When the president took a question on the Trayvon Martin case yesterday, he responded carefully:
President Obama did not mention race even as he addressed it on Friday, instead letting his person and his words say it all: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
…“I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids,” Mr. Obama said. “Every parent in America,” he added, “should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”
The tragedy is not just that a young boy was murdered in cold blood. The tragedy is that the police have so far left the murderer free to kill again. They haven’t held him accountable for his actions. That’s why the federal government is involved.
The president’s response was tempered, which is appropriate considering that the case is under investigation.
“I’m the head of the executive branch and the attorney general reports to me so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now,” he said.
But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t received criticism.
Boyce D. Watkins, a Syracuse University professor and the founder of the Your Black World coalition, said Friday in a Twitter message, “If Trayvon’s mother were white, would Obama give her a call?”
Dr. Watkins, in an interview, called Mr. Obama’s statement “a step in the right direction,” but added that the president could “squash a great deal of the criticism” with a call to the parents. And while applauding Mr. Obama’s comment that his own son would look like Trayvon, Dr. Watkins said the president’s remarks were characteristic of how Mr. Obama talks to black people.
“That’s what I would refer to as a standard political smoke signal that President Obama sends through the back door to the black community,” Dr. Watkins said. “He communicates to the black community in code language. That’s a subtle way of saying, ‘I know this kid is black.’ ”
Everyone knows that Trayvon Martin was black. What the president was saying is that this case has hit him on a personal level because he can really identify with the mourning parents. For Newt Gingrich, this is appalling. Here’s what Newt said on the Sean Hannity Show:
“It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background,” Gingrich said. “Is the President suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?”
…
“That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot,” Gingrich continued on Hannity’s show. “It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian-American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American. It is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”
So, the president, by not specifically mentioning race, was trying to turn a racially-motivated murder into a racial issue. At the same time, prominent members of the black community are criticizing him for not being explicit enough and not interjecting himself into the story sufficiently. It seems that the president cannot win.
Gingrich’s comments are particularly egregious and opportunistic. People are murdered all the time. What makes the Trayvon Martin case noteworthy is that the police know who the murderer is and have so far simply refused to arrest him. It is highly unlikely that a white boy, even one wearing a hoodie, would have been followed, harassed and shot to death, but it is completely unthinkable that a white boy’s death would not have resulted in an arrest.
Bad things happen. Slightly crazy people get it in their head that they’re Charles Bronson and start shooting innocent civilians because they think they look suspicious. We have ways of dealing with that. It’s called the criminal justice system. That system isn’t working in this case because the victim is black and his parents are black.
Everything about how the police behaved in this case indicates differential treatment. They assumed the boy didn’t belong in the neighborhood, that his parents didn’t live there. They didn’t try to contact his parents and let him sit in the morgue with a ‘John Doe’ tag on his foot. They simply accepted the murderer’s claim of self-defense at face value, even though they knew that he had pursued an unarmed boy against their advice, shot him, and killed him.
A transcript of the murderer’s 911 call shows that Zimmerman referred to the victim as “these assholes” that “always get away” and possibly said “fucking coons.” It’s hard to make any kind of argument that the victim could have been “Puerto Rican or Cuban or…white or…Asian-American,” as Gingrich suggests. The racial animus on the tape is obvious.
He was gunned down because he was black and Zimmerman assumed he was an “asshole” who didn’t belong in his neighborhood. But, again, racially-motivated murders happen quite frequently. The reason the president is talking about this case is because the police didn’t do anything. That’s the reason the whole nation and the world are talking about this case. And if Newt Gingrich thinks that white parents would be treated this way, he’s delusional. But Newt doesn’t think that. Go to the comments section at Fox News and start reading some of the 10,000 hate-filled comments about the president’s remarks on Trayvon Martin and you will understand exactly what Newt Gingrich is doing.
i refuse to look at those comments, they will ruin my day.
Booman, I think you might be missing an important angle on this story. When I first heard about it I thought like you did that this murder was simply a classic example of racial injustice. And it still is. But I just dismissed out of hand the talk about “stand your ground” because I couldn’t believe a law like that would ever prevent the police from even investigating a murder.
