Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sums it up pretty well...

Barack Obama saying perfectly reasonable things about race turns out to be an excellent ####### detector.
— @jamisonfoser

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

How about just walk the extra bit and get into the house?

Why would you teach your kids to confront strangers that are following them???? Doesnt that contradict every way you have been defending Martin? How do they know for sure they are being followed? Wouldnt that be acting paranoid and being suspicious of people?

I've not been defending Martin. I've said multiple times he made a mistake by not going home just prior to the incident. But as I've been thinking, I can't shake the "why should have to run or flee if he weren't doing anything wrong?" type of thoughts. Perhaps for kids the answer is simple as others have suggested. Tell them to flee and error on the side of caution even if it's someone else causing the problem. There's something unjust about that in my mind though. If it's two kids and one is following the other, I wouldn't have a problem with either of my kids to try and resolve it. If it's two adults, I'd expect them to try and resolve it. This being scared of anyone/anything you don't know doesn't seem to be a way to go through life.

 

[D_House]

I think the remarks struck the right tone, no problem with him using his pulpit for discussing a case that has 24h national news coverage, tempers flaring, and a 10,000 page thread in the FFA

 

[The Commish]

I'm asking the question. Right now I don't know what my answer is so I don't know if it would change for a girl. I can't really look at either of my kids and tell them they should run and/or hide if they were doing nothing wrong. I'm not sure that's the proper message to send our kids. Telling them that would be asking them to apologize for or relinquish (to some degree) their civil right wouldn't it?

It sounds like you are going to tell your kids to do exactly what Martin did. Maybe not throw the first punch but instead to go ask the "follower" why they are following and if certain things happen, to attack or defend against the "follower." Given that scenario, from your words, their civil right is to intentionally or unintentionally harm someone for "following" them.

Makes no sense what you are saying. Teach your kids, even teenagers, Stranger Danger, and call the proper authorities. Fighting is never the answer... or maybe, for some it is.

Yeah, I think for now, the lesson is make notice and call the cops immediately and have them come to the scene. Running can get them in trouble as easily as engaging them. It doesn't take much for some to assume you're doing something wrong. We've seen many times how running is construed as "cause for concern", so I guess the lesson here is to call the authorities and continue as you are until the police get there.

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

This isn't a stand your ground issue.

Color me confused, what FL laws are you saying are screwed up?

Well, for me, the fact that "aggressor" can change in FL is baffling to me. So the self defense laws in general I suppose. In FL it doesn't matter who starts it. I don't think that's right. Based on juror comments, Zimmerman would have been in big trouble in other states like mine.

 

[jon_mx]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

This isn't a stand your ground issue.

Color me confused, what FL laws are you saying are screwed up?

Well, for me, the fact that "aggressor" can change in FL is baffling to me. So the self defense laws in general I suppose. In FL it doesn't matter who starts it. I don't think that's right. Based on juror comments, Zimmerman would have been in big trouble in other states like mine.

Except the chances that Zimmerman started the fight are south of 1 percent, but throw logic and facts out the window and believe whatever bull#### you want to because we all know how ducking unbiased you are.

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

This isn't a stand your ground issue.

Color me confused, what FL laws are you saying are screwed up?

Well, for me, the fact that "aggressor" can change in FL is baffling to me. So the self defense laws in general I suppose. In FL it doesn't matter who starts it. I don't think that's right. Based on juror comments, Zimmerman would have been in big trouble in other states like mine.

Except the chances that Zimmerman started the fight are south of 1 percent, but throw logic and facts out the window and believe whatever bull#### you want to because we all know how ducking unbiased you are.

In my state, it doesn't matter who started the fight. All the events are taken into consideration. In Florida it didn't matter who started the fight, so I'm not even sure why you lashed out with your nonsense. I just hope you didn't hurt yourself

 

[timschochet]

and the worst part is that this might be the impetus to bring Tim back into this thread.

 

[Zow]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

This isn't a stand your ground issue.

You're essentially making it one.

The self defense laws at issue in Zimmerman were/are pretty close to the general self defense justification laws across the country.

 

[Zow]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

This isn't a stand your ground issue.

Color me confused, what FL laws are you saying are screwed up?

