In response to:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin Could Have Been Me, 35 Years Ago"

Patrick A Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:12 PM
1. Zimmerman had the legal right to be suspicious of Martin and Martin had the legal right to be suspicious of Zimmerman. 2. Zimmerman had the legal right to follow Martin at night in rainy conditions and Martin had the legal right to circle Zimmerman's car to see who was following him at night in rainy conditions. 3. Zimmerman had the legal right to exit his vehicle and Martin had the legal right to go on his way. 4. Zimmerman had the legal right to be outside in the area and Martin had the legal right to be outside in the area. 5. Zimmerman had the legal right to fear for his life and Martin had the legal right to fear for his life. 6. Zimmerman had no legal duty to retreat and Martin had no legal duty to retreat. 7. Both Zimmerman and Martin had the legal right to use deadly force if they reasonably feared death or great bodily harm. 8. Zimmerman's life would be much different if he had never seen Martin and Martin would be living if he had been staying somewhere else that night. 9. What is legal to do is not always what is best to do.
marty85 Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:37 PM
Back in my high school and college days, I often took late night walks. I had every right to do so. Occasionally, I was aware of someone watching me. They had every right to do so, and I assumed even then that they were concerned about a stranger walking about late at night.
NEVER did I attack one of these people. The idea never occurred to me. They had a right to watch me, whether I liked it or not. I would've had NO right to physically attack them.
Patrick A Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:50 PM
As I understand Florida law you can shoot to kill someone without them ever touching you as long as you reasonably fear that they will kill you or cause you great bodily harm. Neither Zimmerman nor Martin had to touch one another for one of them to initiate an deadly attack. All they had to do is have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

If my understanding of the law is incorrect please enlighten me.
aintnobodygottimeforthat Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:23 PM
Guess what, I've been in dicey situations where I did not feel safe and certainly felt threatened. I did not sucker punch someone and pummel their head into the ground. Zimmerman was part of an organized neighborhood watch group on high alert after numerous robberies from young black men. Maybe if choir boy Trayon had not felt the need to mix up a brew of purple drank of whatever, and had just said, "dude, why are you all up in my grill n' sh$t," they could have had a beer afterwards.
DevinDenver Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:22 PM
But, did Martin have the legal right to punch first (per Ms. Jeantel) and to attack him? Ahh, the crux of the issue right there.
Patrick A Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:30 PM
Zimmerman had the legal right to shoot Martin without Martin touching him as long as he had a reasonable fear of death and great bodily harm so under Florida law if Martin had a reasonable fear of death and great bodily harm he would have the right to defend himself without being touched.

If my understanding of the law is incorrect please enlighten me.
Dave M Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:31 PM
And the answer is pretty self-evident. Martin was killed because he was assaulting Zimmerman. As for who threw the first punch- while we will never know with absolute certainty the forensic evidence was very clear on who had the injuries and who didn't.
Obama will never understand that fundamental precept either.
DevinDenver Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:40 PM
Well according to Ms. Jeantel, whom the media has termed "honest and authentic", Martin threw the first punch. How could Ms. Honest and Authentic lie?
Dave M Wrote: Jul 19, 2013 4:51 PM
I simply don't consider her credible. She is almost unintelligible. Certainly functionally illiterate.
If I were a so-called "Black Leader" I would be infuriated and ashamed that this is considered appropriate level of knowledge for a high school senior.


The President of the United States surprised reporters by appearing unannounced at today's daily press briefing to share his thoughts on the George Zimmerman trial and its implications.  I'll offer a few thoughts below, but first, here's the video (via our own Greg Hengler):




In order to put my commentary of Obama's statement into proper context, allow me to express my existing biases about the recent verdict -- about which I haven't written very much: The evidence presented at trial was clearly insufficient to merit a conviction...