But as I’ve learned more about the law I’ve been horrified to see that it’s quite possible that it was a factor in the police department’s action or inaction. From what I’ve heard, the law explicitly prohibits the police from arresting or even detaining someone in the event that they claimed they used their gun in self defense. In other words, all they have to do is say they acted in self defense and police investigation is supposed to stop immediately. It seems that the law can be productively interpreted in court as literally a license to kill for private citizens. Already cable networks are digging up numerous other cases in “stand your ground” states where somebody shot somebody else and used that law as blanket defense. The Joe Horn case in Texas, which I just heard about today, is an astonishing example.
The fact that this law arose not from any grassroots movement but from gun industry lobbyists and their republican clients is icing on the cake. Basically this is a law that turns the entire criminal justice system on its head in order to serve a single constituency: the gun industry. So they can go out and sell guns with the pitch that you’ll have a license to kill when and where you see fit.
Now, as is typical operating procedure for right wing extremism, the law’s supporters are going around saying that the law doesn’t say what it says and how would you ever get that impression. But the whole point of the law appears to be to grant blanket immunity in the event of a killing by gun, as long as you can claim you were in any way threatened or endangered. If you get into an argument somewhere, pull a gun, there’s a scuffle because people are terrified you’re going to use it, and you shoot somebody, you’re home free. And I see no reason why this law couldn’t be used as a defense in almost any murder, particularly when there are no witnesses.
The only part of the law that has any possible application to this case is Section 3.
In this case, Zimmerman would have to convince the police that he reasonably believed that he was facing death or great bodily harm from a young skinny boy who was completely unarmed.
The rest of the statute focuses on forced entry into dwellings, vehicles, and residences.
Zimmerman’s own lawyer says the statute offers his client no defense.
If you want to use this case to gain momentum for the repeal of this law, be my guest, but it has fuck-all to do with why the police let this man get away with murder.
The police are on record that they let him walk because he claimed self defense. The clause you quote would seem directly relevant to the case. The police report also seems to indicate that Zimmerman was bleeding. What the lawyer says is irrelevant to the decision the police made, etc. Please understand I’m not defending the police or Zimmerman or institutionalized discrimination which is alive and well. I’m not trying to “gain momentum for the repeal of the law”. I’m making a comment on a blog. I’m trying to contribute to the conversation.
Also, I think your political analysis is a bit off. Obama ain’t losing on this issue. If the worst he has to deal with is racist garbage on the fox-news site and open sewers like Newt Gingrinch, he’s going to be a big winner.
link.
When your lawyer throws away a possible defense like that, it’s not a possible defense.
Again, what the lawyer says is not relevant to how the police operated. If you’ve got a quote from the police saying the law was not in play, fire away. Furthermore, determining that a person acted in self-defense is a matter of police investigation. In this case there was apparently no investigation, and the lack of an investigation appears to be a direct result of the language of the law.
Did you read the statute?
I think you’re missing the bunny’s point: the police screwed up, and they screwed up because they determined that Zimmerman’s actions met the definition of self-defense.
which has nothing to do with the “Stand your ground” law.
And which never would have happened if the dead body had been white.
“which has nothing to do with the “Stand your ground” law.”
Huh?
Martin wasn’t at Zimmerman’s house. What other possible part of the law do you think the police are basing their determination of self-defense on? Building codes?
You’re confusing me.
Self-defense is a defense. It is his defense. The Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with it.
The police accepted that he was attacked by a boy much smaller than him. A boy with an Arizona ice tea and a bag of skittles.
If Zimmerman had been at his house that is the only way that Stand Your Ground law would be likely to apply.
Self-defense is a defense. It is his defense. The Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with it.
The “Stand Your Ground” law is Florida’s law on self-defense. The passage of that 2005 law modified Florida’s laws about self-defense.
If Zimmerman had been at his house that is the only way that Stand Your Ground law would be likely to apply.
I think you’re a little confused. What’s being called the “Stand Your Ground” law applies outside of your home in Florida. You aren’t required to try to leave or back off when faced with a threat even in a public place, away from your home, under the law Florida passed in 2005. That was the controversial part of the law.
the two things are not synonymous.
First, it pays to read the statute, which I linked to in this thread.