Well, for me, the fact that "aggressor" can change in FL is baffling to me. So the self defense laws in general I suppose. In FL it doesn't matter who starts it. I don't think that's right. Based on juror comments, Zimmerman would have been in big trouble in other states like mine.

That's pretty common and is consistent with the proportionately element of self defense.

 

[Christo]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

This isn't a stand your ground issue.

Color me confused, what FL laws are you saying are screwed up?

Well, for me, the fact that "aggressor" can change in FL is baffling to me. So the self defense laws in general I suppose. In FL it doesn't matter who starts it. I don't think that's right. Based on juror comments, Zimmerman would have been in big trouble in other states like mine.

Except the chances that Zimmerman started the fight are south of 1 percent, but throw logic and facts out the window and believe whatever bull#### you want to because we all know how ducking unbiased you are.

In my state, it doesn't matter who started the fight. All the events are taken into consideration. In Florida it didn't matter who started the fight, so I'm not even sure why you lashed out with your nonsense. I just hope you didn't hurt yourself

Of course it does.

 

[The Commish]

That's pretty common and is consistent with the proportionately element of self defense.

Can you expand on this. From what I've been reading, it doesn't seem to be true. Had read of cases even in your state of AZ where self defense could not be used because the person claiming such was the initial aggressor in the whole thing. Same applied in MA and in my state of SC, there's not been a single case where the defendant could claim self defense when they were the initial aggressor triggering the events. From what I gather there are pretrial hearings or some such that determine what they can/can't claim??

 

[timschochet]

Excellent speech by Obama. Politically, he had to make a speech on this, and I'm surprised most of you haven't discussed why. It's because he's been under enormous pressure from the leadership of the African-American community (among others, Sharpton and Jealous of the NAACP) to bring federal charges against George Zimmerman. That would be a huge political disaster. Worse, it would fail, because there's simply no way to prove that Zimmerman acted with racist intent. So this speech is a means to shut up Obama's critics among more progressive types and African-Americans, who have always felt, long before this case, that Obama shirked from discussing racial matters. He discusses them here; there will be no federal charges, now he hopes the story will fade away.

Moving on, not sure what offends or angers so many of you about the speech. Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%. He implies that African-American youths are treated differently by our system of justice, and of course that's obvious to anyone who looks at the question fairly. He states that history informs how different people view the same event, and we all know that's true. I don't see anything inflammatory here.

 

[The Commish]

Of course it does

I should say it better than I did. I set myself up for being Christo'd

 

[parasaurolophus]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

How about just walk the extra bit and get into the house?

Why would you teach your kids to confront strangers that are following them???? Doesnt that contradict every way you have been defending Martin? How do they know for sure they are being followed? Wouldnt that be acting paranoid and being suspicious of people?

I've not been defending Martin. I've said multiple times he made a mistake by not going home just prior to the incident. But as I've been thinking, I can't shake the "why should have to run or flee if he weren't doing anything wrong?" type of thoughts. Perhaps for kids the answer is simple as others have suggested. Tell them to flee and error on the side of caution even if it's someone else causing the problem. There's something unjust about that in my mind though. If it's two kids and one is following the other, I wouldn't have a problem with either of my kids to try and resolve it. If it's two adults, I'd expect them to try and resolve it. This being scared of anyone/anything you don't know doesn't seem to be a way to go through life.

Even if you support your kids confronting a stranger they think is following them it still doesnt explain why you arent willing to teach them that getting into fights is pretty dumb.

 

[timschochet]

Throughout his public life, Obama has spoken about race very rarely. There was a major speech after he was forced to disassociate himself with his former Reverend. There was the speech made after the Henry Gates affair. And now there is this speech.

Each of these has been among his best speeches, IMO. He gets to the heart of the matter.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%.

Well then you're both wrong. There is zero evidence that what happened was any result of race, unless you want to blame Martin for being racist against the creepy *** crackah.

 

[Christo]

Throughout his public life, Obama has spoken about race very rarely. There was a major speech after he was forced to disassociate himself with his former Reverend. There was the speech made after the Henry Gates affair. And now there is this speech.

Each of these has been among his best speeches, IMO. He gets to the heart of the matter.

