Breitbart’s Shapiro Outshines Politico’s Tau in Initial Coverage of President’s Surprise ‘Trayvon Could Have Been Me’ Remarks
President Obama made a surprise appearance at today’s White House briefing. He chose to speak on Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman situation.
Byron Tau at the Politico and Ben Shapiro at Breitbart.com’s Big Government have initial reports. Let’s compare them, shall we?
First, Tau’s take at the Politico (both items reproduced in full because of their brevity and for fair use and discussion purposes; bolds are mine):
President Obama: ‘Trayvon Martin could have been me’
President Barack Obama responded Friday to the controversy over the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida.
“I said [earlier] that this could have been my son….” he said, in extended, surprise remarks in the White House briefing room. “Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
But Obama reminded Americans that progress on the issue of race has been made.
“Things are getting better,” Obama said. “Each successive generation seems to be making progress in terms of changing attitudes.”
The Martin case drew national attention after the unarmed teenager was shot and killed while walking home from a convenience store by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman. After a short trial, Zimmerman was acquitted by a Florida jury last week, causing a national stir.
Now, here’s Breitbart’s Shapiro:
OBAMA: ‘TRAYVON COULD HAVE BEEN ME’
Speaking at the White House on Friday, President Obama addressed the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin for the first time since 2012, when he declared that if he had a son, he’d look like Martin. This time, Obama said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
Obama also said, “Reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. Once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.”
Obama said he was “bouncing around” ideas with his staff on how to respond to the Zimmerman verdict, adding, “I think it is going to be important for us to do some soul searching.” Pushing against Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, Obama stated, “If Trayvon Martin was of his age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?”
Finally, Obama went into the racial complexities of the Martin situation: “If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.” He did say, “As difficult and as challenging as this whole episode has been, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better…We’re becoming a more perfect union, not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.”
There’s little doubt that Shapiro brought out far more newsworthy items in his available verbiage than did Tau. Obama’s distracting mention of “Stand Your Ground” — which was not relevant in any way, shape, or form in the Zimmerman trial — and his speculation about a “different outcome” if Martin had been white are far more newsworthy than the “we’re making progress” pap Tau relayed at the Politico.
Clear advantage: Shapiro. Someone should ask Tau to visit the lost and found to see if his news judgment might have been turned in there.
The White House doesn’t have the full text up yet. I believe it will be available here when that occurs. When it does, comparing it to what the establishment press decides to report about it might merit another post.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
you’re lying about stand your ground law’s effect on the verdict. did you read the jury instructions, which include “stand his ground”?
Comment by Tim Russo — July 19, 2013 @ 3:05 pm
Yawwwwwwwwwwn.
Even Holder said it’s not relevant to the TM-GZ case:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/16/eric-holder-condemns-stand-your-ground-b
What about “Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention” don’t you understand?
UPDATE: Is Eric Holder lying too?
Comment by Tom — July 19, 2013 @ 3:24 pm
read the jury instructions. you’re also taking holder way out of context.
Comment by Tim Russo — July 19, 2013 @ 3:57 pm
Sure, the jury instructions had the term standing ground and that’s supposed to be code?
Your koolaid is so strong you’re seeing things no one else, including Holder sees.
In context, what about …
+++++++++++++
Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if—and the “if” is important—no safe retreat is available.
But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long and—unfortunately—has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation—we must stand our ground—to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.
++++++++++++++++++
… don’t you understand?
GZ had no safe retreat available once attacked by Martin. It’s not arguable, period.
Comment by Tom — July 19, 2013 @ 8:09 pm
Of course it’s arguable. Zimmerman did not testify. There is no way to know that he was attacked or not. No way to know who initiated any fight, other than evidence that he followed Trayvon. No witness or evidence indicates who started what, other than Zimmerman initiating the entire affair.
Nothing in your quote from Holder suggests Holder doesn’t believe Stand Your Ground was a part of the jury instructions. He is clearly moving on in this quote to Stand Your Ground more broadly, not just in this case. I notice you leave out the portion right before this paragraph.
As for the jury instructions, the judge took the Stand Your Ground instructions almost exactly from the statute, and if you used Google, you would find that jury instructions in second degree murder cases before Stand Your Ground was enacted were very different. It’s not “code”, it has the force of law when it’s in jury instructions.
You do know I used to be an attorney?
Comment by Tim Russo — July 19, 2013 @ 8:20 pm
Yeah, and you’re the ooooooonly one with these remarkable insights?
Please.
Holder said what he said. SYG was not relevant. You can scream from here to eternity that he did, and it will change nothing.
Zimmerman gave statements to the police, who originally decided there was nothing justifying ANY charges. Turns out, based on the waste of a trial, they were right.
If terminology that sounds like “SYG” is in self-defense case jury instructions ALL the time, then there’s nothing unique about their usage here — and you STILL don’t have an argument.
