Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Martin, Zimmerman and Executive branch commentary...

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Martin, Zimmerman and Executive branch commentary...

    Disclaimer: I did not vote for Mr. Obama either of the times I had a chance to. I am not a fan of most of his policies and I acknowledge the potential for bias in my view because of this...

    The way I see the Martin / Zimmerman case is that both parties had multiple chances to avoid a fatal encounter and BOTH probably disregarded those opportunities. Why? Was it race? Maybe. Was it good old fashion male machismo? More likely. Was it a wanna be cop / Lone ranger runs up against a tough attitude, take no crap teenager? Most likely. Probably that third one with some life experience racial assumptions from both parties as icing on the top of the powder keg. Do I think Zimmerman is innocent, heck no. Do I think given the facts as they are known and the charge(s) the prosecution went with there was any other ruling than not guilty because the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope, not a chance. Do I think both men (yes Martin was a man in the physical sense) moved towards a confrontation instead of away from one? Yup... problem was, one of them was bringing a snack to a gun fight and had no way of knowing it at the time.

    Do I think the president overreached BIG TIME in choosing to pontificate on this trial (now multiple times) using his position and office as a bully pulpit? Absolutely! I sincerely believe Mr. Obama was / is doing what he thinks to be in the best interest of the nation when he made these comments. However, it troubles me greatly that he chooses to continue to tear at any type of a scab that might even begin to cover such a wound in the national psyche.

    I find it curious that pretrial, Obama made a public statement that Martin "could have been my son". Really? Why? Because he was black? To look at photos of Martin and of Obama, that is really the ONLY thing they have in common, skin color! Their facial features and bone structure are not similar at all. I understand that it might make him think of his own children, but thats not what Obama stated.... he stated, "could have been my son". How is this not a racially biased comment? Not a, "Well, I know this looks really bad and I'm not sure why the investigation is taking so long, but I trust in the local / state authorities to get it right down in Florida, let's give the law time to figure this out." Nope. "Could have been my son". There is evidence that the Community Relations Services unit of the DOJ (Eric Holder's baby) was deployed to Sanford in March '12, well before Zimmerman was arrested and charged with any crime to SUPPORT the protests of inaction. The CRS has been lauded in the local media by protester organizers via Sentinel: "On April 15, 2012, during the height of the protests, the Orlando Sentinelreported, “They [the CRS] helped set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee according to Turner Clayton, Seminole County chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.” The paper quoted the Rev. Valarie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church, a focal point for protestors, as saying “They were there for us,” after a March 20 meeting with CRS agents."

    Now, after the verdict, Obama has doubled down on his claim stating, "
    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." OK, I get that he can identify with Martin.

    As a white man, I have not be subject to the harrasment, the assumptions, the second guessing that men (or all people of a minority group) have or will probably face at some point, or even continously, throughout their life. I agree that there is a "black man's code" to a certain degree and that maybe I go through life with a "white priveledge" of an assumption of innocence others are not afforded all the time. I've seen that happen, I do not dispute that it exists.

    However, I find it troubling that Obama states, "Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do." I agree that violence is NOT the way to honor Martin, but what about the idea that our justice system has spoken? What about the idea that a violent protest, or calls for violence against the accused and acquitted is in fact breaking the law and should be just as open to investigation and prosecution as the incident that set this whole thing in motion? Nope, no mention of that. No mention that we are a country of laws and a legal system that the masses may not agree with, but we stand by it, none the less.

    Obama goes on to outline THREE things he thinks we as a nation can take away from this tragedy: 1) "Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists." - Read this as: I think the feds need to come in and tell the state / local jurisdictions how to do their jobs! More federal oversight... a new department for big brother to watch over what has historically been a states level judiciary.

    Next, Obama states, "
    Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations. I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case." This is an attack on the "stand your ground" law that wasn't even USED as part of the defense in the case !!! Now, does Zimmerman get out of his car if he's not carrying a gun? Maybe, maybe not. Is he more brazen in his approach because he KNOWS he has the fallback of a firearm if he needs it? Yes, probably. But did the defense use that law in their case? Nope. Yet, just like after Sandy Hook, Obama (and Holder) have both commented publicly about the need to revisit a law that has NO BEARING on the issue at hand!!! Post Sandy Hook, we need background checks and magazine round limits.... but the guns used at Sandy Hook were legally obtained and the shooter reloaded at least two times that we know of.... not to matter, we need to change SOMETHING!!! Same thing here, Zimmerman didn't invoke "stand your ground", but we'd better look at changing it anyways....

    Finally, "
    Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?" Not, How do we bolster and reinforce our youth in general, or all young men so that they find other means to resolve their differences instead of violence. Nope, just the African American boys. Now again, I am not, nor have a ever been a black child or a black teenager in America. I understand that there is prejudice and because of this prejudice children of this ethic group (and children of other minorities) face a harder time than suburban white kids probably do. I just find it curious that Obama, our president... not just the president to the African American boys... finds it appropriate to single out that one ethnic, gender specific subset of our population as needing "bolster and reinforcement". Seems to me we should bolster and reinforce our half-white / half-hispanic boys so that they don't feel the need to run around and play vigilante when they grow up? That would have probably done Martin some good.