IMO, he completely disregarded the heart of the matter.

 

[Zow]

That's pretty common and is consistent with the proportionately element of self defense.

Can you expand on this. From what I've been reading, it doesn't seem to be true. Had read of cases even in your state of AZ where self defense could not be used because the person claiming such was the initial aggressor in the whole thing. Same applied in MA and in my state of SC, there's not been a single case where the defendant could claim self defense when they were the initial aggressor triggering the events. From what I gather there are pretrial hearings or some such that determine what they can/can't claim??

Yep, there would be. In AZ the defense must notify the court and the state in a certain timeframe if they want to claim self defense.

I'm wrapped up at the moment, but I'll get to the self defense issues later if I can. It's nuanced.

 

[timschochet]

Throughout his public life, Obama has spoken about race very rarely. There was a major speech after he was forced to disassociate himself with his former Reverend. There was the speech made after the Henry Gates affair. And now there is this speech.

Each of these has been among his best speeches, IMO. He gets to the heart of the matter.

IMO, he completely disregarded the heart of the matter.

That doesn't match your previous comment. Even though you were apparently critical of Obama (and African-Americans in general) for allowing history to inform their opinions, you acknowledged that the history exists. Without that history, this would not be a big news story, and THAT is the heart of this matter.

 

[Rayderr]

Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:33 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense 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.

Call me crazy, but addressing the bold seems to be a good way to go.

 

[timschochet]

Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%.

Well then you're both wrong. There is zero evidence that what happened was any result of race, unless you want to blame Martin for being racist against the creepy *** crackah.

I know you believe that. We've debated it here in great detail, and there's no point in having the debate again.

But what's important is that the majority of people who are very upset by the verdict strongly disagree with you on this. It is those people that Obama was mainly addressing.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:33 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that theyre disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. Its not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes thats unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that theres no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense 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.

Call me crazy, but addressing the bold seems to be a good way to go.

He is a liberal. He needs to focus on how other people have caused the problem, not the individual. It is in the handbook.

 

[Joe McGee]

Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%.

Well then you're both wrong. There is zero evidence that what happened was any result of race, unless you want to blame Martin for being racist against the creepy *** crackah.

I know you believe that. We've debated it here in great detail, and there's no point in having the debate again.

But what's important is that the majority of people who are very upset by the verdict strongly disagree with you on this. It is those people that Obama was mainly addressing.

So Trayvon Martin was definitely a racist. There is zero evidence to prove George Zimmerman is a racist and even if he was that would make them both racists.

Explain to me again how this case is about race? You're ignoring the facts right in front of your face.

Or are you one of those blind nutbags that thinks black people can't be racists?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%.

Well then you're both wrong. There is zero evidence that what happened was any result of race, unless you want to blame Martin for being racist against the creepy *** crackah.

I know you believe that. We've debated it here in great detail, and there's no point in having the debate again.

But what's important is that the majority of people who are very upset by the verdict strongly disagree with you on this. It is those people that Obama was mainly addressing.

You mean the choir? Great, thanks. You've managed to convert the converted once again, Mr. President. Now how about tackling the real issue instead of pandering?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%.

Well then you're both wrong. There is zero evidence that what happened was any result of race, unless you want to blame Martin for being racist against the creepy *** crackah.

I know you believe that. We've debated it here in great detail, and there's no point in having the debate again.

But what's important is that the majority of people who are very upset by the verdict strongly disagree with you on this. It is those people that Obama was mainly addressing.

So Trayvon Martin was definitely a racist. There is zero evidence to prove George Zimmerman is a racist and even if he was that would make them both racists.

Explain to me again how this case is about race? You're ignoring the facts right in front of your face.

Or are you one of those blind nutbags that thinks black can't people can't be racists?

uhmm....yeah...he's a nutbag. He's got a TREMENDOUS amount of white guilt going on. Him and several other posters in here.

