Huffington Post
George Zimmerman, the man acquitted in the murder of Trayvon Martin, said President Barack Obama turned Americans against him.
In an interview posted online Monday by his lawyer, Zimmerman argues Obama shouldn't have weighed in on his case. He said "Barack Hussein Obama" was who he blamed for what his attorney called "the highest level of unfairness" in the aftermath of Martin's death.
"President Obama held his Rose Garden speech stating, 'If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.' To me that was clearly a dereliction of duty pitting Americans against each other solely based on race," Zimmerman said.
Zimmerman said he felt "prosecuted by the federal government" because of Obama's remarks, and said he thinks someone like Obama should "not interject himself in a local law enforcement matter or a state matter."
"Instead of rushing to judgment, making racially charged comments and pitting American against American, I believe that he should have taken the higher road given his position and said -- been an example, been a leader as the president should be, and say let's not rush to judgment," Zimmerman said. "As I’m sure he would want that same luxury afforded to him if he was accused of something, and asked for calm, ask for peace."
Zimmerman makes a good point. Should a high ranking public official make a comment regarding the potential guilt or innocence before the grand jury even made a decision? And the President made the statement days after he sent federal investigators down to look into it.
ReplyDeleteIs that what Obama did? Did he really "make a comment regarding the potential guilt or innocence before the grand jury even made a decision."
DeleteWhen your tagged this post, Mikeb, I think you misspelled "Zimmerman hate."
ReplyDeleteHere's some Zimmerman hate for you, Kurt.
ReplyDeleteI certainly made my hasty, snap judgment way before I ever heard Obama's remark. I actually heard the testimony of the neighbor who was cooking at her Auntie's house who ran to the sliding glass door to try to figure out what was happening. Still, by far, the most credible witness. I believe she was disqualified because she had friended Trayvon on Facebook.
That fucking media whore. Front page news again. He's still a cold-blooded murderer. "I tried to apprehend him and he fought back! It was self-defense, I tell you." Remember, even a lot of sworn officers are still lacking in sufficient training as to when or when not to use deadly force. Zimmerman should have been waiting in his car or gone home. Martin was on foot. He wasn't going anywhere. the police could have questioned him and then gone home.
You guys will never change your ridiculous point-of-view on this case any more than I will change the way that I feel about this heartless, piece-of-shit.
Well said, FJ.
DeleteI have very little in the way of respect, and even less in the way of affection, for Zimmerman. That said, I still maintain that he is the target of a very large amount of hatred. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's justified--just that it's there.
DeleteHey, Flying Junior, I have a question for you. Do you think George Zimmerman is lying? If so, do you think that his account of the events that transpired constitutes a valid use of deadly force in self-defense? I ask this because I find that for a lot of the "Justice for Trayvon" the disconnect happens right there. In that case, you're right that no mind will ever be changed because even if the facts of the case agree completely with Zimmerman's story, they still want to see him hang. You're not allowed to shoot unarmed teens who are beating the shit out of you for dissing them. Period.
DeleteIt's kind of pointless to argue over details, witness testimony, and timelines with such a fundamental disagreement in principle.
It's difficult to imagine a scenario where Zimmerman could possibly have been telling the truth. His initial call to 911 already constituted a lie.
DeleteWasn't the story that Martin was somehow actually beating his head into the pavement in some attempt to kill him? That's just so implausible, I can't really agree. Of course I think he was lying. And its such a preposterous lie, there is no hypothetical circumstance which can fit it.
"Wasn't the story that Martin was somehow actually beating his head into the pavement in some attempt to kill him? That's just so implausible, I can't really agree."
DeleteWell, implausible as you might think it is FJ, there was actually physical evidence to back it up.
"The record shows that Zimmerman also suffered bruising in the upper lip and cheek and lower back pain. The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532
And of course, the photos of these injuries can be found quite readily.
Flying Junior: “Wasn't the story that Martin was somehow actually beating his head into the pavement in some attempt to kill him?”
