  |
|
Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago?
Posted by **BlackMonk** on Jul 21, 2013 at 7:01:40 PM:
In Reply to: Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? posted by **pycb** on Jul 21, 2013 at 6:39:53 PM:
*********President Obama on Friday broached the shooting of 17-year-old African-American Trayvon Martin and the subsequent trial of his shooter, providing his explanation of why the case created so much anxiety within the African-American community.
*********
*********"When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said this could've been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could've been me 35 years ago," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room.
*********
*********"When you think about why in the African-American community, at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, it's important to recognize the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and history that doesn't go away."
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********Still trying to keep the tension alive
*********
*********What is it that Obama wants? does he want to keep bringing up the subject of Trayvon Martin and putting his own personal stamp
*********on it by attaching himself to Trayvon in order to keep people riled up about it? and at the same time calling for calm?
*********or is this all just an effort to keep things off of him and the controversy's in DC now..
*********
*********What's it going to be?
*********
*********The Department of Justice (Eric Holder specifically) is now looking for ways to bring Zimmerman back to trial for civil rights violations or anything else they can possibly get him on and have asked Florida not to release his gun back to him or destroy any evidence from the trial. Why?
*********
*********Because those who didn't like the verdict still want their revenge regardless that Zimmerman has already been acquitted of all charges. After all..he killed a black person!
*********
*********There is an acknowledged double standard in this country wrt to black vs other races when it comes to victim vs killer. If the victim had been white, Hispanic, Latino, or anything other than black, we wouldn't have all this going on. It's a fact.
*********And even Obama seems to acknowledge that fact at the end of his statements in the video above. At least he got that right..
*********
*********Or does all of this serve to keep the attention off Obama and the shenanigans being pulled in DC right now?
*********
*********For a couple of examples..
*********
*********Let's not talk about Benghazi or the fact that it has been learned that Obama and party have already made sure everyone involved with Benghazi sign Non Disclosure Statements to protect his/their hides.
*********
*********Or that Obama now doesn't want to talk to Putin anymore and there's now even talk of boycotting the next Moscow Olympics because Putin is apparently giving asylum to Snowden because Obama didn't have the gonads to stand up to the challenge and find a way to get Snowden back here to face justice (as Obama promised earlier).
*********
*********Putin 1, Snowden 1, Obama 0.
*********
*********There is laughter coming from the Kremlin...
*********
*********Obama failed the test and Putin is laughing at the weak President. Sadly, Obama has failed our test too.
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
********
********I can't believe this moron would double down on his Trayvon Martin, race baiting. It's almost beyond comprehension. Our esteemed POTUS just stated Trayvon could have been him 35 years ago. Keep those racial flames burning Obama. He threw in for good measure:
********“There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store -- that includes me,” he said.
********
********“There are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me – at least before I was a senator,” he said. “There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”
********
********So, Trayvon could have first been his son, now him. I guess the thousands of African American ( what the hell is that already- we've all come from somewhere else) kids who kill each other daily don't merit the same attention from the fraud.
********
********He also threw in :“both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different” if Trayvon Martin had been white.
********Maybe he should check the case of Roderick Scott. A 42 year old black man who killed an unarmed 17 year old white kid right here in NY and was acquitted.
********
********This man has no shame. He's no less a race baiter than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton-- EXCEPT half this country lives and dies by what he says. What a disgrace.
********
*******
*******
*******
*******It will be pointed out that the case you cite that the white teenagers were confronted because they were actually committing a crime whereas Trayvon Martin wasn't. IMHO the 42 year old black guy was right to defend himself. A couple of years ago, in England, a middle-aged white man was kicked to death by white youths when confronting them committing a crime against his property. So, there you go, that's how harmless "unarmed teenagers" can be.
*******
******
******
******Yes, it will pointed out. It will also be accurate. You don't address that fact. Nor the fact that in the second example you gave, the man was "confronting them committing a crime against his property" whereas Martin was not committing any crime, much less one against ZImmerman. Nor do you address the fact that "youths" and "a youth" are not the same thing. Nor the fact that it wasn't definitely established that Martin was the aggressor, nor what actually happened in the conflict between the two.
******
******Funny, I keep hearing about how liberals are "soft on crime" and ignore the victim in favor of the accused.
******
*****
*****
*****
*****Forensic and ballistics experts during the trial testified that Martin was the aggressor at the time he was shot. Both experts agreed that at the time he was shot, Martin had to have been on top of Zimmerman and according to witnesses, Martin was pounding on Zimmerman's head just before they heard a shot.
*****
****
****There was also testimony to the contrary, but even granting what you say is true, that doesn't say anything about who started the fight, does it?*
***
***Defense lawyer Joe Tacopina: Don’t blame the Zimmerman jury for doing it's duty
***
***
***
***The George Zimmerman jury did what juries are supposed to do. The six women on the jury applied the law to the facts and found that Zimmerman was not guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
***
***Despite the outcry by political activists, race baiters and people who do not understand the legal system, particularly Florida's unique and controversial law, the jury's decision was that he had the right to shoot Martin under the Stand Your Ground law.
***
***Under that law, people fearing for their lives can use deadly force without having to retreat from a confrontation, even when it is possible. Whether or not that law should be repealed is a different issue but not one this jury was called upon to decide.
***
***This case was initially investigated by local law enforcement, which found it did not amount to a crime. Based on the evidence at trial and the jury's verdict, it appears former Sanford, Fla., police chief Bill Lee had been right: Zimmerman should not have been charged.
***
***In order to prove Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder, the prosecution had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted intentionally out of ill will or spite when he shot Martin.
***
***But Zimmerman said he did not pull out his gun until after Martin approached him; an altercation developed, and Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground after punching him in the face.
***
***In order to convict, the jury did not have to believe Zimmerman's account. Instead, jurors had to decide beyond a reasonable doubt the shooting didn't happen in this manner and that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.
***
***The injuries Zimmerman sustained, although not serious, corroborated his version of events that Martin was slamming his head on the ground and that he genuinely feared for his life.
***
***The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense put forth evidence in an attempt to create the doubt that was already present in the case, including a forensic expert to show the shooting was consistent with Zimmerman's version of events.
***
***There was absolutely no evidence put forth by the prosecution to rebut Zimmerman's claim of self defense. That is all that was relevant. With that, the jury was left no choice at all. The jurors were not empaneled to improve race relations or right historical wrongs. This courageous jury complied with its oath and discharged its duty properly.
***
***Those who agree with the verdict can point to the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of ill will or malice, and the elements of self-defense.. Those issues should not be confused with the issues this jury was called upon to decide.
***
***Calls for a new criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice are being made by people who haven't a clue about the legal elements present in this case. This case shouldn't have been brought in the first place, but was, only after political pressure.
***
***Despite that, the jury has now spoken. As far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, this is the end of this tragic incident.
**
**First of all, posting a published article without any attribution is theft.
**
**Second, if you had attributed it, it would have undercut your point, since Zimmerman's defense lawyer is hardly an impartial analyst.
**
**
*
*that's all ya got?
It seems to be more than you can handle, thief.Followup Messages:
- no followups have been posted yet...
Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store
Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 21, 2013