 

[jamny]

I really have no problem with Obama commenting on it if it was something he was consistantly doing during his Presidency. I think the black community needs a real leader and unfortunately they only have the Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of this world. But Obama has not been that person unless it suits his popularity ranking and this is just another example. I would rather have a black man as President who regularly looks at things from the black perspective than a typical naive politician who sees an "in" with the community as a way to boost his cred. Say what you want about George W Bush, but he spoke from the heart and generally said what he felt right away. Obama's reactions are all planned towards a specific agenda. So phony. What a freakin salesman.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Wait, Obama used to beat up innocent Mexican people 35 years ago?

 

[shader]

Excellent speech by Obama. Politically, he had to make a speech on this, and I'm surprised most of you haven't discussed why. It's because he's been under enormous pressure from the leadership of the African-American community (among others, Sharpton and Jealous of the NAACP) to bring federal charges against George Zimmerman. That would be a huge political disaster. Worse, it would fail, because there's simply no way to prove that Zimmerman acted with racist intent. So this speech is a means to shut up Obama's critics among more progressive types and African-Americans, who have always felt, long before this case, that Obama shirked from discussing racial matters. He discusses them here; there will be no federal charges, now he hopes the story will fade away.

Moving on, not sure what offends or angers so many of you about the speech. Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%. He implies that African-American youths are treated differently by our system of justice, and of course that's obvious to anyone who looks at the question fairly. He states that history informs how different people view the same event, and we all know that's true. I don't see anything inflammatory here.

I haven't followed the case. I think it's absurd the amount of coverage one Hispanic person killing one African-American is getting. Especially when you consider the number of killings throughout the country being committed by people of all races to people of all races. But it was a good speech. I'm sure it's hard for African-American young men who want to do what's right and be peaceful, and I'm sure it's a tough thing to be treated like a criminal even when you aren't. The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans. It's a tough thing to fix.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%.

Well then you're both wrong. There is zero evidence that what happened was any result of race, unless you want to blame Martin for being racist against the creepy *** crackah.

I know you believe that. We've debated it here in great detail, and there's no point in having the debate again.But what's important is that the majority of people who are very upset by the verdict strongly disagree with you on this. It is those people that Obama was mainly addressing.

You mean the choir? Great, thanks. You've managed to convert the converted once again, Mr. President. Now how about tackling the real issue instead of pandering?

Yeah, I was just going to point out that he wasn't addressing anything, merely pandering. Addressing it would have been being honest and pointing out that Martin also made some bad decisions that lead to his death that night. Instead, our President merely stoked the racial fires and further divided the country.

 

[jamny]

Excellent speech by Obama. Politically, he had to make a speech on this, and I'm surprised most of you haven't discussed why. It's because he's been under enormous pressure from the leadership of the African-American community (among others, Sharpton and Jealous of the NAACP) to bring federal charges against George Zimmerman. That would be a huge political disaster. Worse, it would fail, because there's simply no way to prove that Zimmerman acted with racist intent. So this speech is a means to shut up Obama's critics among more progressive types and African-Americans, who have always felt, long before this case, that Obama shirked from discussing racial matters. He discusses them here; there will be no federal charges, now he hopes the story will fade away.

Moving on, not sure what offends or angers so many of you about the speech. Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%. He implies that African-American youths are treated differently by our system of justice, and of course that's obvious to anyone who looks at the question fairly. He states that history informs how different people view the same event, and we all know that's true. I don't see anything inflammatory here.

I haven't followed the case. I think it's absurd the amount of coverage one Hispanic person killing one African-American is getting. Especially when you consider the number of killings throughout the country being committed by people of all races to people of all races. But it was a good speech. I'm sure it's hard for African-American young men who want to do what's right and be peaceful, and I'm sure it's a tough thing to be treated like a criminal even when you aren't. The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans. It's a tough thing to fix.

I totally agree.

I just wish it was something he would have been talking about since Day one. Not just after this trial.

 

[Christo]

Throughout his public life, Obama has spoken about race very rarely. There was a major speech after he was forced to disassociate himself with his former Reverend. There was the speech made after the Henry Gates affair. And now there is this speech.

Each of these has been among his best speeches, IMO. He gets to the heart of the matter.

IMO, he completely disregarded the heart of the matter.

That doesn't match your previous comment. Even though you were apparently critical of Obama (and African-Americans in general) for allowing history to inform their opinions, you acknowledged that the history exists. Without that history, this would not be a big news story, and THAT is the heart of this matter.