DeleteOk, we’ve established that you think he lied, which is what I expected, but the important part of my question is the follow-up. Do you think his account (which you believe to be a lie), is legitimate self-defense? Is it ok to shoot someone who has you pinned down and beating your head into the concrete?
Although I think the "pounding his head into the pavement" was grossly exaggerated, something like that may very well have happened. But, when an armed guy pursues an unarmed one and initiates a confrontation, illegally, he cannot claim self-defense if the tables are turned on him.
DeleteMikeB: “But, when an armed guy pursues an unarmed one and initiates a confrontation, illegally, he cannot claim self-defense if the tables are turned on him.”
DeleteOk, but Zimmerman’s account is that Martin initiated the confrontation while he was walking back to his car, sucker-punched him, then got on top of him and pounded his head into the concrete. My question is, if Zimmerman’s account is correct, is that legitimate self-defense?
". . . and initiates a confrontation, illegally, he cannot claim self-defense if the tables are turned on him."
DeleteHe can "initiate a confrontation" all he wants and it doesn't affect whether what follows is self defense or not. What a person cannot do is initiate a conflict, either through physical violence or use of "fighting words," and then claim self defense later.
TS, George shouldn't have gotten out of his car.
DeleteSJ, George initiated the confict.
Mikeb,
DeleteYou dodged TS's question.
As for your response to me, How exactly did Zimmerman initiate the conflict? Did he throw a punch? Did he pick a fight some other way? Or did he start a fight by merely asking "who are you and what are you doing here?"
The last option there seemed to be the prosecution's theory in the parts of the trial I saw (though they never offered a unified theory of the crime) and it doesn't actually rise to the level of starting a fight.
Are you saying it can't be self-defense because he got out of his car earlier? Remember, his account is that he was walking back to his car when he was jumped. If that were true (which I know you believe it isn't), would that make it valid self-defense? It's a pretty simple question.
DeleteI'd like you to answer that, Mike.
DeleteI'll do the same on the other end. The narrative painted by the "justice for Trayvon" crowd is that he was minding his own business, got chased by Zimmerman, Zimmerman started the fight, and the shot him when he started to lose. If that's what happened, it is not valid self-defense, and is manslaughter at the least.
Now you do the same. If he was walking back to his car when Trayvon jumped him, beat on him for at least 40 seconds, and knocked his head into the sidewalk at least once, is that valid self-defense?
Yeah, it might have been, but that's a lot of ifs.
DeleteSeemingly just as many ifs as the other scenario presented, though the burden of proof to convict just wasn't met and the jury acquitted.
DeleteSince when has the president lost his right to free speech?
ReplyDeleteNo one did, or could testify to how the fight started, maybe Martin was defending his life.
While the President still has the right to free speech, he also has a responsibility to be aware of the effect his words have when spoken in his official capacity as President.
DeleteYou don't have a good understanding of what free speech means. He is not calling for obsma's arrest, or gag laws to prevent public officials from offering their opinion on criminal cases. Free speech means people are free to criticize what the president says- which is what is going on here.
DeleteTS. now that's quite a circular twist you've got going there. We have the right of free speech to criticize someone else for exercising their right to free speech.
DeleteDo you have an actual problem with what TS said, Mike? Was he actually wrong somewhere? Or are you just implying that there's something wrong with his reasoning since you don't like what he's said?
DeleteWe have the right of free speech to criticize someone else for exercising their right to free speech.
DeleteThat's not at all how I read TS's comment. Criticizing what someone says is not a violation of his or her right to free speech. You and I criticize each other's words with some frequency, and neither of us has ever violated the other's right to free speech.
Mike: “We have the right of free speech to criticize someone else for exercising their right to free speech.”
DeleteThe criticism is not for exercising their right. The criticism is for what they are saying. Ever hear the phrase “I may not like what you have to say, but I’ll defend your right to say it”? I can criticize what a public official (or anyone else) says, and you can in turn criticize my criticism, and I can criticize your criticism of my criticism… yes, it is quite “circular” as you called it. That is what free speech is. Criticizing what someone says isn't any more anti-first amendment than saying “I don’t like the new iPhone” is anti-capitalism.
