Obama says 'Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago'

America is such a joke. Why is the president commenting on this? Doesn't he have any actual work to do? Like keeping his campaign promises? Or making laws to prevent this kind of thing.

How about doing some decision making rather than talking?

A black man who became president; it speaks volume of the general tolerance and acceptance of Americans especially the whites to others.

The President may be more right than he thinks.

Like the President, Trayvon was the product of a broken marriage. His parents divorced when he was 3. He was raised by his father and stepmother until he was 14. Then, his father started cheating again (like he did with his birth mother), and Trayvon was sent back to his mother, because he was an impediment to his father's social life. The night he was killed, Trayvon was visiting his father's girlfriend's house. He had a rootless life, drifting from mother to stepmother to mother to aunt to new daddy girlfriend. I feel sorry for him.

Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago. = Potential US President?

Or does he mean, "I could have been Trayvon Martin, 35 years ago"? Looking at that younger more innocent photo, that could be my face, ie 35 years ago I was a typical Trayvon Martin, and in his shoes I could easily have been killed just like that, over something trivial.

I don't have a problem with racial profiling itself. I have a problem with people who are so stupid they read more into than there is, and that is a LOT of stupid people out there.

If recent break-ins in the community were known to be committed by young Black males, that is that. If its old White guys, that is that. If its middle-aged Asian females, that is that. Those are the people you look out for.

But the problem is that the dumb quickly start thinking "Its because they are Black that they did this. " which is an incredibly stupid but common thought.

It just so happens that poor people tend to have and foster poor culture. That said, it was no coincidence that Blacks were prevented for hundreds of years from having anything but a poor culture. Those saying whites don't riot need to look back at the Greenwood district of Tulsa, Oklahama in 1921. Its easy to say that was a long time ago, but an entire people cannot go from that to sheer class in a few generations. Blacks have a long history of being put right back down by Whites the instant they get ahead, and its a hard thing to shake once you are aware of it. I am sure most Black grandmothers can and do tell their grand kids stories of being oppressed, discriminated against and whatnot. And even if that is not necessarily the truth of today, it has its effect on young Black children's minds.

So I am not too awful surprised to find larger percentages of young Black males involved in crime, or any poor male. I am not surprised or upset if Zimmerman racially profiled Travyon. What bothers me is not that Zimmerman paid more attention to Travyon. No. What bothers me is that Zimmerman had NO other reason to pursue Travyon like he did. Zimmerman seemed to have no question of his guilt and he stalked Travyon above and beyond all duty or reason. That is NOT what racial profiling is about.

Obama, however, said Americans should understand the perspective of the black community, which has suffered a long history of racial discrimination.

I spent most of my growing up in the 50s and 60s in Dearborn, Mich -- the home of Ford Motor Company. A large town of around 130,000, surround on three sides by Detroit and, for decades, not a single African-American family. I witnessed, as a kid, discrimination and hatred against African-Americans with my own eyes.

How was it that no black family could live in Dearborn? For many, many decades? The whites there were very much like white Americans everywhere. They hated black people and didn't want them moving in and lowering the property values. Under the motto -- Keep Dearborn Clean -- no white would sell his/her house to a black family.

Every few years, some rumblings occurred with rumors that some white family was planning to sell to a black. But for some reason, the sale never went through. As with endemic racism of this type, one couldn't find the overt, ironclad proof -- the stuff one could take to court -- just the result: Zero black families. What we could glean is that the prospective black buyer could expect plenty of vandalism to their property, kids harassed and beaten up, and little in the way of police protection. When the adults of my friends got together for card games, the talk often drifted to African-Americans -- but they were never called that -- and they were going to be kept out.

Our home was near Miller Road and Warren, in the northeast corner with Detroit just a few blocks away. Workers from Detroit would drive up Miller Road to the Rouge Plant. Often, on the way home, they'd stop by the park that was near our home to play basketball. (The courts were really good and paid for with Ford taxes.) I loved it because I liked playing basketball and many of these players from Detroit really helped my game. They'd always invite me to play with them.

This became a near daily thing in the spring and summer months. Then, one morning, I went to the park to shoot hoops and found that the city had removed the backboards and nets. They had done so at a number of parks near the Detroit border so as to keep the blacks out. Funny thing is that everyone of those white families would swear up and down that they weren't racists. Nope, not a single white racist in Dearborn.

I left after graduating high school and never went back to live there again. I finally learned to admit to and deal with my own feelings of racism. Always working on it. Thank you, Mr. President.

He had a rootless life, drifting from mother to stepmother to mother to aunt to new daddy girlfriend.

Oh, and I can spot one when I see one. Trust me.

Except that, when you listen to the 911 call, he Zimmerman says he cannot identify the race of the man he is following. I've been stopped in my own neighborhood by real police for being suspicious: a 20-something in baggy sweatpants, a hooded sweatshirt, and a baseball cap. I look out of place surrounded by suburbia and nice picket fences. However, when stopped, I put down my hood, and instead of smashing the officer to the ground and bashing his head into the pavement, I smile and tell him I live in this neighborhood and I'm just out for a walk.

It really frustrates me that somehow this had to be about race. Anytime anything happens, it has to be about race. What happened was a series of unfortunate events, starting with a bad decision by an overzealous neighborhood watchman to keep his neighborhood safe. Both of them should have walked away, but something happened to escalate this situation to a tragedy. I don't think Zimmerman was wrong, but he wasn't right, either. Sometimes things just happen, and they're tragedies. I can't stand these vultures (read, Al Sharpten, Jessie Jackson, etc.) who are out to benefit from the Martin family's unspeakable loss. Let it go, Mr. President. Let a family grieve.

