Obama statement on Zimmerman Trial

Here is Obama’s full statement:

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy.  Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America.  I know this case has elicited strong passions.  And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher.  But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken.  I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.  And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities.  We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.  We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this.  As citizens, that’s a job for all of us.  That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

Gun Violence?  That was the cause of Martin’s death?  That is a flat out LIE.  Trayvon Martin’s OWN VIOLENCE against George Zimmerman was the CAUSE.  Zimmerman used a weapon because he was in fear for his life.

People, get OVER it.  Teach your sons to be more polite, teach them to stop the internal racist, anti-white nonsense they are currently being taught.  Teach them that it is wrong to rob each other, or “white people” (or any other race) and it’s wrong to mess with drugs.  Teach them to be POLITE in society and not to view themselves as “oppressed” by the “White people” because 99.9% of the “White People” out there couldn’t care less what color your skin is.

But if you walk the streets late at night, as a black man, appearing to be suspicious then LOOK AT YOURSELVES FOR DOING IT!  Look at the deaths in Chicago, almost every one a young black man or young boy, killed by SOMEONE OF YOUR OWN RACE!

Police yourselves first if you want to be “right” about anything.

20 thoughts on “Obama statement on Zimmerman Trial

  1. Reblogged this on Brittius.com and commented:
    Oh, Brother! Here’s where gun sales go through the roof again. The matter was presented before the appropriate court of law, and the president should keep out of it. Flip side of the coin is, the president could ruin any future thoughts of the Florida Appellate Division in reversal of the verdict and, could bias any federal prosecution(s) if any are being considered. Hey, let the World’s Greatest Gun Salesman flap is pie hole. Very foolish on his part. Very foolish, indeed.


    • Holder is speaking now. There WILL be a Federal Investigation (there already has been) and they of course can’t “let a crisis go to waste”.

      This didn’t cause immediate riots. Therefore, it didn’t go far enough yet.

      Most people realize that THIS TIME if riots start, there will be shooting going on. It won’t be pretty and no one is going to sit around waiting for a mob to come murder them.


  2. It’s not so much that a crisis is going to waste. Holder, is correct on this matter, and has been speaking very accurately and truthfully in his role as USAG. In a case of this nature, it is proper that a parallel investigation be launched. If Zimmerman was a cop, it would even turn into a rabid investigation, which it certainly is nothing of the sort at this juncture.
    There may, possibly, be underlying reasons for an action that was taken in the use of deadly physical force, when facts and evidence are examined.
    The kid’s previous issues with the law have no bearing on the case as per the law. If, on the otherhand, the kid had a history of cop fighting or assault against civilians, it would then factor in.
    Zimmerman had a boo-boo nose, and maybe, a little boo-boo head. A boy just three weeks past his seventeenth birthday, is absolutely no match for a twenty-nine year old man, the size of Zimmerman. I have fought many men. I also never lost any streetfight. The kid having strength, is nothing to match a man’s strength when angered or realization that the man might be killed. I used to get superhuman strength. Why? Not because I am anything great. It was because biologically, I am a man, and my body produced emergency hormone levels of testosterone. My knuckles have actual teeth imprint scars on them.
    Why aren’t Neighborhood Watch Volunteers taught how to fight with their hands?
    Observe & Report, was the mission, not intercept and become personally involved.
    Why was he armed when Neighborhood Watches are forbidden (in New York State) to be armed?
    I know a few things about investigations. They take on lives of their own, and generally resemble the lead investigator. What do I mean by this? An aggressive investigator would turn the investigation adversarial. Personally, I would be in search of “Judas”. A person hearing bravado of Zimmerman, or his dislike of black people. Then flip Judas into a deposition, hopefully videotaping the interview. Understand?
    At the moment, it is a sterile investigation. Myself, on the otherhand, would approach it, as a homicide investigation, and Zimmerman would not only be a subject, but my target. His nerves would become undone. He would have no breathing space. Everything would be closing in on him, and him alone. Holder, to his credit, is handling the matter very professionally and with tact. If anything turns up in his investigation, it means that Holder will be doing it by the numbers. A classic textbook case handled with perfection, if it went that way.
    Again, I know nothing of Florida laws and can only apply what I know from my state. I remain neutral on the matter.


  3. Neither Holder, the President, DOJ or the Federal Government should be involved in this at all. This was a matter for the state and local authorities to handle. In fact, it was handled and then FORCED into the public and made a national spectacle for the benefit of a small minority of people of this country (the Left).

    As to the 17 vs 29 – there is some truth in that.

    As to neighborhood watch being trained… they get almost NO training. I’ve been a “Watch Captain” in the past. I assisted along with a neighbor who happened to also be a cop himself, and one other man to set up our original watch program about 20+ years ago. The only “requirement” was participation. There’s no classes in our area, there are no age requirements (anyone can call the police). There are no “rules”. We don’t “confront” anyone – and in truth it appears neither did Zimmerman. He was confronted. Zimmerman was in Florida, the laws are likely different there than here or in your area.