No, the heart of the matter is that perception doesn't equal reality.

 

[Politician Spock]

Throughout his public life, Obama has spoken about race very rarely. There was a major speech after he was forced to disassociate himself with his former Reverend. There was the speech made after the Henry Gates affair. And now there is this speech.

Each of these has been among his best speeches, IMO. He gets to the heart of the matter.

IMO, he completely disregarded the heart of the matter.

That doesn't match your previous comment. Even though you were apparently critical of Obama (and African-Americans in general) for allowing history to inform their opinions, you acknowledged that the history exists. Without that history, this would not be a big news story, and THAT is the heart of this matter.

The news media is run by ratings, and ratings come from drama. Sometimes drama is news. Sometimes drama is just drama.

This was not news. This was drama... because of the history you mention. And the news media fed off if that drama that was not news.

 

[Rayderr]

Excellent speech by Obama. Politically, he had to make a speech on this, and I'm surprised most of you haven't discussed why. It's because he's been under enormous pressure from the leadership of the African-American community (among others, Sharpton and Jealous of the NAACP) to bring federal charges against George Zimmerman. That would be a huge political disaster. Worse, it would fail, because there's simply no way to prove that Zimmerman acted with racist intent. So this speech is a means to shut up Obama's critics among more progressive types and African-Americans, who have always felt, long before this case, that Obama shirked from discussing racial matters. He discusses them here; there will be no federal charges, now he hopes the story will fade away.

Moving on, not sure what offends or angers so many of you about the speech. Obama implies throughout the speech that this case was about racism, and of course I agree with him 100%. He implies that African-American youths are treated differently by our system of justice, and of course that's obvious to anyone who looks at the question fairly. He states that history informs how different people view the same event, and we all know that's true. I don't see anything inflammatory here.

I haven't followed the case. I think it's absurd the amount of coverage one Hispanic person killing one African-American is getting. Especially when you consider the number of killings throughout the country being committed by people of all races to people of all races. But it was a good speech. I'm sure it's hard for African-American young men who want to do what's right and be peaceful, and I'm sure it's a tough thing to be treated like a criminal even when you aren't. The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans. It's a tough thing to fix.

Well, he kinda excused it too. Best thing would've been for him to say "African-american males have a repuation of being violent. Right or wrong, it something that must be remedied. We need to learn that violence is not the answer. Crime isn't the answer. Parents need to know what their kids are up to. Where are they getting the money to buy the gold chains, tattoos, and $500 sneakers..." and so on. Hell he could've recited word for word the famous Bill Cosby speech and it would've carried so much weight. But he didn't.

 

[jon_mx]

Obama showed no respect for the process, did not show any empathy for the other side and injected race into it despite no evidence which showed it. It was not presidential at all.

 

[timschochet]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Obama showed no respect for the process...

From his speech: "The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works."

 

[Johnnymac]

Obama showed no respect for the process, did not show any empathy for the other side and injected race into it despite no evidence which showed it. It was not presidential at all.

If you don't think race had anything to do with this event you are either blind and deaf, or a racist yourself

 

[timschochet]

Obama showed no respect for the process, did not show any empathy for the other side and injected race into it despite no evidence which showed it. It was not presidential at all.

1. No respect for the process? Did you even read the speech?

2. I don't think the "other side" deserves empathy, if you mean George Zimmerman. What GZ deserved, based on the evidence, was an acquittal. He does not deserve any empathy, since he is very likely guilty of a felony.

3. Obama did not inject race into the discussion. Race was already a part of the discussion of this trial for millions of Americans, and especially for black Americans, whether you like it or not.

4. OTC, it was extremely Presidential.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Obama showed no respect for the process, did not show any empathy for the other side and injected race into it despite no evidence which showed it. It was not presidential at all.

If you don't think race had anything to do with this event you are either blind and deaf, or a racist yourself

Obama showed no respect for the process, did not show any empathy for the other side and injected race into it despite no evidence which showed it. It was not presidential at all.

If you don't think race had anything to do with this event you are either blind and deaf, or a racist yourself

Even the FBI itself concluded race wasn't a factor. But yet, here you are, accusing others of not knowing the facts and calling THEM racists.