Second, as his own lawyer has stated, as well as the authors of the bill and many other observers, the portion of the Stand Your Ground statute that might apply in this case, doesn’t.
Yet, he can still argue that he pulled the trigger out of fear for his own life. Self-defense is always a legitimate defense. What determines this success are the facts of the case, which are in dispute.
He will argue that he was attacked from behind, knocked down, struck in the nose, begged for help, and then took out his gun and shot the boy. That would be a defense in any state in the union. Whether is would be a successful defense would turn on whether he has a reasonable fear for his life, not on whether he instigated the confrontation or whether he had the ability to retreat.
When someone has you pinned down on the ground and is striking you in the face, what is reasonable?
Of course, he has one witness who will corroborate that he was on the bottom, and he has the grass and wetness on his back to support that. There are other witnesses who tell a diametrically different story.
It will come down to two stories:
Prosecutor: Zimmerman, who has a history of looking out for black people in his neighborhood, trailed a young boy who was doing nothing wrong, confronted him, got into a physical altercation with him, shot him, and killed him. Then he fabricated a story about being attacked from behind.
Defense: Zimmerman has no racial animus and was simply suspicious. He didn’t intend to harm the boy but he was attacked from behind, pinned down, and pummeled with fists. He feared for his life. He pulled the trigger to stop the beating.
The jury (if we ever have this trial) will not be trying to apply any Stand Your Ground standard. They will decide, based on witness testimony and some medical/audio evidence, whether Zimmerman is telling the truth and, if so, he had a rational basis for fearing for his life.
This is no different from how this would play out in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, or any other state.
First, it pays to read the statute, which I linked to in this thread.
I first read the statute in 2005, when it was being debated. Was there something in the language of the statute you wanted to bring up? I really don’t see why, because the dispute here is about the thinking of the police, and the language of the statute doesn’t tell us anything about that.
Second, as his own lawyer has stated, as well as the authors of the bill and many other observers, the portion of the Stand Your Ground statute that might apply in this case, doesn’t.
Thank you for your opinion. I agree with it; I don’t think this statute is properly interpreted to cover Zimmerman’s actions, either. This, too, is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the police thought that.
Also irrelevant to the question of what the police thought: your description of how a jury might deal with such a claim if it was raised in court.
None of these points – the language of the law, the opinion of the lawyer, your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of some jury – have anything at all to do with the question at hand, which is why the police on the scene found Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense credible.
I would add: if I were one of the authors of this bill, you can bet I’d be doing my damndest to argue that it had nothing to do with creating the legal environment for this murder to occur, too. The heat and public scrutiny on this and similar laws is such that anybody concerned with keeping them on the books is going to fight like mad to seed the public perception that Trayvon’s murder is an isolated event, and has nothing to do with concealed carry or syg laws, or the NRA, or ALEC, or republicans, or the obsessive American gun culture, or you name it.
The people behind this law pushed for it expressly to avoid arrests and/or detention when they (or someone like them) shot threatening people.
According to one of these nimrods, Trayvon Gave Up His Right To Self-Defense.
I agree with this post BooMan, but there is one thing I take a little issue with and I think it just a case of u being more intone with AA in the liberal blogosphere. Boyce Watkins can not be considered any type of Black “leader” no one I know has any idea who he is, and before I started reading blogs, I had never heard of the guy before.
The majority of the “leaders” who actually has any real status in the AA community nationally have all been aupportive of POTUS.
Boyce Watkins ain’t nothing to nobody I know.
Still I agree with ya overall
The NRA pushback on YT’s last night was that there were grass stains on Zimmerman’s back and that he received a broken nose (well at least it was bloody the guy admitted). The guy contended that once Trevon fought back he became the aggressor and that was when Zimmerman became the victim.
There was a large discussion on Chris Hayes “UP” this morning which brought in ALEC and the fleshed out the Stand Your Ground Bill even more. This has flown under the radar because as the point was made…when Gore lost in ’00, from then on the Dems pretty much rolled over on gun control.
Not only does this mindset look to add Zimmerman to the group of murderers that have gotten off scott free but make it the law of the land.