You used to be a lot of things …
Comment by Tom — July 20, 2013 @ 3:22 am
Zimmerman’s statements to police, or Hannity, or anyone else were not under oath or subject to cross examination, they are not evidence. The only evidence of who started a fight is from Rachel Jenteel who testified that Martin said “get off get off”.
You are twisting yourself into contortions in defense of the stalked murder of a child on his way home. Don’t you think that says something? You constantly post about the pope and positivity. Where does that go? Look at what you’ve become in service to something so profoundly un-Christian.
You twist Holder’s words from a speech which he began by recounting a talk he had with his own son about this case, a father son talk he hoped had faded into history. You really believe Holder thinks SYG had nothing to do with this case? If so, why did he have “the talk” with his son?
Look at what Jesus calls you to be, and then look at your actions. You can change and repent. It’s always there.
Comment by Tim Russo — July 20, 2013 @ 9:58 am
The entire SYG thing is a distraction from the real issues and the admission by Obama that he was just like Trayvon Martin. Like Trayvon, Obama was a drug abuser. Obama was the leader of the Chom gang in Hawaii, a gang known for selling Marijuana to finance their activities. So it is understandable Obama identifies with Trayvon as Trayvon himself was a drug abuser using both Marijuana and Lean.
What Obama has done is what every liberal does when they refuse to take responsibility for their personal wrong doing, they play the victim to deflect from their failings. This entire Zimmerman episode is a parody on Obama’s life. Obama admits he was Trayvon in his younger life and Trayvon’s death hits too close to home. What’s worse is that Obama is validating the drug culture that has overtaken the Black Community or Youth. To repudiate Trayvon is to repudiate himself and Obama cannot admit he was wrong.
The travesty here is that Obama would rather persecute a man trying to save his life than to deal with the real problem of drug abuse that is plaguing the Black Youth of this country. It is truly ironic Zimmerman was an Obama supporter and voter in addition to being a supporter of the Black Community in his many deeds only to be thrown under Obama’s racial bus. So Obama would rather disarm the nation of innocent citizens leaving them to be victims of drug addicted youth because his own person experience is that given time those youth will eventually grow out of their downward spiral of person destruction as he did. Trayvon died before he had the time to grow out of it. Never you mind all the victims that are created along the way toward personal growth! That’s their tough luck.
Comment by dscott — July 20, 2013 @ 10:40 am
The Post-Zimmerman Poison Pill
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353864/post-zimmerman-poison-pill-heather-mac-donald
Close on the heels of the “biased justice system” conceit, however, is the preposterous implication that the primary homicide threat faced by young black males comes from honorary whites such as George Zimmerman…
…In fact, if a black parent wants to radically reduce his son’s chance of getting shot, he should live in a white neighborhood…
…The “white death threat” meme predominated in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting as well, of course. But in the intervening year and a half, the mainstream media have been forced, however fleetingly and inchoately, to acknowledge the black-on-black shooting spree that continues to characterize urban America, despite the country’s 17-year crime drop. The January 2013 slaying of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, a majorette in the Chicago marching band that had played at Obama’s inauguration, triggered sporadic attention to Chicago’s hardly unique gun violence over the following months. Even if the press was unwilling to point out that the killers of such inner-city victims share their skin color, that fact should have been obvious to anyone who has even the most remote contact with reality…
…If shopkeepers in an area plagued by black robbery and shoplifting go into heightened awareness mode when black youth congregate outside their store or enter it, their response is not only inevitable, it is also rational, based on the evidence. The most efficient solution to such reactions is to bring the black crime rate down to the rates of white and Asian crime…
Comment by dscott — July 20, 2013 @ 10:55 am
Zimmerman’s statements to police … are not evidence.
Horse manure. I guess confessions aren’t evidence either. Spare me the “they aren’t evidence until introduced in court” legal dodge.
The only evidence of who started a fight is from Rachel Jenteel who testified that Martin said “get off get off”.
In the dictionary, there’s a picture of her next to the term “completely not credible witness” (note how charitable I’m being compared to what she really is.
You are twisting yourself into contortions in defense of the stalked murder of a child on his way home.
Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman had begun to return to his car when attacked. A 17 year-old druggie with a history of committing crimes (theft, etc.) and highly developed MMA is not a “child”:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/07/trayvon-martin-burglary-tools-and-pcp.html
You constantly post about the pope and positivity. Where does that go? Look at what you’ve become in service to something so profoundly un-Christian.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. This isn’t about me; it’s about what the facts are and the human right of self-defense.
You twist Holder’s words. … You really believe Holder thinks SYG had nothing to do with this case?
Holder said what he said. As much as you might wish otherwise, you can’t and never will be able to change that. Holder may wish SYG had nothing to do with the case, but he said what he said.
Look at what Jesus calls you to be, and then look at your actions. You can change and repent. It’s always there.
This has nothing to do with me, as noted. It has to do with the facts, and whether YOU will ever acknowledge them.