Yabits: What exactly can you spot?

Someone with sympathy for a young man whose family circumstances were terrible? Who is representative of a generation largely abandoned by their fathers.

Yes, I'm sure that's what you "can spot"...

yabitsJul. 20, 2013 - 03:13PM JST

Thank you for your heart felt post, yabits.

I still hear many sad stories from GIs. Many of them were denied to buy houses because they were married to Japanese war brides in 1050 and 1060. Racism is still alive well here, but nobody want to admit it.

“I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws,”

Bang on. And as if this isn't enough food for thought on the ridiculous 'stand your ground' law, think about the case of the woman who merely shot a bullet into A WALL while her husband, who really was/is violent and threatened her, putting her life in danger, got 20 years in the same state with the same law that allowed Zimmerman to murder Treyvon and get off Scott free.

So to summarize: Zimmerman, the threat, follows a boy because he's a power-hungry maniac, ignores dispatch's order not to get out of his car and pursue Treyvon, he approaches Treyvon, he murders Treyvon, he gets off Scott three in killing a boy who was never a threat. A woman is being abused by her husband and her life in danger, she fires off a shot into the wall as a warning, gets 20 years in jail.

Hmmm...

"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."

President Obama has more in common with George Zimmerman than he does with Trayvon Martin. He is a man of mixed race heritage, with one parent hailing from Kenya, a poor third world country and had the rich cultural background that is unique to a person of that type of heritage growing up. George Zimmerman is also of a mixed race heritage, with one parent hailing from Peru, a poor third world country and he also had a rich cultural background unique to a person of mixed heritage growing up. I would say both went through the same unique and hard adjustments growing up as to which culture they would most strongly identify with as adults. It is only by fate that President Obama's last name is not Dunham, his mothers maiden name and Zimmerman's last name is not Mesa, his mothers last name, if surnames were granted using the mothers last name. Unlike his speech after the Tuscon mass shooting that I found to be outstanding for its tone and message of civility, I found his speech nothing but divisive and horrible for the country.

Racism is alive and well, not only in the USA but all over the world where different races,cultures, religions coexist in the same cities, countries etc..that being said, we can not escape this reality. If we see a guy of XYZ race, or with XYZ colors, strutting their stuff like a gang member etc..we stay away from this person or persons. If I see a bunch of red neck hillbillies pulling out white sheets (KKK) or the Klan, the Klu Klux Klan, am I gonna say, he KKK dudes, how about having a BBQ together or have a nice cold beer?? I think not! We must use our heads, yes, discriminate but with discrimination it is for survival, a Crip won't go up to a Blood, or vice a versa, a Norteño will not go out and hang out with a Sureño, a Hells Angel will not go out and try to "relax" with Mongols etc..this is reality in the USA. Heck, Boston Red Socks will see red if NY Yankees fans get too close. Or LA Dodgers with SF Giants etc..lot of stupid people out there who need to get a life and GROW UP!! RIP Trayvon and may all races, nationalities learn to live together and RESPECT themselves and RESPECT ONE ANOTHER!!

I had no idea that Obama walked around assaulting people?!?! Is that what he's admitting here?

Because that is the real case. Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself. The Presidency is the symbol of the U.S. legal system, he signs the laws into effect. Obama is a hypocrite for speaking out like this when with a single signature he could change the law. But he KNOWS the laws are there for a good and proper reason, so he treats Zimmerman as a scapegoat and blathers on while doing nothing to solve the problem.

What a lying stinking hypocrite. Obama has officially hit a new low.

I have enjoyed many of the above, well-thought out comments - particularly that of yabits. Clearly, the purpose of Obama's comments were to stimulate productive comment on this area, and, at least on this thread, he has succeeded.

Clearly, a fatal flaw of the 'stand your ground' laws is subjectivity. For example, when Zimmerman encountered the police and explained his versions of events, claiming immunity under those statutes, the onus immediately fell on the officers on the scene to validate his claim. As a result, he was not arrested that night and was never subjected to an alcohol test - which, given his history, would have been quite useful. Point - these 'stand your ground' laws seem to give to the police forces judgement of whether to pursue or slough off violent events. Not only is that dangerous and unconstitutional -guess who will be given the benefit of the doubt. As such, these types of laws can only serve to entrench racist power in America.

Frungy, your comment completely serves my opinion. I can quite safely assume that, if the races of the two were reversed, so would be your comment.

Also, as a point of law that should be too obvious to note, the president has no power over state law.

Laguna, I don't think race would have made any difference if the situation were reversed. A black man, member of the local Neighbourhood Watch, confronts a hipanic teenager he thinks is behaving in a suspicious manner? The taller, younger hispanic assaults him, pushes him down, and gets shot in the fight?

Same result. Except............... it wouldn't be on the news for days at a time. Ditto if George Zimmerman had gone by Jorge Mesa.