TB is right, look at the law enforcement uproar when Florida’s Bill hit the floor, they were against it and stated flat out that this law and it’s mindset would tie their hands. The law is so wrongheaded that it allows for police work where the officers don’t even ask ‘what happened here’ once the gunner says “I had to defend myself”.
Bitter Boyce is nothing but a hater.
period.
as for the rest of those jokers, f-em.
Trayvon Martin was guilty of WALKING WHILE BLACK.
for that crime, he was SENTENCED TO DEATH.
Nobody, on this earth, will EVER convince me that if Trayvon had been WHITE
and Zimmerman Black
that any police department anywhere, would accept a ‘ self-defense’ argument and let a Black man go on his way for killing a WHITE CHILD.
and, TRAVYON MARTIN WAS INDEED A CHILD.
Lissen up here, folks…
When almost the entire media piles onto one side of a story, the only action that one can profitably take on the matter is to reserve judgement at least until the hype begins to subside. And subside it will as soon as the story begins to stop making money for the media. Bet on it. On to the next “hottest thing ever.”
Please try to remember…in this system as it stands one cannot even reliably count on finding out who was at fault in a parking spot fender-bender, let alone a shooting. I will say one thing, however. If this Zimmerman guy…who is Hispanic, apparently…was named Gonzalez, easily visibly identifiable as a member of another racial minority or…Horrors!!…also black the hype would of necessity be much less. I’m not defending the dude, just sayin’…it’s only a hot “white kills black” story until the subtleties of the truth begin to leak out from the blanket of unanimous media condemnation under which the whole story now sits. This guy’s goose is pretty well cooked anyway if the reports of him being a paranoid, serial 911 abuser/wannabe cop prove to be true, but what happens if a reliable witness shows up and says something that is different than what we have been fed so far? What if there was more than one person having a beef with Zimmerman or the kid picked up a rock or a stick? What then?
What will happen with the media-enforced “justice system” under which we now live will most likely be that Zimmerman will get the shaft anyway. Remember when the media switched from its initial attack mode regarding Dominique Strauss-Kahn and instead leaned on the maid in that case? He walked is what happened, even though he had a long and quite public history of forced sexual encounters and indeed is still in the news for his quite obviously sex-addicted way of life. (Viagra-fuelled Strauss Kahn took part in Paris basement orgy: Brothel keeper) He popped one too many Viagras and couldn’t control himself when the maid came in. Betcha. But when money talks the press never walks and he got off. Money won’t talk for Zimmerman but there’s political mileage to be made from the killing and there’s also media money to be made so it’s off to the hype races we go and justice…one way or another, including Zimmerman’s likely assholiness…be damned.
Back off, brethren and sistren. Nothing is as true as the fact that whenever the media totally agrees with itself (Take the runup to the Iraq War as ample proof of that fact if you still need any.), whenever you see a media stampede in one direction the whole story should be taken with a grain…no, make that a gram or two…of salt.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
he’s hispanic much like Obama is white. His mother is Peruvian. While he appears somewhat hispanic, every witness report I’ve seen described him as white.
His defense will be that he had grass on his back and had a bloody nose and a cut on his head. From the sound of that, he may have sustained some blows before his discharged his gun. However, there are two diametrically opposed eyewitness accounts, and the police suppressed and changed the one they didn’t like.
they’re both half white.
These things aren’t determined by math. They’re determined by experience and socialization.
You think genetics is determined by socialization?
I think race isn’t determined by genetics.
That’s a massive, extremely problematic assumption on your part.
Your race is where you’re put, by others. It’s not an innate part of your biology.
Genetics have something to do with where other people put you, but not everything. If someone with Barack Obama’s skin tone and hair type and features walks out into the world, they are put into the category “black.”
Sorry to disturb your comfortable, inherited, unquestioned understandings, but the observation that race is a socially-constructed phenomenon is pretty much universally acknowledged among anthropologists and sociologists these days.
Uh, no. Joe is completely correct. When people say “race is a social construct,” they’re correct in this observation. However, the reason there are “genetic” differences between “races” just has to do with your lineage and, as he said, “where they put you.” Has nothing to do with your race. No one can take your DNA and say “He’s black.” All they can do is determine your lineage, which would imply you’re from Africa.
why can’t I look at certain genes that control melanin and correctly predict skin color? It works for eye-color. That might not tell me if someone is black or Indian, but it will tell me something about the color of the skin, hair, and eyes. Right?