Comment by Tom — July 20, 2013 @ 11:09 am
Where is the evidence that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman on his way back to his car? I watched the entire trial, no such evidence was ever introduced other than unsworn accounts from Zimmerman to others on videotape, the truth of which cannot be held as evidence, because they were unsworn and not subject to cross. In addition, he has given contradictory statements on critical factual questions in those video recordings. They can be authenticated as statements that occurred, but their truth is not in evidence. Basic evidence law. Of course, you can choose to believe Zimmerman’s statements, but they are not “facts”, and you have to choose between conflicting statements.
The only factual evidence of who started anything is Zimmerman starting to follow Martin, continuing to follow Martin, and evidence that Martin said he was being followed and “get off get off” before his phone went dead. Whether or not Rachel Jenteel’s testimony is credible has been tested by oath and cross (unlike Zimmerman’s) which makes it evidence the jury can choose to believe or not. However, there is nothing in evidence that contradicts it, other than the unsworn statements of Zimmerman.
Martin’s character is not relevant in a court of law, however, even if Martin is this thug you portray him to be, this too is not in evidence, other than traces of THC in his blood, which any good stoner knows can last for more than a month after ingesting.
As for SYG, even the juror who has spoken after the verdict stated that SYG played a role, twice, unsolicited.
“The law became very confusing. It became very confusing,” she told Cooper Monday night. “We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self defense, Stand Your Ground.” Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”
No Tom, it’s not about you, of course, unless you are ignoring what’s right in front of your eyes.
Comment by Tim Russo — July 20, 2013 @ 11:29 am
Where is the evidence that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman on his way back to his car?
There is NO reason to believe Zimmerman was lying.
Martin’s character is not relevant in a court of law.
But it strongly supports a contention Zimmerman told the truth in his interview.
As for SYG, even the juror who has spoken after the verdict stated that SYG played a role, twice, unsolicited.
Holder, an attorney just like you “used to be,” said what he said. If he thought SYG was relevant, especially that the jury didn’t follow its instructions, he’d be demanding an appeal on that basis. He’s not — yet.
To be consistent with your take, what jurors tell TV shows isn’t “evidence,” either, is it? Substantively, I said SYG wasn’t relevant because the prosecution didn’t use it as a basis for its case, and GZ didn’t invoke it in defense. If the jury misapplied the law and failed to follow instructions, then the prosecution should appeal. If they don’t, that will demonstrate the irrelevance of the juror’s TV show appearance.
Comment by Tom — July 20, 2013 @ 12:10 pm
Zimmerman’s statements to police have been contradictory. The veracity of his previous statements not under oath cannot be settled because he contradicts himself. This is why he chose not to testify, which is his right, of course. But it doesn’t mean that his version of events is true. His version of events has never been tested under oath or cross.
A juror’s statements after the verdict are of course not evidence in the previous trial, but they do contradict what you claim, as do the jury instructions themselves. SYG changed Florida law on self-defense broadly across all jury instructions in such cases, that is amply documented, specifically, they removed a duty to retreat if safe retreat is possible. That is the point Holder made. Self defense has always required a duty to retreat if you can, until SYG.
In fact, self defense before SYG was (and in Ohio, where there is no SYG), still is) an “affirmative defense”, meaning it needed to be proved. It essentially flips the burden of proof from prosecution to defense to show that deadly force was required. SYG removes that “affirmative defense requirement, which is the point Holder was making.
Prosecutions cannot of course appeal a verdict for the defense. This is known as double jeopardy. The case is over. Another jurisdiction may bring further charges on the same facts, which is why Holder is not commenting specifically on the facts of his own ongoing investigation.
Come on, Tom.
Comment by Tim Russo — July 20, 2013 @ 12:22 pm
Zimmerman’s statements to police have been contradictory. The veracity of his previous statements not under oath cannot be settled because he contradicts himself.
Yet none of this made it into the trial. Really? Come on, Tim.
Your point on double jeopardy is taken.
Prove that FL’s SYG LAW (to which you must know I was referring in discussing “SYG”) was in the jury instructions. I don’t see it:
http://www.news4jax.com/news/jury-instructions-at-center-of-zimmerman-verdict/-/475880/20977592/-/hqkbc8/-/index.html
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/state/document-of-instructions-for-jury-in-zimmerman-trial-released
The closest you can get is:
+++++++++++++
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to preventthe commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense …
+++++++++++++
“Standing your ground” in self-defense is separate from the “stand your ground laws” which cover what can and cannot do in your own residence (which is why they’re called “Castle laws”).
“Stand your ground law” was irrelevant to the case, and was NOT in the jury instructions. You as a lawyer should know that. QED.
I resent the time you wasted bringing an obviously false argument, when what Holder said should have been enough.
UPDATE: Actually “stand your ground is only an element of castle laws:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/louisiana_stand_your_ground_zi.html
And with that, this thread is closed.
Comment by Tom — July 20, 2013 @ 12:40 pm