    My point is, we all see the world via our own lens. That lens is tainted by life experience, including racial bias. I can't help it, you can't help it, Obama can't help it. The discussions / solutions / healing on this issue are going to come from folks sitting down and talking with each other. Its gonna happen in churches and on front porches and in the classroom debate. Mr. Obama missed a big chance, IMHO. I know what he was trying to accomplish, but it was tainted by his own bias and more so by his own agenda. Mr. President - you could have just asked for prayers for all concerned, for dialogue with your communities, and for peace. Maybe asked folks to set out of their comfort zone and interact in a positive manner with someone they would normally hold suspect. That would go a long way towards healing.



  • #2
    For the POTUS to comment on a local criminal case which is still being discussed for potential prosecution at the Federal level was grossly inappropriate. The arrogance and stupidity of this White House never ceases to amaze me. He is clearly pandering to the Democrat party voting base...again. Everyone involved in the case, including the Martin family attorney and Trayvon's mother has said it was not racially motivated. Accept the verdict and move on. Meanwhile, not a word is said about the hundreds of black lives lost to violence every day in cities like Chicago, Detroit, etc.

    Comment


    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      Please, Papadaddy, tell us about the causes of and solutions to all that loss of life.

  • #3
    According to the Constitution, the Executive Branch is to carry out the laws, not comment on them. The comments come with the Legislative Branch that are in theory supposed to discuss all sides of an issue and then by vote legislate. If the law is unConstitutional, then the Judicial Branch makes a ruling. It's called checks and balances, something our present day government doesn't seem to either understand or care about.

    Comment


    • #4
      Everyone involved in this case--prosecutor, defense, family--attested that this case had nothing to do with race. The FBI investigated and found nothing to do with race. Yet the race industry has seized on this moment to claim it was a racially profiled incident.

      In his address, Obama had the opportunity to speak to this, to offer words of healing and soothe a nation. Instead he chose to double-down on the race card and, unbelievably, insert himself personally into the situation. It was narcissistic, arrogant, and wholly inappropriate for a president. But sadly typical of this regime.

      Comment


      • #5
        Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
        According to the Constitution, the Executive Branch is to carry out the laws, not comment on them.
        So you think the Constitution means that the President is not supposed to talk?

        Comment


        • packsaddle
          packsaddle commented
          Editing a comment
          Do you think that Krauthammer is one of his left wing cronies?

        • NJCubScouter
          NJCubScouter commented
          Editing a comment
          Jblake: I understand that you don't like what President Obama says and does. What I was questioning was your implication that he isn't allowed to talk at all.

        • jblake47
          jblake47 commented
          Editing a comment
          Sometimes it is best to remain silent and thought a fool, instead of opening one's mouth and removing all doubt.

          That phrase has been around a long time. Some people have learned from it, others haven't.

      • #6
        POTUS is free to comment on anything he likes, But he has a responsibility to act like a leader, not a divider. Obama is incapable of fathoming in his mind any solution that does not involve the government, our nanny. This latest is just typical of his presidency.

        Comment


        • #7
          Kahuna, I couldn't disagree more with your comments and I was not disturbed at all by Obama's comments. He did not imply that the police, jury, defense, prosecutor or judge did anything wrong in this case. I think what his statement may have done is tamp down some of the self-righteous "100 city protest" of the case and put out a call to keep all demonstrations non-violent. I appreciate that. He reminded folks who may have forgotten what the typical black American male youth experience in this country. I think he was also trying to set expectations that the federal government, in all probability won't really do anything in this case. Yes, they will examine what happened but I believe he is setting expectations that don't hold your breath waiting for the federal courts to bring up charges.

          Comment


          • #8
            acco40, I realize many people agree with you and, in part, you are correct because he did call for calm. However, I feel his comments about race from his own perspective should have been saved for his memoirs. He is, after all, president of all the people. The implications of what he said are that this is a racist nation (with a black president and a black AG) and that government can help us find a solution. I just think that is divisive. It plays to the race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton whose job is to ensure we continue to be divided as a people by convincing people of color that they are victims.

            Comment


            • #9
              Krauthammer just published a fair opinion on this topic. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...424_story.html

              Comment


              • #10
                I dream of an America where the President represents ALL Americans and not just the ones who look like him.

                Comment


                • King Ding Dong
                  King Ding Dong commented
                  Editing a comment
                  George Bush sure didn't represent me.

                  Can you name a President in the last 50 years who represented ALL Americans ? I just don't think it is possible.