' So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing, of course. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a “duty to retreat” rests on the ability to retreat. And “duty to retreat” was irrelevant in Zimmerman’s case because — pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete —he was unable to retreat. This didn’t stop the NAACP crowd from cheering their heads off when Holder tossed out his red meat. Holder’s racial-grievance-mongering agenda has also been bolstered by media propaganda outlets, who’ve been dutifully bashing Stand Your Ground regardless of the facts. The New York Times, for example, falsely claimed in an editorial preceding Holder’s speech that the jury “reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of the now-notorious Stand Your Ground provision in Florida’s self-defense law.” Rolling Stone made a similarly inflammatory claim, calling Martin a “victim of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.” All nonsense. The jury received standard instructions. Zimmerman did not invoke the Stand Your Ground provision. Zimmerman later waived his right to a pretrial immunity hearing under the Stand Your Ground procedures. And as National Review’s Sterling Beard points out, “The only time Stand Your Ground came up during the trial proper was when a prosecution witness stated that he’d taught a class Zimmerman had attended that covered Stand Your Ground.” Even the prosecution rejects the cynical attempt to tie Martin’s death to Stand Your Ground. Prosecutor John Guy couldn’t have made it clearer during the trial: “This case is not about standing your ground.” During their post-trial press conference, as conservative talk show host Victoria Taft first noted, a Miami Herald reporter asked the prosecution team specifically whether Stand Your Ground “affected the facts in this case and whether this case could have been won, perhaps, pre the changes in the law.” Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda replied: “You know, self-defense has existed for a long time. And we’ve dealt with it in Jackson for a long time. We’ve tried a lot of self-defense cases; I’ve personally tried 10-15 self-defense cases. They’re tough cases, but we accept it so … the law really hasn’t changed all that much. Stand Your Ground was a big thing, but really the law hasn’t changed. We have a right to bear arms and a right to self defense.” In short, Stand Your Ground did not kill Trayvon Martin. Stand Your Ground did not sway the jury. Stand Your Ground saboteurs don’t have a leg to stand on. Columnist Jacob Sullum observed drily: “You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman’s actual defense, critics of ‘stand your ground’ laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument.” Nope, it inspires exasperation and contempt. Once again, Eric Holder’s Department of Selective and Social Justice is grasping for straws. Holder now vows to “continue to fight for removal of Stand Your Ground laws” that had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. He promises to ban “racial profiling” in the aftermath of a local crime incident that —according to Holder’s own FBI employees —had nothing to do with race. This is all a transparent pretext, of course, for undermining a plethora of state laws enacted by pro-Second Amendment legislatures. (Never mind that eight of 15 states that adopted Stand Your Ground legislation were helmed by Democratic governors at the time of passage.) Even more insidiously, left-wing groups have exploited the Martin case to launch broader attacks on the political speech and activities of limited-government groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, which supported Stand Your Ground. The Obama administration’s cynical campaign against Stand Your Ground laws is a racially charged weapon of mass distraction. The goal isn’t public safety or community harmony. The goal is for conservative political opponents to Surrender Your Ground. Silence, as always, is complicity. Political self-defense, as with physical self-defense, begins with self-assertion.'

FrungyJul. 20, 2013 - 08:25PM JST

I had no idea that Obama walked around assaulting people?!?! Is that what he's admitting here?

No Frungy, you are getting story incorrectly. Obama was followed (stalked?) around for no reason because of his color of skin. I am posting his speech yesterday for you. Hope it will solve your confusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHBdZWbncXI

" No Frungy, you are getting story incorrectly. Obama was followed (stalked?) around for no reason because of his color of skin." Oh, I thought maybe Barry was referencing his days as Choom-gang leader. Did he do B&E, too?

As the records prove Zimmerman wasn't sure what race he was. He was a suspicious character lurking about. That could be me when I was 17. I'M CAUCASIAN! Or the new ethnically described White Hispanic. Obama does have other more impotent things to do........

LagunaJul. 20, 2013 - 08:54PM JST Frungy, your comment completely serves my opinion. I can quite safely assume that, if the races of the two were reversed, so would be your comment.

Actually race is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the President acting inappropriately. He's implying that Martin was innocent, and so by extension Zimmerman is guilty, despite the fact that a U.S. court of law acquitted Zimmerman. His actions are irresponsible, and when someone eventually finds and kills Zimmerman I sincerely hope that Obama will realise that his irresponsible comments contributed to the problem. Zimmerman is innocent. If the President cannot respect the legal system he should step down.

globalwatcherJul. 20, 2013 - 09:31PM JST No Frungy, you are getting story incorrectly. Obama was followed (stalked?) around for no reason because of his color of skin. I am posting his speech yesterday for you. Hope it will solve your confusion.

What I'm not getting wrong is that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. There's an orgy of evidence to confirm this. Did Obama assault people who followed him once? Because if he didn't then there's absolutely NO similarity between Obama's situation and Martin's death. Obama is trying to imply that there is. There isn't. It is a specious comparison...

... that is, unless Obama assaulted people, in which case the comparison becomes relevant. So, which is it? A specious comparison using Martin as a poster boy simply because of his skin color (the essence of racism) or is Obama admitting to assaulting people who followed him?

USA is a land of free speech. Even President can talk his opinion. Glad to learn his experience.

FrungyJul. 20, 2013 - 10:16PM JST

globalwatcherJul. 20, 2013 - 09:31PM JST No Frungy, you are getting story incorrectly. Obama was followed (stalked?) around for no reason because of his color of skin. I am posting his speech yesterday for you. Hope it will solve your confusion.

What I'm not getting wrong is that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. There's an orgy of evidence to confirm this. Did Obama assault people who followed him once? Because if he didn't then there's absolutely NO similarity between Obama's situation and Martin's death. Obama is trying to imply that there is. There isn't. It is a specious comparison...

There's an orgy of evidence to confirm this.

No orgy of evidence. There was no eye witness in this case. I have been watching this case from the day one to the end. No eye witness to justify your opinion.