Right.
The problem comes in equating physical characteristics with race. There are white people – people of Sicilian heritage, for example – who have darker skin and tighter curls in their hair than some black people in this country.
And then there are albinos. Does a kid with two African-American parents belong to a different race than his parents if he has a genetic abnormality?
The concept of “race” is like the concept of “neighborhood” in a city. We know that neighborhoods exist, and are meaningful. We know there is some connection between neighborhood and geography. When we’re looking at the core of a neighborhood, we can quite confidently say that we are in Boo Village and not Joetown. But at the boundaries, it gets messy. Where does one neighborhood end and the other begin? Are buildings across the street from each in different neighborhoods? If not, then we’re drawing a boundary at mid-block. Ultimately, neighborhoods are what people say they are, and that can change even if the buildings stay the same.
yeah, I agree. I just thought seabe was taking his point a bit too far.
Saying genetics has “nothing to do with” race goes too far. There are certainly genetic differences that can be found in the populations that are labeled races.
Where the social construction comes in is in deciding which genetic expressions are used to determine race. There is greater genetic diversity among African people than among everyone else in the world combined (which makes sense when you count how many generations human in Africa had for genetic differentiation to occur, vs. how many generations people have lived outside of Africa). Yet, none of those genetic differences is considered to create a racial difference, while people in Siberia and people in Nanavut are considered different races.
In my mind we were saying the same things. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. That’s why I rated your post a 4 🙂
You can’t tell race or ethnicity from DNA. Not to mention current tests rely on living populations…so there’s already some bias when they do check your lineage in the first place. All you can see is where your ancestors came from (which, as stated, is subject to biases as living populations of today aren’t the same as they were yesterday).
So ok, you might be able to tell skin color…but that doesn’t determine your “race” because there are different things making up that skin color or how it came to be. “Shared environmental exposures” to quote.
Race is a social construction around genetics.
I have to ask, Ed…so what?
Really.
What if one of ’em was an octoroon?
What if one could prove his bloodline back to 13th century England?
What the fuck difference does it make…should make, to be more precise…that someone (shooter, shootee, Preznit, whoever) has a different genetic heritage than someone else?
I quote Ron Paul on this topic over and over and over and over again. He nails it. Here it is:
“The obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”
This is language that belongs in the Constitution of the United States of America.
If the kid who was shot was an innocent white kid, Asian kid, black kid or any of the other (currently) 7 billion other genetic combinations now roaming the earth in human guise and/or if the shooter was also one of those 7 billion…a foregone conclusion by the numbers…so what?
Who did what, when? End of story.
That’s the way it’s s’pose to work, anyway.
Too bad it doesn’t, eh?
Later…
AG
That you feel the need to say this to the person complaining about racism, as opposed to the people who demonstrated it – one with his gun, the other with his badge – wraps up your problems with this issue quite nicely.
The widespread assumptions that someone:
A-Performed a certain action with no proof save what the media tell us happened.
and
B-Did so because of “racist” beliefs.
Are my only problems with this issue, Joe.
I am well aware of the racist, white superiority-based attitudes inherent in American society, not least because I am a person of European ancestry who has worked for over 40 years in musical idioms that were primarily founded by people of mostly African anscestry. As a result I see our society at least as much from the point of view of African-Americans and South/Central/Caribbean-Americans as I do from the point of view of European-Americans. I pretty much live in the non-white portions of this country’s society, both in my work environment and in my living environment as well. By choice.
You say “the people who demonstrated [racism] – one with his gun, the other with his badge.”
I say “prove this before going off the handle about it.”
And I also say that nothing so heavily hyped by the media of this country can be trusted.
It makes no difference whether it is something that one might personally consider a “good” thing…like opposition to racially-based violence…or something with which one might have disagreements, like say our foreign affairs positions in the Muslim world or the near-sainthood of Barack Obama. If most of the media suddenly comes down on one side of something…watch out. Disinfo/misinfo is usually involved, on the evidence of almost everything that I have seen in this country since the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
This instance is no different.