 

[3C's]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

Six jurors just went through all the evidence and decided there was no racial bias. The FBI went through the evidence and determined there was no racial bias. But Obama, he knows better. There was racial bias.Way to fan the flames jackass.

This aside from his constant mention of "stand your ground" laws which had nothing to do with the defense anyway.

Just like they said on CNN. Obama was in a no win situation. If he says nothing he pisses off the Martin backers. If he says anything he pisses off the Zimmerman backers.

As for stand your ground, maybe you should read page 12 of the jury instructions. While there was no SYG hearing, it was still part of the trial. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

 

[Christo]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

 

[timschochet]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

Six jurors just went through all the evidence and decided there was no racial bias. The FBI went through the evidence and determined there was no racial bias. But Obama, he knows better. There was racial bias.Way to fan the flames jackass.

This aside from his constant mention of "stand your ground" laws which had nothing to do with the defense anyway.

Just like they said on CNN. Obama was in a no win situation. If he says nothing he pisses off the Martin backers. If he says anything he pisses off the Zimmerman backers.

As for stand your ground, maybe you should read page 12 of the jury instructions. While there was no SYG hearing, it was still part of the trial. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Most of the "Zimmerman backers" hate Obama's guts anyhow; I don't think he worries too much about pissing them off.

 

[Joe McGee]

Obama showed no respect for the process, did not show any empathy for the other side and injected race into it despite no evidence which showed it. It was not presidential at all.

If you don't think race had anything to do with this event you are either blind and deaf, or a racist yourself

We've already discussed this - Trayvon Martin was a racist.

 

[-fish-]

the title of this thread has bugged me since it started. calling a black teenager "boy" is pretty racist.

 

[timschochet]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

SYG is a separate issue and is not the source of the institutionalized racism concern- ( although I'd like to see your information that helps more minorities than it hurts.)

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

 

[Christo]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

Six jurors just went through all the evidence and decided there was no racial bias. The FBI went through the evidence and determined there was no racial bias. But Obama, he knows better. There was racial bias.Way to fan the flames jackass.

This aside from his constant mention of "stand your ground" laws which had nothing to do with the defense anyway.

Just like they said on CNN. Obama was in a no win situation. If he says nothing he pisses off the Martin backers. If he says anything he pisses off the Zimmerman backers.

As for stand your ground, maybe you should read page 12 of the jury instructions. While there was no SYG hearing, it was still part of the trial. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

You need to read page 12 again. It doesn't mention SYG.

 

[Christo]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

Six jurors just went through all the evidence and decided there was no racial bias. The FBI went through the evidence and determined there was no racial bias. But Obama, he knows better. There was racial bias.Way to fan the flames jackass.

This aside from his constant mention of "stand your ground" laws which had nothing to do with the defense anyway.

Just like they said on CNN. Obama was in a no win situation. If he says nothing he pisses off the Martin backers. If he says anything he pisses off the Zimmerman backers.

As for stand your ground, maybe you should read page 12 of the jury instructions. While there was no SYG hearing, it was still part of the trial. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Most of the "Zimmerman backers" hate Obama's guts anyhow; I don't think he worries too much about pissing them off.

He's their president too.

 

[Christo]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

SYG is a separate issue and is not the source of the institutionalized racism concern- ( although I'd like to see your information that helps more minorities than it hurts.)

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

The presumed racial profiling of a private citizen has nothing to do with institutional racism.

 

[timschochet]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

Six jurors just went through all the evidence and decided there was no racial bias. The FBI went through the evidence and determined there was no racial bias. But Obama, he knows better. There was racial bias.Way to fan the flames jackass.

This aside from his constant mention of "stand your ground" laws which had nothing to do with the defense anyway.

Just like they said on CNN. Obama was in a no win situation. If he says nothing he pisses off the Martin backers. If he says anything he pisses off the Zimmerman backers.

As for stand your ground, maybe you should read page 12 of the jury instructions. While there was no SYG hearing, it was still part of the trial. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Most of the "Zimmerman backers" hate Obama's guts anyhow; I don't think he worries too much about pissing them off.

He's their president too.

Not that they're willing to acknowledge it.