I have heard someone screaming from the DISTANCE. Did Trayvon carry a phone? No he did not. Did Zimmerman carry a phone? Yes, he did.

After the shot, no more screaming as It was a scream from Trayvon.

What was going on there? I believe Trayvon screamed as he found Zimmerman was aiming a gun at him in dark. He felt defenseless. How would you like to put yourself in this circumstance, what would you do?

Thank you for your heart felt post

"Out of abundance of the heart..."

Clearly, the purpose of Obama's comments were to stimulate productive comment on this area

How President Obama spoke was sheer genius. The man is a gift to our nation, my nation.

Perhaps most have heard of or seen the ink-blot drawings that are shown to people to allow their inner thoughts and conceptions to be revealed. There is another kind of exercise along that line where the person is shown a picture and asked to write a story about it. For example, the picture might be of an adolescent boy inside a living room looking at an open violin case on a table. Through the window of the room can be seen a group of boys playing football in the field next to his house.

One person's imagination might have them seeing the picture as a young man dreaming he'll be a world-class violinist someday and that he's going to sacrifice going outside to play and concentrate on practicing the violin. Another's might have him saying that he'll practice later, but for now he'll go out and join the others and be part of the group. While there's no correct answer, the stories often help reveal the inner drives of people.

President Obama's words left extremely large gaps, a very rough outline, and he stepped aside to let us all fill in the gaps and interpret the picture based on our own internal perception of the truth of things. When I read your words, I was glad to know there was someone else who could see that.

President Obama's great crime in this, as seen by some, is that he affirmed and defended Trayvon Martin's dignity. There are those who will respond to every tiny little detail of the life of Trayvon Martin and the lives of his family and paint every detail in the worst possible light, never granting the benefit of any doubt. In the hands of an ordinary person, for example, a screwdriver is a screwdriver. In Mr. Martin's hands, it's a burglary tool. To some, Mr. Martin wasn't just merely walking home, trying to say as dry as possible, and enjoying a conversation with his girl-friend: No, he was casing out apartments on his way back to mix up some DMX and plan his next burglary.

The same hypocrites who want to paint Mr. Martin as evil personified, even deny him the right to think the way they do. Mr. Martin had no right whatsoever to be the slightest bit suspicious of George Zimmerman -- a guy who was stalking him. You know, I know, and in their sad, pathetic heart of hearts, these hate-filled racists know that if some completely unknown guy -- unknown to their kid -- was following their kid on the way home from the store, these parents would consider it menacing, stalking behavior. To Mr. Martin, it was "creepy." As a sub-human with no dignity, he was not allowed to feel anxiety for his safety on that dark night.

He was not allowed to have agonizing thoughts about whether or not he should lead this strange stalker to where he was living. He was not allowed to be granted that he might be feeling genuine fear. No, let the members of society put the tiny pieces of the mosaic together in a way that paints him as the worst possible kind of human being.

What I'm not getting wrong is that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

I hope that, from this moment forward, anyone watching a movie where the Duke hauls off and punches someone in the face -- (Or Gary Cooper, or hundreds of other examples from our classic American myth-affirming films) -- will yell out, "Hey, the Duke just assaulted that guy!!" My personal favorite is Dana Andrews as Captain Fred Derry -- returning from WWII -- and punching the lights out of the vile John Birch-type in The Best Years of Our Lives. After his double-amputee veteran friend rips the American flag from his lapel, Derry punches him so hard that he lands and crashes through a glass display case.

When John Wayne does it, it's a noble, manly act, at which we nod and smile. (And when millions of high-school boys do it, it's just a part of boys being boys.) But when a Trayvon Martin does it, the act simply must be painted in the worst possible light. But Mr. Martin was not granted the right to be what he was, and certainly how those who loved him saw him -- an American high-school boy. His worldly experience and powers to reason were not fully developed yet. Oh, but Zimmerman acted like a responsible adult from the beginning. A guy we all want carrying a weapon. Right.

If Zimmerman was stalking John Wayne's kid -- if Zimmerman didn't have the basic decency -- it's nowhere near "courage" -- to roll down his window and yell out, "Hey, can I talk to you for a minute?" then Zimmerman deserved the punch in the nose he got. Think about that the next time, and every time, you see a picture of the Duke. Mr. Martin was denied the semblance of any right to stand his guard and defend his turf with his fists from an unknown, advancing stranger who never once tried to call out to identify himself. Not once.

The cowardly Zimmerman couldn't take a punch, and the humiliation. As the pain of his broken nose increased, he got more and more pissed off at this kid. He has to concoct a story -- like ALL cowards do -- of putting himself in the worst possible danger against the unarmed high-school kid. He skulked and slunk and tracked the kid from the beginning, calling him a punk. He didn't even know Mr. Martin.

Anyone who grants Mr. Trayvon Martin even the slightest nod -- the slightest acknowledgement -- as a guy who was afraid who thought he was defending himself and his home from a creepy, unknown person, is going to start feeling some serious doubts about this case. Any man out there who has ever been in a real fist-fight, and who knows what it feels like after a couple of minutes of swinging and wrestling around, is going to start seeing Zimmerman's highly detailed and embellished story for what it is.

Mr. Martin, I think the Duke is proud to have you sitting with him at his table up there. Your mistake was standing up for yourself against a person, who when tested as you were, turned out to be a gutless coward.

globalwatcherJul. 20, 2013 - 11:26PM JST No orgy of evidence. There was no eye witness in this case. I have been watching this case from the day one to the end. No eye witness to justify your opinion.