A “rush to justice” by the media is almost always hype-based, not justice based.
The fact that you are so sure that this quasi-cop guy and the police who did the investigation are running a racist game is proof of what I am saying. You simply do not have the facts. All you really have so far is that a black teenager was shot dead by someone named Zimmerman…who turns out to be Hispanic instead of “Zimmerman-like” white and who also apparently did a lot of community work with kids of color… who was on neighborhood civilian patrol when whatever went down happened and was not held on criminal charges during the initial investigation. Is racism a probable assumption here? I dunno myself, because I do not know the neighborhood. Is it a probable assumption because it happened in Florida? Again…the south is different now than it used to be, just as are New York City, Topeka and everywhere else in the U.S. I simply do not know what happened, and neither do you. Did Zimmerman get his ass kicked? I don’t know. Did he deserve to get his ass kicked? I don’t know that either, any more than I know how Trayvon Martin acted. Are black males generally unjustly considered to be objects of suspicion on the streets of the U.S.? Yes. And whose fault is that, really? The fault of the media that promulgate such attitudes at great profit for themselves. The same media that are now howling for Zimmerman’s hide without any concrete knowledge of what happened. And also the fault of the economic system in this country that requires a low-pay working class and uses skin color as a convenient marker for what is essentially a caste system.
Is the U.S. a racially-charged country? Nationwide? You bet.
Is there any excuse for that fact?
None whatsoever. As Ron Paul stated, “The obsession with racial group identity is “inherently racist,” and that obsession is stoked on a daily basis by the media both in its news in its entertainment functions. This over-reaction is simply a result of that continuing obsession, and the whole story is being used by the media to further amplify that obsession.
This whole thing reeks of hype. It is being used by the media because it will sell media time, and the end result will simply be more racist bullshit in the country. From all races.
I once again repeat Ron Paul’s statement.
Just in case it didn’t sink in.
Stop hammering on “race” and start concentrating on blind justice. Do so and things will get better.
Until then?
Same old same old.
So it goes.
Just as it has always gone here.
Down like a motherfucker.
Later…
AG
And the media “suppress and change” whatever it is that they do not like.
Why “the police”…a single cop, a group of cops, a supervisor, the chief, the mayor, whomever… would not like one account but like another? Who knows? Race? Which race, and which way? They know Zimmerman as an ally? One account makes sense and the other is full of holes? Sheer incompetence? Because it appears to be true? (Gasp!)
But why “the media” would support one side over another is more plain to see.
Supporting one side either:
———————-
1-Sells more media
2-Curries favor with those in charge
or…JACKPOT!!!
3-Both of the above.
———————-
So I say again…
Stand down until the media finds another subject to push and then you might be able to get a clearer view of where things really stand.
Until then?
Bullshit rules.
Bet on it.
Whatever promises the most rewards is what will be favorably covered.
Bet on that as well.
AG
Arthus — good point. I’m also reserving judgment as to Zimmerman’s degree of guilt, if any, until both sides can tell their story without all the media hyperventilation going on now.
Newt can go pound sand.
Didn’t have to read any further “Here’s what Newt said” to know he would go full metal Nathan Bedford Forrest.
That’s what he does.
That’s ALL he does.
The only good thing about the bile he repeatedly spews, and the affirmative response from his fellow travelers, is that the distinctions between him and President Obama couldn’t be made more clearly. You could start with the fact that it took POTUS making a statement in the first place for Newt and the rest of the Chipmunk Brigade running for the GOP nod decided the issue was worth speaking to AT ALL. These men are at their core nothing more than cowards, grifters and hypocrites, and in a SANE country they’d be nothing more than fourth-rate ranters on public access TV.
On November 7, 2012, they will collectively be able to take their verbal sewage, their character assassination, their countertop checks, their phony chryons, their “let’s you and him fight” mentality, and their absolute naked viscreal irrational HATRED for anything not white, male, straight, and “Christian” – and shove it right up their asses as they deal with the fact that it will be PRESIDENT Obama for four more years.
I’m starting to get seriously pissed off.
Sick.
Starting? You must not know these people…
this is who they are.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Such a stark, simple truth the President spoke. We have a black President — but young black men still must be raised to learn how to avoid the attention of, as Charlie Pierce put it, “some trigger-happy, half-mad wannabe.”
