Obama Addresses George Zimmerman Verdict
Posted on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:11:53 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)
Here's the transcript of President Obama's remarks on the George Zimmerman verdict today.
Here's what I agree with:
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.
The rest of his remarks, on the topic of race, would be welcome following an incident involving racial profiling by police. In case he hasn't noticed, the practice is rampant in New York City. They do not fit in the context of this case. [More...]
He has now gone from Trayvon Martin could have been his son to Trayvon Martin could have been him 35 years ago.
The most objectionable part of his comments: Not once did he express any empathy for George Zimmerman, the man who was acquitted who spent the past 16 months under the cloud of criminal charges, and who continues to have a target on his back.
Obama said if Martin had been white the result would probably have been different. Not once did he acknowledge that if Trayvon Martin had not attacked George Zimmerman, the outcome might have been different.
As a former Constitutional law professor, I would expect our President to acknowledge that the purpose of a criminal trial is not to send messages to the American public. It is merely to test the Government's evidence: Did the state prove guilt and disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
By the President comparing himself to Martin 35 years ago, is he saying he would have responded as Martin did, and physically attacked someone for following him? I hope not because our laws do not allow such conduct. It is not illegal for a private citizen to follow someone. It is illegal to physically assault another person who has not threatened him with the imminent use of force.
I am very disappointed that the President has chosen to endorse those who have turned a case of assault and self-defense into a referendum on race and civil rights. And that he is using it to support those with an agenda of restricting gun rights.
The President, like so many others, refuses to acknowledge that George Zimmerman had no avenue of retreat from the beating Martin was inflicting on him. Zimmerman would have prevailed on self-defense without a stand your ground law. The only additional element a stand your ground law adds to traditional self-defense is the elimination of a duty to retreat if one is available.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott says there will be no change to Florida's Stand Your Ground law. I hope he's right. The law does not need to be changed. People have a right to defend themselves from attacks like the one Martin initiated against Zimmerman. They should not have to wait until the next blow, which could be a fatal one.
Trayvon Martin was not an unarmed teen just walking home with Skittles. The evidence at trial showed he had enough time to go home and did not. Instead, he chose to confront and physically attack Zimmerman. He may have started his walk home from 7-11 as an innocent unarmed teen with a bag of Skittles, but along the way he used his hands and the cement as weapons.
The jury's verdict is the best evidence that not a single one of them believed Martin was the one screaming for help. Angela Corey said this week the state has never denied Trayvon Martin hit George Zimmerman. The state argued Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious enough to warrant shooting Martin. There was expert testimony at trial that Zimmerman had no other means to escape the danger he perceived he was in, and that his perception of that danger was reasonable. The jury sided with the defense.
The state tried to cast Zimmerman as the aggressor who provoked the fight, and the judge correctly ruled the jury would not be so instructed. There was no evidence to support that Zimmerman provoked Martin's use of force against him. There was no evidence that Zimmerman tried to physically restrain Martin.
Whether you are 17 or 28 or 52, you have the right to resist a beating. It's time to recognize this case for what it was: an unfortunate encounter between two people, each of whom found the others actions suspicious. One had the opportunity to leave and continue on his way home. Instead of availing himself of that opportunity, he chose to assault the other person. Wrong option.
Whether Martin was black, white or purple was not a factor at the time of the shooting. Zimmerman's will to live without permanent brain damage was entirely reasonable. Stand your ground or no stand your ground, self-defense is judged by the circumstances that existed at the time deadly force was used.
The actions of Zimmerman before Martin's attack was an issue only for the determination of ill-will, hatred, spite or evil intent, as contained in the Murder 2 statute. Once the jury rejected the state's argument on murder 2, the series of acts leading up the non-physical encounter are irrelevant. What matters is Zimmerman's belief at the time he responded to Martin's use of force. Was his belief reasonable that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent great bodily harm to himself. The jury said yes. Race has nothing to do with it.
It is unfortunate that Trayvon Martin lost his life, but he was wrong to use his fist and the cement as a weapon and attack George Zimmerman. Changing the law is not an appropriate response when the state failed to prove Zimmerman had an alternate means to extricate himself from the danger. Suggesting that someone being beaten should wait for a fatal or near-fatal blow before defending himself makes no sense.
The police investigation in this case was not deficient. They interviewed witnesses, some more than once and canvassed the neighborhood for more witnesses. They interviewed Zimmerman without a lawyer several times and had him reinact the encounter with Martin and the shooting. They conducted a voice stress test which Zimmerman passed (and was not admitted into evidence, which was the correct ruling.) They obtained phone records and examined Zimmerman's phone, downloading texts and photos. They got court orders to examine Martin's phone when his parents and lawyers were unable or unwilling to provide a passcode. They collected physical evidence and sent it for testing. They obtained videos of neighboring businesses. The only deficiency was in the preservation of evidence on Martin's body and clothing, and more mistakes were made at the Medical Examiner's office than by the police at the scene.
The evidence obtained from the investigation would be no greater if the FDLE and state's attorney's office had the case from Day 1 -- unless they were willing to manufacture it. Even Angela Corey said it would be wrong to charge someone before the investigation is complete, and that would take at least 4 to 6 weeks in a case like this. Calls for Zimmerman's arrest were premature. And as evident from the family's most recent statements, they would not have been satisfied with just an arrest. Only a conviction would have been acceptable to them.
Police are supposed to impartially follow the facts and then develop a theory. It's inappropriate to develop a theory and then try and force the facts to fit a preconceived theory. Surely we learned something from the travesty of doing it backwards as was done in the case of JonBenet Ramsey. Her parents were vilified for years because the police were hellbent on finding facts to fit their theory of guilt instead of following the facts and evidence to see where they led.
If the public wants change, a good starting point would be opposition to Neighborhood Watch programs that encourage people to report behavior that isn't criminal but merely suspicious. Ending police endorsement of such programs might make a difference.
I am all for protesting the racial disparity in our criminal justice system. But put the focus where it belongs: On arbitrary and unfair laws that disproportionately affect minorities, police misconduct, too much discretion vested in prosecutors, and overly harsh sentencing laws and guidelines. Leave George Zimmerman out of it.
| < Cop Who Leaked Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Photos Placed on Leave | Obama on Zimmerman: Part II > |