"He is not calling for obsma's arrest,"
DeleteI never said he was.
Seems it's OK for you that people criticize Obama for just speaking, yet, you criticize Obama for the same thing, just speaking.
"Should a high ranking public official make a comment regarding the potential guilt or innocence before the grand jury even made a decision?"
Obama never made a comment about Zimmerman's guilt, or innocence. And yes high ranking officials make those kind of statements all the time.
"And of course, the photos of these injuries can be found quite readily."
That only proves he was in a physical altercation. It in no way proves Martin started the fight. Again, maybe Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman.
You guys ARE criticizing Obama for speaking, fine, but Obama can say what he wants, he never talked about Zimmerman's innocent, or guilt. It's amusing you accept whatever Zimmerman says as if it's gospel, and never question his intent when he ignored what authorities told him (don't need to follow him) and followed Martin. What was Zimmerman going to do to Martin when he followed him, or caught up to him, after Zimmerman was told not to follow him? There is certainly some questions about Zimmerman's intent since he was told not to follow Martin. The only one who could counter Zimmerman's statements, is dead. Zimmerman got off because there was a lack of evidence to prove the charges, not because there was evidence that Martin did anything wrong. Dead men tell no tales, so it's advantageous to make sure he is dead.
"He is not calling for obsma's arrest,"
DeleteI never said he was.
It's you, Jack, who asked, "Since when has the president lost his right to free speech?"
The answer is that he hasn't. If he had, his words would lead not only to criticism, but to his arrest and prosecution. You can criticize me viciously all day, and I'll never claim that in doing so you're violating my freedom of speech.
"I never said he was."
DeleteSo then where has Obama "lost his right to free speech"?
"Seems it's OK for you that people criticize Obama for just speaking, yet, you criticize Obama for the same thing, just speaking."
Just read my post above yours. It answers this perfectly.
Then why are you and SS condemning Obama for saying anything?
DeleteYou really just don't get the concept of rights.
DeleteCriticizing someone is part of free speech. It is a protected act. It does not violate someone's rights. You have it backwards.
No TS, you have me wrong. I agree with what you just said, but you and SS don't think that includes the president, so explain your hypocrisy on this point.
Delete"I agree with what you just said, but you and SS don't think that includes the president, so explain your hypocrisy on this point. "
DeleteThe President gets to have all of the individual freedoms that we also enjoy Jack. However, there is a reasonable expectation of him hopefully advocating for supporting the investigative process and not making statements that could possibly show bias or favoritism. For example, in my opinion, he did pretty well in this regard during the events in Ferguson. Though I didn't follow things terribly closely.
Zimmerman obviously feels that the Presidents statements affected him and those around him during the investigation and trial and is within his rights to say so.
With him being the center of attention and having wanted posters with his picture on it distributed, its possible that the Presidents comments might have gotten lumped in with more extreme statements from others, though it doesn't seem to me that he thinks that.
Nope, you still don't get it. What power do I have to violate Obama's right to free speech? You just said you agree with me that levying criticism is a protected act- not a violation of the rights of others. And that's all I did. Actually, I didn't even say that, but I do agree with the sentiment that Obama stirred up trouble rather than taking the opportunity to cool things down.
DeleteObviously if the press couldn't criticize the president's words, then there would be no freedom of press.
No TS it goes back to SS's comment that the president should have said nothing. I disagree and believe he has the right to speak. Just what is it Zimmerman thinks the president said that inferred his guilt?
Delete"He shouldn't have said that"
Deleteis different than:
"He should be forbidden from being able to say that"
Get it now?
Here’s another way to maybe get through to you:
DeleteHave you ever taken exception to something that, oh… say… Ted Nugent has said?
Yes, but I never said Nugent shouldn't have said that. Get it now!!!
DeleteIt's only a scratch Doc! I'll be better!
ReplyDeleteYeah, of course. If a big tough guy with a build like Trayvon Martin runs you down, pins you to the sidewalk and starts pounding your head into the concrete, by all means, shoot. There is no moral obligation to plead for your life.