    I know you said you’ve “fought many men”. I grew up in the streets of Detroit in the 1970s. I suppose I can’t say I “fought many ‘men'” but I certainly have been in a lot of fights. I’ve never in my entire life started one. I’ve finished a few though. And I’ve been sucker punched before; you have no idea where you are when you hit the ground usually, and by the time you get your mind wrapped around what is going on and someone is pounding your face you don’t know your condition.

    You and I and the media, and the public can second guess Zimmerman all we want. It doesn’t put us in his head and we don’t know his thinking at the time, after getting punched in the face and sat upon.

    I fail to grasp your remarks about Zimmerman’s “dislike of black people”; that is not something that was ever said by him. If you have that impression it’s from the media, and incorrect from all I’ve read about the man.

    I know enough of Florida gun laws (as I do many of the states) to know that he was within his rights to carry a concealed weapon. He was within his rights to be going where he was going (and get distracted by an obviously suspicious individual, call the cops and try to find the location for the police officer meeting him) and that he was well within his rights to do what he did when attacked.

    I can speak only for myself, but if some kid came out of the dark suddenly, sucker punched me, and then start pounding on my face and bashing my head into the side walk, I’d have shot him too. I am trained to shoot until the threat stops…. a Boo-Boo on the nose isn’t the issue here.


  4. Brittius, there’s a lot more to this in the background. Just so you’re fully aware of what I am seeing here. This isn’t about Holder, or Obama. Or maybe it IS.


    See that link. Click the link on the blog entry and go to the site. Pay attention to the people funding this out of Chicago. Pay even closer attention to owns the site. Read it carefully.

    All of us are being misdirected. Obfuscation is the word of the day….


  5. I continue to be aloof on the entire case. Just about all of the bloggers are thinking of the realm of public opinion, which differs vastly with the law. An entirely different world.
    If you wear a badge, you cannot lose on the street, so you fight harder when in that position.
    No training? Then sorry, watches have no business doing what they do. The Mantle of Law, did apply to Zimmerman, who took an action subsequent to what I am to believe is a patrol role. Different legal dynamic. If you get into fights, you will generally get banged up a bit more than the boo-boo nose. Along the way, more than likely from MSM, it did appear he was out “gunning” for blacks. I fail to see how the kid confronted him. I would need to see the actual investigation notes/file. An action was taken, and under the Mantle of Law, that in itself will bring him the same wrath or close to it, as any cop would receive. Again, I do not look at the case from a perspective of public opinion, and apply my knowledge from behind the badge many years ago, and the warnings were very clear back then, concerning additional possible charges, trials, and so forth. I will not come right out and say what I think about the case. If I were the president or USAG, I too, would be pissed off. Best thing is to hold the state accountable for failure to properly train the watch patrols. Better to have more cops, and in rural areas, maybe, deputize with limited peace officer status. Zimmerman is indemnified by who? The state? Himself? Superficial and non-life threatening wounds exhibited by the defendant, in no way justifies the use of deadly physical force. I was a cop in one of the worst areas of New York City and have seen plenty of injuries on people. What he got was maybe a couple punches in the nose and the head wounds were really insignificant.
    Anyway, it will all be shouted-up, without regard for actual laws of the state involved, and the federal laws that apply, plus civil litigation, will dog him. My opinions matter naught regarding the case.


    • I guess it comes down to something simple…. I see what I see from my point of view, and you from yours.

      I haven’t looked at any of this from a “public point of view”. I’ve looked at it from my personal knowledge and experience. You and I can’t know that a couple of punches to the head and nose weren’t sufficient to make him fear for his life. We just can not.

      There is nothing in the law that states you have to be bleeding profusely, or that there is a certain level of pain or damage inflicted before you can fight back, even with overwhelming force.

      If you were a cop, let me ask you this. It’s a simple question. If a person at a simple traffic stop goes for your weapon, you fight. But if he gets his fingers on it and begins pulling it out, what does your partner do?

      Reverse the situation. He gets your partner’s gun… what do YOU do?

      You shoot him. Every cop in the United States is trained to prevent this. Most of us who carry concealed are trained in a similar manner. Never give up your gun, don’t give it away, don’t let the bad guy have it. Period.

      Since you’re from New York City, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt that you’ve been brainwashed that civilians shouldn’t own weapons in a place like New York. Of course, you’d still be wrong.


    • By the way, Brittius my friend, I took the opportunity to look up Florida’s actual law on this…. Apparently, nothing in the law says that a person has to have ANY damage, a punch in the nose or head… they must reasonably believe that such force is required to prevent great bodily harm or death, thus, there is no question that this isn’t an issue of “a punch to the nose”.

      CHAPTER 776
      776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
      776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
      776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
      776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
      776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
      776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
      776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
      776.06 Deadly force.
      776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
      776.08 Forcible felony.
      776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
      776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
      (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
      (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
      History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
      Title XLVI

      Chapter 776

      776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
      (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
      (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
      (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
      (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
      (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
      (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
      (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
      (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
      (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
      (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
      (5) As used in this section, the term:
      (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
      (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
      (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
      History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.