                • SR540Beaver
                  SR540Beaver commented
                  Editing a comment
                  You may not have liked GWB's politics. At times, I didn't either. But there is no question that he didn't share equal concern for every citizen of the US. Obama has decided to speak out about a local case that is only a national story because the race mongers like Sharpton and Jackson along with a complicit media fabricated an issue where none existed. Obama chose to point a finger at whites being racist against blacks. Obama chose to emphasize that blacks have a history and experience that they view today's world thru and ignore all of the progress that has happened. After all, he is black and President of the US. Obama chose to ask what we can do to make things better for young black men? His comments were pointed at white Americans. He chose at that moment to represent a single segment of society and chastise the rest. Agree with him or not, Bush represented the interests of every American. Obama chose a different path with this speech. It's a path that any color POTUS should never travel. He chose to speak to a self defense case already decided ina court of law and make it a race issue when it wasn't.
                  Last edited by SR540Beaver; 07-24-2013, 02:30 PM.

              • #11
                Yeah Packsaddle, a pretty decent article regarding the issue. However, the author fails to mention ANYTHING about Mr. Obama's follow on comments, comparing Trayvon to himself 35 years ago and the " we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys". That statement to me is openly biased and tiptoes upon being racist.

                Comment


                • jblake47
                  jblake47 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  It's only racist if it applies to "the other guys", ya, know, the guys with the "different colored skin", "those that don't look like us".

                  Racism is a two way street. Traffic travels both ways. Certain racists haven't figured that out and thus they don't think themselves the horrible despicable people they are pointing out.

                  The only true non-racist is the guy who forgets to mention any differences. I have always used the rule-of-thumb, if someone mentions race first, they are most often the racist, kinda like the Godwin's Law.

              • #12
                Originally posted by DeanRx View Post
                The way I see the Martin / Zimmerman case is that both parties had multiple chances to avoid a fatal encounter and BOTH probably disregarded those opportunities. Why? Was it race? Maybe. Was it good old fashion male machismo? More likely. Was it a wanna be cop / Lone ranger runs up against a tough attitude, take no crap teenager? Most likely. Probably that third one with some life experience racial assumptions from both parties as icing on the top of the powder keg. Do I think Zimmerman is innocent, heck no. Do I think given the facts as they are known and the charge(s) the prosecution went with there was any other ruling than not guilty because the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope, not a chance. Do I think both men (yes Martin was a man in the physical sense) moved towards a confrontation instead of away from one? Yup... problem was, one of them was bringing a snack to a gun fight and had no way of knowing it at the time.
                You know, there's another perspective as well. Perhaps George Zimmerman was a homeowner that volunteered in his community. A community that had suffered a rash of robberies in the weeks/months leading up to this incident. You said Martin 'brought a snack to a gunfight'. Really? How about the MMA style fighting that he brought to a fight? Had Zimmerman not had that gun he'd be dead instead of Martin. What do you think the likely outcome if Martin had tried that beat down on a cop? Seems pretty clear that Martin was headed for prison or an early grave regardless.

                As far as I'm concerned - and surprising as all get out - the jury arrived at a just verdict.

                It's all over and done with, yet I'd bet many hadn't heard any of this: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...able-violence/. It's on the internet - it MUST be true. lol.

                And, getting back on subject, I'll give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and believe his comments were intended to slow the racial fires that were brewing.

                Comment


                • #13
                  It IS over. Zimmerman got away with it. Why are you still trying to justify something that you acknowledge is "done with"?

                  Comment


                  • #14
                    Why are you throwing rocks at the hornet's nest by posting anything on the subject and in particular "got away with it" versus "was found not guilty?"

                    Mr. Pot I'd like to introduce you to Mrs. Kettle...

                    Comment


                    • #15
                      The last post on this topic was on 24 July before Danbrew decided to start it up again on 9 August....and I'm the one throwing rocks at a hornet's nest?

                      OK, if that's the level of judgment you exercise, so be it.

                      Zimmerman did get away with it. I don't know how anyone could interpret that 'found not guilty' verdict any other way. He killed an unarmed person. He claimed self defense and didn't receive any punishment. Seems clear enough. If you think this is stirring something up, think of it instead in these terms....I'm delighted that this precedent opens an opportunity for me that I didn't realize I had before Zimmerman clarified things.

                      This fall, when that guy who does this every fall trespasses on my property hunting something or other, I can at last confront him while carrying my concealed weapon so he won't know what's about to happen. Then I can surprise him and blow him away, and then claim self defense and get away with it. It will be even clearer in my case because he will actually be armed and dangerous.

                      And afterwards, I expect the same level of excuse for me that some of us have applied to Zimmerman. It's only fair.

                      Comment


                      • packsaddle
                        packsaddle commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Heh, heh, no...I intend to be the one still standing. The machete would violate one, maybe two, of my personal rules of conduct.

                      • Oldscout448
                        Oldscout448 commented
                        Editing a comment
                        If your nose is broken and the back of your head is bleeding from apparent slamming on a sidewalk ( or a rock ) then yes I will give your claim of self defense the fairest hearing I can muster.

                      • King Ding Dong
                        King Ding Dong commented
                        Editing a comment
                        I think I have enough experience with self-abuse for the job.
                    Working...
                    X