Pierce puts a voice to the flip side of the President’s simple truth: that his (Pierce’s) son couldn’t have been gunned the way Trayvon Martin was, because his son is white.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/trayvon-martin-news-7552519
If this Zimmerman guy was the Neighborhood Watch captain, why didn’t he know who lived in the gated community? Was he completely clueless that a black family lived there?
So he had grass on his back and a bloody nose? If he had heeded the advice of the 911 dispatch, none of this would have happened.
He wasn’t actually a Neighborhood Watch captain, every news report I read label him a self-described captain. That says to me that he liked to call himself captain but either there wasn’t any such position or he actually wasn’t the captain at all.
I have heard Zimmerman referred to in some news reports as a “security guard”. I think self-appointed vigilante is probably more accurate.
well, after he murdered the child he probably rolled on the grass to make grass stains, etc
One little fact. The murder happened on February 28.
What has taken the DOJ and the President so damn long to catch on?
A few days, even a couple of weeks, for the local prosecutor to bring charges in a case isn’t something that rises to the level of a Presidential statement.
The prosecutor is reluctant to bring a case he likely can’t win because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. Did no one in DOJ see this coming with the proliferation of the ALEC-written NRA-endorsed Stand Your Ground laws? What is it, 35 states, have these laws now.
Are Holder and Obama so out of touch that they can’t see how Jim Crow is being re-institutionalized in this country? Can they not see the protests going on across this country about police malfeasance in cases involving race?
I’ve read 20 states, but that may be 20 outside FL. what is ALEC ‘s interest in these laws? I know they want to turn the usa into Mexico but I didn’t realize they wanted this aspect of Mexico as well
NRA and ALEC are not-so-strange bedfellows:
On Google ~ NRA ALEC.
The prosecutor is reluctant to bring a case he likely can’t win because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
You mean the one who has been replaced?
Would you care to make a bet about whether the new prosecutor brings charged, and secures a conviction?
The local cops and prosecutors screwed up. The law, as bad as it is, was wrongly applied. You’re letting them off the hook so you can find a way to blame the administration.
Round 2. It’s not a presidential statement that is needed, it’s a private phone call to the parents. And it’s expedited action by DOJ not just with regard to this case but to the rash of Stand Your Ground laws that are essentially declaring open season on minorities and other folks that people might just not like.
It’s not a presidential statement that is needed, it’s a private phone call to the parents.
Excuse me, sir, are these your goal posts?
expedited action by DOJ
That’s an impressive little piece of verbiage. Care to spell out what it means? Pray tell, what exactly is the DoJ supposed to do about state laws that define self-defense more broadly than the United States Attorney General finds appropriate? Show your work, and be specific.
I would guess that the DoJ doesn’t get involved in every murder case in the country. The fact that the local authorities screwed it up so bad or purposefully were covering up what happened drew the DoJ in and in due course the President.
This is not “every murder case in the country”. The circumstances were reported early on, but it has taken extraordinary efforts by Trayvon Martin’s parents to get the circumstances of this recognized by the media–who still do not get it.
And let’s not talk about how the wingnuts are framing it.
how long before his parents located Trayvon? that’s so heartbreaking.
It is the visibility and not the nature of the case that has caused the President to go public about it, ditto the DOJ.
Exactly. And that sort of putting politics ahead of action is why some folks are angry at the President.
It is now likely that Zimmerman is now a flight risk.
You still can’t define any “action” you want taken. The entirety of your complaints amount to the President taking too long to perform an act of political symbolism.
Maybe the reinstitutionalization of Jim Crow practices is not a problem in Lowell, but it is getting to be a big problem in the South.
Your defense of the administration is laudable, given the sorts of attacks that the President has faced.
But tolerance by folks outside of states that are passing laws to turn back the clock and inaction by the Department of Justice are exactly why fundamental racism in this country never gets dealt with. There are actions that the Department of Justice can take relative to police departments that do not believe in equal justice under the law. And with states that support that inequality.
DOJ does have the FBI at its disposal. They can be dispatched to deal with extraordinary circumstances and have been in the past, and against the wishes of a state governor.