  6. I think a cop punched him, to make it look good. No indication that any blood was recovered at the scene that forensics matched to Zimmerman’s DNA. Zimmerman knew those cops, and they might have felt it easier to explain things if there was any type of injury, that is what I believe.
    My gut feeling is Manslaughter Second Degree was chargeable and, what I keep having this feeling that I cannot shake since it all happened, is that there was a premeditation [Murder First Degree] to shoot someone. This feeling will not go away. I made 574 arrests in my time, and developed a gut feeling for things. That feeling is there anytime this subject is raised. I continue to not believe the testimony as presented and think there is more.
    I hope Capitol Hill does something screwy this week so we can all put the case behind us and move on.


  7. Thank you, for the legal research. “Reasonable Fear/Imminent Peril of Death” unsubstantiated per medical examiner testimony under QA/Oath. That just blew the defense.
    Zimmerman tailing Martin establishes Stalking, and Intent. Had no business to confront and 911 Dispatcher told him NOT to confront/engage subject.


    • I think you’re missing a point. The Dispatcher doesn’t control people. It’s not a legal point that even IF the dispatcher said that and he ignored the dispatcher – he didn’t do anything illegal. He has as much right to be there are Martin.

      Further point or fact is that when the dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that” (his exact words) Zimmerman responded with “Ok” and was ON THIS WAY BACK TO HIS CAR.

      Martin had not been seen for over four minutes. He charged out of the dark, attacked Zimmerman and the rest is history.

      Martin had FOUR minutes to run away. HE could have left, and didn’t.


  8. The dispatcher does have legal authority over anyone in a volunteer role. For argument sake, if I am engaged in a chase {Blue/Red; Blue/Red; Blue Red} and the dispatcher tells me to break off the chase, if I opt to continue, I could find myself up on Departmental Charges & Specifications, or facing legal action that the department would be obligated under law to not defend me or indemnify me. Also, that is the reason why more supervisors were moved into communications division, as if say I give the dispatcher lip service, they get a lieutenant who orders me, to break it off, and it is all recorded.
    Cops going into something… Along the way, I heard a few wild things. Some chilling. When as a sergeant, I was called upon to look into things, I called them like they were and became an instant evil villain. For that reason, only good people were willing to work for me because I did not tolerate nonsense or anything other than good work. I had to give account of myself and, give account of all people being supervised. Off post/missing in action/not answering jobs/drinking/palling out with dealers or bookies… I changed all that, and was vilified for it. They said I was nuts. “Shell shocked Nam vet”. “Thinks he’s still a Marine” (they got that one correct). Things happen. I want answers. I am not flexible unless it is a matter requiring tact.


    • Not to argue the point, but the civilian dispatchers in general in Florida (and indeed in many cities in many states) do NOT have any legal authority, are generally not a “deputized” or “peace” officer. Therefore an order by a dispatcher is not the same as an LE in uniform or displaying a badge.

      In fact, anyone can SAY they are a cop, and without displaying a badge have no other authority than a non-LE in regular civilian clothing. I know this from personal experience.

      Twice in my life I have had cops tell me “to do something” which wasn’t precisely legal, they had no authority to do so, would NOT show me a badge and I refused. I ended up taking them to court. Both got suspensions for over stepping their bounds.

      Sorry, I don’t play that game.

      Cops have ZERO authority over anyone, they are civilians too, in or out of uniform if I am doing nothing illegal. Period.

      This is a mental problem many of them have. It’s called “Abuse of Authority”.

      If I am doing something stupid, that’s a different story.


  9. Possible for other states to be different, therefore I have said, I apply only what I know from my state. If an auxiliary cop or civilian volunteer disobey dispatchers, they are not to patrol and physically told to get off of the streets.
    Your experiences involved plain clothes, and there too, when I worked in that role, if there were issues, I would take them into the stationhouse. Rogues, as you have experienced, are the very reason that so many safeguards are in place, and rightfully so. I have no problem with anyone disobeying an unlawful order. Then again, my reputation was that of being a By-The-Book Son-of-a-Bitch. I was a nice guy, once. But people misjudged my kindness, for weakness. I then lost all but very few friends that I had on the job, but all of the rookies continued to gravitate towards me. They were known as my “puppies”. They all became very good cops, and were hard workers.


    • Well, sometimes you got to be a tough cop to get the job done! :)

      No, my experiences weren’t with “plain clothes cops”, they were with “cops in civilian dress, off duty, who broke a law” and when I said something got in my face and threatened me. Way different from a cop in uniform asking me to “back up” or “leave the area”. No time or space to explain the circumstances, but suffice it to say, the system worked, they were wrong, I was right and they wound up punished – not me.

      Just like in the Zimmerman case.

      Martin was wrong for attacking Zimmerman… Did Zimmerman have to KILL him? No, perhaps not. Did I have to aim my weapon at some bad guys trying to kill me when they were shooting first? No… but then I might not be here either.

      Best wishes Brittius.


Comments are closed.