Jonathan Good. That's the name of the eye witness. There's also Zimmerman's defensive wounds, which forensic specialists testified were consistent with his version of the story. There's also the other wounds he suffered, the blood on the ground, and of course Martin's autopsy which showed no defensive wounds. Zimmerman trained in mixed martial arts, so it is unlikely he would have been unable to land even a single punch against Martin... unless Martin sucker punched him and then kept up that momentum.

Apparently you weren't following the case as closely as you believed, or maybe you were just reading those newspapers who had already decided that Zimmerman was guilty, and so all you saw was half the story.

yabitsJul. 20, 2013 - 11:39PM JST When John Wayne does it, it's a noble, manly act, at which we nod and smile.

If you're taking your moral and legal guidance from John Wayne movies then you may need to rethink your entire life. Last time I checked duels at high noon weren't legal or moral either.

(And when millions of high-school boys do it, it's just a part of boys being boys.)

No, normally it is one boy being a bully and the other boy defending himself. Assault is assault. If you can't get that through your head then evidently you slept through social studies at school. The law should apply equally to everyone.

The cowardly Zimmerman couldn't take a punch, and the humiliation. As the pain of his broken nose increased, he got more and more pissed off at this kid.

Or he was getting beaten and choked on the ground, was finding it difficult to breath and thought he was going to die. Gee, which account does the eyewitness testimony from Jonathan Good (an impartial bystander) support? Zimmerman's account. What does the forensic evidence support? Zimmerman's account.

You can continue living in your fantasy land of movie heroes where Martin was a tragic hero... or you can rejoin reality where we have these little things called "facts". Now I know this may be a new concept for you, so you may need to take it easy at first, like mastering the idea that Santa Claus and Superman aren't real... and then slowly build up to the idea that when someone is trying to choke you to death and is yanking on your broken nose then your ego is pretty much the last thing on your mind and the insane amount of pain you're in and the frantic messages from your brain as CO2 levels build up are screaming, "You're going to die!!!". Despite your claims that you've been in a lot of fights its clear you've never been choked out. It is a decidedly unpleasant experience, but for you I'd recommend it so you can appreciate just how insanely wrong you are.

As a "legal scholar", Obama should have explained why the verdict was wrong based upon the evidence presented.

Instead, we get another example of making this event all about him as he brings a fan to the fire and not a fire extinguisher. Yes, racism continues to exist here; however he's in a position to bridge the gap if he so chooses. Instead, we are told Obama could have been Trayvon Martin 35 years ago. Is it because he smoked weed too? Or, he also committed a felonious assault on someone? Or is it just a cheap "I'm 'black', too" comment.

Obama openly displayed his racisim for all the world to see today. Welcome to the Ununited States of Obama.

RR

RomeoRIIJul. 21, 2013 - 12:20AM JST As a "legal scholar", Obama should have explained why the verdict was wrong based upon the evidence presented.

I agree. Furthermore Obama should understand the concept of "separation of powers".

JeanValJeanJul. 20, 2013 - 09:24PM JST

So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing, of course. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a Duty To Retreat rests on the ability to retreat. And /Duty To Retreat was irrelevant in Zimmerman’s case because pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete he was unable to retreat.

First, a Stand Your Ground and a Duty to Retreat are basically the same laws evolved from the Principal of Castle Doctrine. A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. My state call it a Duty to Retreat along with a Make My Day Law.

Your comment that Zimmerman was unable to retreat is a BS. He was advised not to get out from the car by the PD dispatcher. He blew the definition of self defense here. Instead he became an aggressor under the eyes of laws. Under the current laws, the aggressors can carry guns to kill Gays, Lesbians, or someone looks different from others or simply you do not like them. We are encouraging a Hate Crime under this current laws. Therefore, the federal investigators need to treat this case differently for the violation of Civil Rights.

RomeoRIIJul. 21, 2013 - 12:20AM JST

As a "legal scholar", Obama should have explained why the verdict was wrong based upon the evidence presented. This guy Zimmerman was not even retained by the police and released after the shooting. If this is not a Civil Rights Violation, then what is?

Instead, we get another example of making this event all about him as he brings a fan to the fire and not a fire extinguisher. Is it because he smoked weed too?

Okay, Let's reverse a role for you, Romeo, we do not see any Italians in my gated community. Because most of citizens here have a stereo type biased view of Italian. They still associate Italian with high profile federal crimes and a movie of Godfather in old days of Chicago. You cannot blame them. Do I think you will be safe here? I do not think so. You will become a target here. You cannot go out and buy a piece of candy at night. You might become a victims as well as Treyvon. Obama was not just speaking on behalf of Blacks. Instead he was talking for you too. I hope you see that, Romeo.

If you're taking your moral and legal guidance from John Wayne movies...

The stories woven into the images portrayed in the history of the American West are being completely written off by you. Let the reader be aware what is being done here. Those images, I suppose, had nothing to do with forming the persona of Ronald Reagan in the minds of the American people. I happen to believe the images that people have in their homes and offices of eagles and figures like the Duke represent something very important to them.

I do not claim to take my moral guidance from them. Scripture supplies that for me. Nevertheless, many of the tales tell the precepts of what constitutes noble and courageous behavior, reflect the earlier recounts, such as David and Goliath. Lawyers are not well-portrayed in those images. Nor are scribes and Pharisees. These are the gutless people who, like yourself, put self-preservation as the highest ideal. The only way they know how to fight is to use legalisms and legal technicalities to trip up their opponents -- especially those with the temerity to point out their wrongful, hypocritical behavior and gutless cowardice.

