The Mickel trial is finally getting interesting. The penalty phase is currently under way, and he is now able to state his reasoning. The facts of what happened came out in the trial. He didn't dispute the actions. The penalty will now be assessed for his actions based upon the jury's understanding of the motives and consequences of his action.

There is no major news outlet providing a fact based report of the proceeding. And the information coming out through the small town presses is limited, and colored by a vengeful bias. But, there was one story which mentioned a bit of information which is very interesting.

In his penalty phase, "Mickel showed pictures of himself being arrested during what he called his peaceful protest. His hair was longer and his face was bloodied."

This means that it was personal. Mickel felt wronged and took justice into his own hands. I believe Mickel felt the 'system' personally, through his service with the military, and his being bloodied at 'his peaceful demonstration'. This wasn't an abstract revolutionary action. It was an act of personally motivated vengeance. The fact that it had revolutionary justifications, in Mickel's mind, does not change the fact that this was a crime of passion.

Andrew Mickel is a passionate person who made the horrible error of following through on his feelings of vengeance toward the system. He targeted a single man and exacted his vengeance upon that man. It could have been any officer, it happened to be officer Mobilio. But, Andrew Mickel is not a cold blooded killer. Andrew Mickel is a kid who let his anger, vengeance and depression get the better of him. How many 'cold blooded' killer's would sob after the testimony of their victims wife?

Linda Mobilio wept on the stand while describing how she met her husband and the night she learned he had been killed. She lashed out at convicted killer Mickel when talking about her son and how he would grow up without his father. “You have your father,” she said before the judge cut her off.

Mickel kept his eyes down at the table through most of her testimony. His lower lip quivered as Linda Mobilio described the preparations she made for her husband’s funeral.

After a 10-minute recess, Mickel was sobbing as he sat at the table.

I should state flat out that I am against the death penalty. And killing. Killing anyone by ambush with three shots to the back and head, is wrong. That's why it is a crime. All societies must protect themselves from people who are willing to take violent actions into their own hands based on their own beliefs, and even more so if they feel they have been wronged by the other party.

In a perfect world, Andrew Mickel could have sought redress for the wrongs he perceived in a court of law and a jury of peers could examine the facts and decide if he deserved a remedy. Unfortunately, that's not the way the system works. The police, politicians, and economically powerful are not subject to justice for 'minor' offenses. The more powerful a person becomes, the higher that bar is raised, until, with enough power, the person can achieve virtual immunity.

Quick digression for an example. If a factory worker's family took money from suppliers and the factory worker gave his business to that supplier, the factory worker would be arrested for accepting kickbacks and he would be fired. Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader, has done the same thing, repeatedly, selling his influence for payments to his wife and daughter. It is known and documented, but he is so powerful that he cant be arrested until his power is reduced. He fully expects to be indicted, and, using the same analogy as before, the suppliers are paying the factory workers legal expenses. By this, I mean that Tom DeLay has set up a legal defense fund and corporate contributions are flooding in. These same corporations are the ones that benefited from his corruption.

So, what is justice, and what is the appropriate punishment for Andrew Mickel? The simple answer is that I don't know. The editor of the Red Bluff Daily News thinks he should be lined up and shot. Of course, the editor, in his own way, just justified Andrew Mickel's feelings. Andrew Mickel felt that the police should be lined up and shot for the crimes they commit and continually go unpunished for.

The editor's article expressed the same level of vengeful anger which Andrew Mickel felt toward the police. The difference is that the editor has the government on his side, Andrew Mickel does not. Andrew Mickel's anger was directed at the police, and I think we can safely assume that he felt that a crime was committed against himself by the police when they bloodied him at his peaceful protest. If we agree with the editor, then we must, in a small part, agree with Andrew Mickel.

But, justice is not an eye for an eye, not is justice a legal version of vengeance. I'm talking about true justice, not the justice system. So, what does a society do with a member who kills another member of society extrajudiciously.

The clearest I can come to saying what 'justice' is would be to say that in a society of 250 million (that's a guess), one person is unfortunately, not as important to society as a whole, as it would be if we lived in villages.

First, aggrieved or not. I agree with the majority of people that we cant have people walking around in society who are willing to shoot other members of society, for whatever reason. This is why I support gun control. People who carry guns are willing to shoot other people. This is wrong. And Florida has enabled every Mickel, and every editor to make their own judgment as to what is just.

Second, I cant find any justifying factor in Andrew Mickel's action even as vengeance, because Officer Mobilio was not the party that directly injured Andrew Mickel. I could understand, and disapprove, if Mobilio was the one who bloodied Mickel at his peaceful demonstration, but Mickel's action was not accurately vengeance either.

Andrew Mickel believes that it was a revolutionary act. Maybe, but you cant change the system at your own trial. And this is where justice breaks down. Andrew Mickel will probably receive the death penalty because the person he killed was a police officer. But if not for vengeance, Andrew Mickel could be put in a minimum security prison and would not be a danger to anyone. If fact, he would probably need to be protected.

There are lessons to be learned here, but I don't believe that anyone will see them. First, this was entirely preventable. Mickel would not have taken his action if he felt he had any other course to take. Second, the American system needs to be more accountable to its citizens. Government has forgotten that it governs with the consent of the concerned for the sake of the governed. Instead, this will be used as justification for further erosion of rights to prevent, by force, any further Andrew Mickel's from appearing. Which will of course, lead to more Andrew Mickel's. When it gets to the point that the Andrew Mickel's become numerous enough to effect the system, it will be to late to change, and by that time, the Mickel's may be justified, if that remains their only course of action.

Let's home America turns away from its current course of repression and realizes that the cancer it breeds is caused by the actions it takes.

"Our liberties are under attack by the government and officer Mobilio was engaged in those attacks,"
~Andrew Mickel (April 7, 2005)

Here are a couple of news articles which I found to be honest descriptions of the events occurring in the penalty phase of this trial.

Mickel says violence was his only option
Mickel says officer's death was necessary

And here is an example of Vengeance.

Mickel's fame arrives; pierce corporate' veil, ready firing squad