brains required to get one. And that isn't any fault of white people. It's one of those grievances you'll have to take up with God, because He's the one who parceled out the IQ points to the races. White people didn't do it themselves.]


Young white men are not being gunned down by black police officers in epidemic numbers.

[Young white men aren't running around selling drugs, pimping hos, or doing drive-by gangsta shooting. Young white men aren't raping 18,000 black women each year. White people don't attack blacks at the slightest excuse, or with no excuse at all. Black police officers don't often find a reason to shoot young white men.

But young black men do run around selling drugs. Young black men do pimp hos. Young black men do perpetrate drive-by gangsta shootings. Young black men do rape 18,000 white women each year. Young black men do attack whites at the slightest excuse, or with no excuse at all. White police officers do sometimes find that they must, in self-defense, shoot a young black man.

The races aren't equals in their behavior. Any argument that implicitly depends on racial equality in behavior is an argument flawed by a false premise.]


... I invite the white men of America with me on this journey of discovery.

[What you do is brainwashing, not discovery. By the "journey" of repeatedly imputing undeserved guilt.]


Ask those who don't share your privilege to tell you what they see. It may not have escaped your attention that whether we are talking about Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, what whites see and what blacks see are not the same thing. There is a reason for that.

[Yes. Some people see more clearly than others do. Because some people are more intelligent than others are. There is no parity in the perspectives of whites and blacks regarding such persons as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. The whites are usually right, and what they say is usually the truth. The blacks are usually wrong, and what they say is usually lies. When a sharp disagreement occurs along racial lines, and you wish to know the truth, you will listen to the whites and tune out the blacks. The only time that doesn't work is in a movie, a TV-drama, or other fantasy whose script was written by blacks or by Jews. The idea that blacks are are truthful as whites is as fictional as a typical ghost story.]


Privilege comes at a price — and the price is the loss of a vision that admits facts that make accepting the privilege uncomfortable.

[Whites are not privileged. A privilege is something you get unearned. Whites earned what they have. If you're looking for privileges, then you'll find them wherever people are getting what they have not earned. EBT credit accounts and hiring quotas are good places to start looking.]


Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer
President of the United Church of Christ
Doctorate in White Privilege ← leftist theoretical trash
Shalom Award recipient for peace commitments ← favored by Jews

[David W. Sims]
[Random Facebook User]

An interpolative quantification of the main sequence
by David W. Sims

q = log₁₀(M)
p = log₁₀(T)

Part 1. Mass-Radius relationship.

if q is less than −0.142:
R = 10^(1.1655 q − 0.0344988)

if q is in [−0.142, 0]:
R = 10^(1.40845 q)

if q is in [0, 0.165]:
R = 10^(1.34545 q)

if q is in [0.165, 0.709]:
R = 10^(0.540441 q + 0.132827)

if q is greater than 0.709:
R = 10^(0.580311 q + 0.104560)

Part 2. Mass-Temperature relationship.

if q is less than −0.142:
T = 10^(0.266372 q² + 0.609559 q + 3.720186)

if q is in [−0.142, 0]:
T = 10^(0.866197 q + 3.761702)

if q is in [0, 0.254]:
T = 10^(0.421260 q + 3.761702)

if q is in [0.254, 0.725]:
T = 10^(0.828025 q + 3.659)

if q is greater than 0.725:
T = 10^(0.485161 q + 3.907)

Part 3. Bolometric Luminosity.

L = R² (T/5777K)⁴

Part 4. Time on main sequence.

If M≥0.5, then
t = (1e10 years) M/L

If M is in (0.5, 0.25), then
t = (1e9 years) { 5.10155782e-7 exp(34.779212 M) + 21395.6632 exp(−11.6197093 M) }

If M≤0.25, then
t = (8.905387e10 years) / M^1.8586791

Part 5. Assorted physical parameters.

average density = (1.4097 g cm⁻³) M/R³
bolometric absolute magnitude = 4.75 − 2.5 log₁₀(L)
Wien law maximum = (2.8977685e7 ÅK) / T

Part 6. Bolometric Correction.

if p is less than 3.491:
BC = no estimate

If p is in [3.491, 4.626]:
BC = −11.2500664076 p⁴
+ 192.4048438892 p³
− 1235.9125353454 p²
+ 3528.1474540115 p
− 3772.1906772446

if p is greater than 4.626:
BC = no estimate

Part 8. B-V color index.

if p is greater than 4.062320702:
B-V = −0.399087815 p + 1.500904665

if p ≤ 4.062320702:
B-V = −5.47272293 p⁴
+ 87.389982866 p³
− 519.014740792 p²
+ 1356.550874966 p
− 1313.930086483

References:, pages 26 and 27., page 41.


Log in