A wrongful behavior of following someone and making them feel afraid is not wrongful unless it is repeated. If you kill the person you have stalked once, it was not legally wrongful to stalk him because it wasn't repeated. That's your argument.

like mastering the idea that Santa Claus and Superman aren't real..

Nor is the super-human villain, Trayvon Martin, as created by and portrayed in George Zimmerman's fantasies, and swallowed whole and broadcast by fellow cowards everywhere. Too pitifully afraid to see Mr. Martin as the ordinary, tall, skinny high-school kid he was. You have never been in a real fight, so you would never, ever know. And that's the plain truth.

someone is trying to choke you to death and is yanking on your broken nose then your ego is pretty much the last thing on your mind and the insane amount of pain you're in and the frantic messages from your brain as CO2 levels build up are screaming

Listen to yourself. And then listen to George Zimmerman telling it himself to Sean Hannity. Far from "insane" or "frantic," Zimmerman is claiming to note that the lower border of his jacket is raising up -- from a position flat on his back! -- and that Trayvon's eyes have discovered the gun that is underneath Zimmerman. A black gun in a black holster on a dark night -- and Zimmerman is asserting he is fully aware of Martin's dark eyes going down to his waist area.

Despite your claims that you've been in a lot of fights its clear you've never been choked out.

For anyone who has ever taken any self-defense classes, a choke move from the front is one of the worst possible moves for an attacker, and one of the easiest to register a quick and effective response against. One can only hope to face such an inexperienced opponent! Especially when you're claiming to be aware and conscious enough to notice the position of your own jacket and where your opponent's dark eyes are looking. Oh, and I don't know of anyone -- outside of Superman -- who can choke someone while yanking their nose.

You simply don't realize that you have been had. You can't even admit the slightest possibility that all these embellished details have been designed to purposely mislead. You hear hoof-beats and you're claiming them to be zebras. This was a high-school fight and Zimmerman ended getting enraged and shot Mr. Martin in a fit of rage.

Your "moral and legal guidance" are designed to support and protect good old-fashioned, garden-variety cowardice. The truth of that can't be tolerated by some.

FrungyJul. 21, 2013 - 12:13AM JST

gobalwatcherJul. 20, 2013 - 11:26PM JST No orgy of evidence. There was no eye witness in this case. I have been watching this case from the day one to the end. No eye witness to justify your opinion.

Jonathan Good. That's the name of the eye witness.

Jonathan Good was a poor witness. He helped neither sides.

I am pasting the whole testimony of Jonathan Good for your review.

Apparently you weren't following the case as closely as you believed, or maybe you were just reading those newspapers who had already decided that Zimmerman was guilty, and so all you saw was half the story.

Unlike everyone else, I have been retired and spend my entire days the way I want . This case reminded me a case involving a Japanese exchange student who was stalked around by a bunch Japanese haters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqzxia44Gks

First, Obama should release his own early days record that the world can make a comparison of the two's upbringing. Second, we should talk more about parental responsibility in keeping young ones and adult alike away from troubles as this tragedy. There are plenty causes that lead to this suffering and exploitation of this tragedy by many, and that is a shame. There are lessons to be learned in order to better the nation if peoples start to talk objectively without agenda.

Obama was simply giving his point of view as a black man. Get over it.

" I have been watching this case from the day one to the end. No eye witness to justify your opinion. I have heard someone screaming from the DISTANCE. Did Trayvon carry a phone? No he did not. Did Zimmerman carry a phone? Yes, he did." FALSE. Trayvon had a phone. How else was he having a conversation with the eloquent young woman who was a star witness for the prosecution? It certainly wasn't with two tin cans and twine. Guess you missed that detail while watching so carefully.

Defense started at the point Martin attacked Zimmerman. Was it the right choice to follow Martin? Absolutely not. Was Zimmerman required to follow the advice of the 911 operator? No, it's advice, not an order, though he certainly should have.

@yabits, I have no doubt you have experienced racism firsthand as a black in America. So have I, as a fair-skinned mulatto, though not by other light -skinned people. I often heard the epithet "vanilla fudge", so yes racism is alive and well, but from ALL directions.

How else was he having a conversation with the eloquent young woman who was a star witness for the prosecution?

You are certainly correct. My bad. However the scream was recorded in the PD dispatchers. The prosecutor team believed that they had enough evidence to convict Zimmerman with this, apparently it was not a strong evidence. The helpless screaming from Trayvon, then the shot was fired, then a SILENCE because he was gun down.

As a sitting president, Obama's comments have deepen the racial divide here in America. He should have lauded the justice system in Florida for working. Instead, he chose to pick a side.

Obama's reverted back to the only thing he's ever been good at: being a community organizer/agitator.

RR

Except that, when you listen to the 911 call, he Zimmerman says he cannot identify the race of the man he is following.

This seems to be a very common piece of misinformation. I am pretty sick of it. A simple web search dispels it instantly. So does paying attention:

Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band. And he’s a black male.[1:03]

Another one making the rounds is that Zimmerman did not know his age.

911 dispatcher: How old would you say he is? Zimmerman: He’s got something on his shirt. About like his late teens.

The helpless screaming from Trayvon, then the shot was fired, then a SILENCE because he was gun down.

Or silence because the need for help was no longer needed by Zimmerman because he just shot Travyon in the heart? Or silence because of the shock of having shot someone? Or the silence that usually follows a loud bang?

But make no mistake. I am not in Zimmerman's court on this. I just can't make heads or tails of the screaming in that recording.

Zimmerman trained in mixed martial arts, so it is unlikely he would have been unable to land even a single punch against Martin... unless Martin sucker punched him and then kept up that momentum.

When Zimmerman did his walk through/ reenactment with police, he said he was going back to his car when Martin came from behind and asked Z if he had a problem. According to Z, he turned around and said "No I don't have a problem" and went for his cell phone, which he claims was not in the pocket he went for, because it was in another pocket. Then according to Z, M said "You got a problem now." and then started punching Z. I submit that if all that is true, M may well have felt threatened by Z going for something in his pocket. And why wouldn't he after having Z stalk him like this in the dark and rain by car and on foot?

But that is assuming that Z is not full of it. I think there is a good chance that Z was in fact going for his gun, and that was why Martin pounced on him. And since Z was so busy going for that gun, it explains very easily his failure to put up a defense, land a single blow to Martin, and wind up with Martin on top of him pounding away. And since Z's gun was now pinned under Z's right hip, it took even more time to get it out.

But either way, I see Z making all the threatening moves first. You do not react to the person you stalk finally confronting you by reaching in your pockets. You do that and its the other guy defending himself and your right to self defense has totally flown the coop. Z put himself in the situation. M was only reacting to a stranger in a buzz cut hounding him in the dark and rain and then go for something in his pocket which M would have every reason to assume was a weapon.

RomeoRIIJul. 21, 2013 - 08:52AM JST

As a sitting president, Obama's comments have deepen the racial divide here in America. He should have lauded the justice system in Florida for working. Instead, he chose to pick a side.

Obama's reverted back to the only thing he's ever been good at: being a community organizer/agitator.

RR

I do not believe he picked a side. He addressed this issue to us all to find a common solution. A good strong leader is often hated because people do not want to change. These people are dead weight and hunker us down instead of moving forward. We can do better than that.

.

As a sitting president, Obama's comments have deepen the racial divide here in America.

And if the riots would have broken out, we rest assured that certain people would have criticized Obama for not speaking up sooner!

With certain people dead set against you, if you saved the lives of thousands of sick children, they would curse you for interfering with natural selection and weakening the human race!

@global, you're going on the assumption that the screaming recorded was Martin, but that wasn't confirmed, and was more likely not Martin.

Martin's history of fighting, including having punched a teacher shortly before, has been largely ignored. Of course, during the trial that evidence would have been inadmissible, and rightly so, however in the discussion it is relevant. Martin was a skilled streetfighter, and his propensity to escalate to violence should not be ignored. Neither were innocent.

He seems to calm down people.

JeanValJeanJul. 21, 2013 - 10:05AM JST

@global, you're going on the assumption that the screaming recorded was Martin, but that wasn't confirmed, and was more likely not Martin

I guess this is where the defense team won the case. To me, the scream came from the distance, possibly Trayvon's. It was too bad that the prosecutor side did not even raised the question about it.

Martin's history of fighting, including having punched a teacher shortly before

There is a much evidence of his having punched a teacher as there is for George Zimmerman's child molestation.

however in the discussion it is relevant.

It is only relevant as an example of a baseless accusation.

Martin was a skilled streetfighter

That is not what the people who knew him say. Zimmerman's martial arts training is a documented fact.

And Zimmerman himself proves your statement wrong: Zimmerman claims Martin was trying to choke him with his hands. A choke attempt with both hands from the front is not something a "skilled streefighter" would do. It's a real sucker's move. Also, Zimmerman does not report Martin attempting a single kick. So what source are you using to make all this up?

globalwatcherJul. 21, 2013 - 03:27AM JST gobalwatcherJul. 20, 2013 - 11:26PM JST No orgy of evidence. There was no eye witness in this case. I have been watching this case from the day one to the end. No eye witness to justify your opinion.

Jonathan Good was a poor witness. He helped neither sides.

You said there was no eye witness. I repeat "No eye witness" was what you wrote. You wrote, "No eye witness". There was. You are wrong. Admit it.

There was also other evidence that you're conveniently ignoring. But you seem to be ignoring EVERYTHING that doesn't confirm your theory that Zimmerman was guilty. That's bigotry at its finest.

You said there was no eye witness. I repeat "No eye witness" was what you wrote. You wrote, "No eye witness". There was. You are wrong. Admit it.

You are ignoring vital qualifiers to his statement. It is clear that what he meant was that there was no eyewitness who saw who attacked who first. And there wasn't. By the time Good saw anything, M was already on top of Z, and the beginning of the physical altercation had passed. Thus, Good helped neither side. global is totally correct if you don't parse his paragraphs.

Anyway, fFor some people, the entire case hinged on who attacked who first, and apparently the court agreed it all hinged on that. There was no eyewitness and no solid proof either way, so Z walked.

Scott JohnsonJul. 21, 2013 - 07:39PM JST You are ignoring vital qualifiers to his statement. It is clear that what he meant was that there was no eyewitness who saw who attacked who first. And there wasn't. By the time Good saw anything, M was already on top of Z, and the beginning of the physical altercation had passed. Thus, Good helped neither

Two words, bull and shit. Go and read globalwatcher's entire post. He claimed that:

globalwatcherJul. 20, 2013 - 11:26PM JST What was going on there? I believe Trayvon screamed as he found Zimmerman was aiming a gun at him in dark. He felt defenseless. How would you like to put yourself in this circumstance, what would you do?

In other words globalwatcher's position is that Zimmerman had the gun out BEFORE Martin attacked. That simply doesn't match the facts or common sense OR the eyewitness testimony. The eyewitness would have noticed something like a gun being waved around or a gun lying on the ground that Zimmerman picked up.

Scott JohnsonJul. 21, 2013 - 07:39PM JST Anyway, fFor some people, the entire case hinged on who attacked who first, and apparently the court agreed it all hinged on that. There was no eyewitness and no solid proof either way, so Z walked.

So you admit that the court reached the right decision, and that there's no way ANYONE can know what happened (except Zimmerman)... but you're still defending globalwatcher who maintains he magically knows what really happened? Hypocrisy much?

President Obama has lowered himself to race hustler. As he has on several previous occasions, he has injected himself into a local law enforcement issue and has made it all about race. There is no evidence of any racism or racial profiling in the Zimmerman case. Even the FBI could not prove he is a racist. The only person that made any statements that can be construed as racist was Martin - by saying "creepy-as cracker". Despite the edited NBC tapes Zimmerman has not made any similar comments. Obama makes no reference to this fact during his news conference. Zimmerman didn't make Martin's racial attitudes an issue in his defense, nor did he make it an issue that Martin profiled Zimmerman as a "homosexual rapist".

Yet with all of this known, Obama says this:

"that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

So now a case that involved a 17 year old black person and a 29 year old Hispanic person is now white vs. black. This is unnecessary race baiting and beneath contempt for a modern day political leader. Obama always seems to fall back on blaming white people by default. It is no wonder that this bi-racial man has rejected his white heritage - he seems to be very uncomfortable with white people and never ceases to defend people that identify themselves to be - like him - black.

Obama has undeniably set back race relations in this country as a result of his time in office. He was able to become president due to the support of millions of white people yet he is suspicious of them and quickly assumes the worst of their motives when it comes to race.

As the post trial coverage of this case winds down in the coming weeks and months, we should all bear these things in mind. The Zimmerman case was not about a white man profiling and killing an innocent black "child". Zimmerman is not white and he is not a racist. Lastly, the Zimmerman trial was not about the "stand you ground" law.

President Obama made a mistake by commenting on this case in a way that makes this a black vs. white issue. Race relations are not stuck in the 1960's as are Obama and Holder. The racial mixture in America has changed a great deal over the past 50 years. The case and the previous local law enforcement cases that Obama has commented on reveals a man with a racial chip on his shoulder. It shows that nearly two decades of sitting in the pews of the racist pastor Jeremiah Wright has had no small impact on Obama's view of America.

But make no mistake. I am not in Zimmerman's court on this. I just can't make heads or tails of the screaming in that recording.

Please consider this: Zimmerman claims that Mr. Martin was on top of him and choking him.

Try this experiment: Get on your back and have someone straddle you and try choking you. See how well you can scream with that being done to you. Imagine if the choke was applied with enough strength to where you think would become unconscious. If you listen to 911, the screams are coming very regularly. Whoever is emitting them is not being choked at the time.

A person would be foolish to the extreme, practically a moron, to take what Zimmerman is saying at face value. He is lying at every turn. Trayvon Martin never approached Zimmerman to start the altercation. Zimmerman was not on his way back to his vehicle. He practically admits this to the non-emergency dispatcher.

bgaudry:

America is such a joke. Why is the president commenting on this? Doesn't he have any actual work to do? Like keeping his campaign promises? Or making laws to prevent this kind of thing.

How about doing some decision making rather than talking?

He's voting "present".

yabits:

Please consider this: Zimmerman claims that Mr. Martin was on top of him and choking him.

Please consider this: So does an eye witness. And ALL of the forensic evidence.

Scott Johnson:

Those saying whites don't riot need to look back at the Greenwood district of Tulsa, Oklahama in 1921.

No need to go back that far. Just look at any G8/G20/Occupy "rally".

globalwatcher:

Under the current laws, the aggressors can carry guns to kill Gays, Lesbians, or someone looks different from others or simply you do not like them. We are encouraging a Hate Crime under this current laws.

Please name any specific law that allows such killings. (By the way, TM's own communications with his girlfriend, just prior to his assaulting GZ, indicate he was homophobic, in addition to being a racist or bigot.)

Bgood41:

First, Obama should release his own early days record that the world can make a comparison of the two's upbringing. Second, we should talk more about parental responsibility in keeping young ones and adult alike away from troubles as this tragedy. There are plenty causes that lead to this suffering and exploitation of this tragedy by many, and that is a shame. There are lessons to be learned in order to better the nation if peoples start to talk objectively without agenda.

Excellent points. But don't hold your breath waiting for substantive dialog from our country's leaders. The professional race exploiters don't want to solve anything, or else they would lose their lucrative careers and political privilege.

"I am not in Zimmerman's court on this. I just can't make heads or tails of the screaming in that recording...."

Yes. Zimmerman claims that, before the gunshot, Mr. Martin was on top of him (TRUE) and choking him -- to the point where he claims he was going to pass out. Choking is an action that closes the airway.

No Airway -- No Scream

No Airway -- No Scream

Was Zimmerman being choked as he claims, or was he screaming, as he claims? (Screams which are coming regularly without any evidence of being muffled or choked.)

I can't believe how just plain dumb some people are to keep buying his story. He was not intending to return to his vehicle that night, and he signaled that he wasn't returning to the non-emergency dispatcher before ending his call. He did not want the dispatcher to know that he had just spotted Mr. Martin and was getting ready to run down the walkway to apprehend him.