Pres Obama's selective public grief

steelcityblues · 29-03-2012 06:58PM #1

In relation to the murder of two British students last year.

His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.

Not long after not being shy of speaking on Trayvon Martin, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9173820/Parents-of-murdered-British-students-criticise-Barack-Obama.html

Memnoch · 29-03-2012 07:57PM

Everyone engages in selective public grief. Look at all that nonsense over Diana. Whenever a British or American soldier dies it's a big deal. Yet very little mention of the countless civilians who don't happen to be invading someone else's home and are getting killed every day through no fault of their own.

All this whataboutry is just an endless circle. It's like giving out about someone protesting something by saying well, why don't they protest X, Y or Z instead.

A pointless and facetious exercise.

P.S. Also... not to play it down or anything, but the British students were killed in a mugging (I believe) and it looks like the killer has been brought to justice. The issue of trayvon has strong racial undertones. I.E. Quite possible he was gunned down for being black. On top of that the person who killed him hasn't been charged with any crime or arrested. It's a completely different situation and it's one where it's appropriate the leader of the country say something.

steelcityblues · 29-03-2012 08:03PM

Memnoch wrote: »

Everyone engages in selective public grief. Look at all that nonsense over Diana. Whenever a British or American soldier dies it's a big deal. Yet very little mention of the countless civilians who don't happen to be invading someone else's home and are getting killed every day through no fault of their own.

All this whataboutry is just an endless circle. It's like giving out about someone protesting something by saying well, why don't they protest X, Y or Z instead.

A pointless and facetious exercise.

I agree with your point of view that gunned down soldiers are given more prominence by the western establishment in general, than ordinary civilians. Which is always shameful, IMO.

However, if George W Bush, and his main team, decided to publicly condemn a black on white crime, but ignored a white on black crime, would you have had anything to say?

I don't get your protester analogy, obviously someone primarily concerned animal rights will dedicate the majority of their time towards that. The President is supposed to represent everyone.

Memnoch · 29-03-2012 08:08PM

It wasn't a black on white crime. It was a stupid thug trying to rob two people and when they didn't have anything, he killed them. Probably because he's been brought up in such a way that he doesn't have any empathy or understand. I mean he's a teenager right? Obviously some kind of idiot. Though I doubt that attack was racially motivated. He was also caught AND brought to justice.

There is a lot of violent crime in the US. A lot of people are murdered. The president doesn't comment on every incident.

I've pointed out why he commented in this case. Really you are trying to draw conclusions that aren't just there.

steelcityblues · 29-03-2012 08:13PM

Memnoch wrote: »

It wasn't a black on white crime. It was a stupid thug trying to rob two people and when they didn't have anything, he killed them. Probably because he's been brought up in such a way that he doesn't have any empathy or understand. I mean he's a teenager right? Obviously some kind of idiot. Though I doubt that attack was racially motivated. He was also caught AND brought to justice.

There is a lot of violent crime in the US. A lot of people are murdered. The president doesn't comment on every incident.

I've pointed out why he commented in this case. Really you are trying to draw conclusions that aren't just there.

How do you explain the odd 'he could have been my son' comment, and would a simple statement of regret not have sufficed?

I think it is significant that the parents of one of the victims wrote to Obama, which I doubt happens in the majority of cases in the US.

Fergus_Nash · 29-03-2012 08:23PM

But then Obama should have to comment on every single murder in the US using that logic. The deaths get attention because they were two tourists, but they are no different to any other killings.

The Trayvon incident was seemingly a racist issue, and the President took the opinion that it is better for him to condemn that than stay quiet, as racism is still an undercurrent in American society.

But a simple question, are you making this point because Obama didn't condemn a black murderer?

steelcityblues · 29-03-2012 08:29PM

Fergus_Nash wrote: »

But a simple question, are you making this point because Obama didn't condemn a black murderer?

I am making the point that the parents went to the trouble of sending three letters to the White House, that not getting a response - either publicly or privately- must have been very disheartening for them, and that it makes the President look insensitive.

Also, given his need to highlight Martin's race the other day, it will lead him to criticism that he may consider black victims more important to make statements about. Not what is needed in an election year.

I think a lot of people here would not hold back in their criticism if a Republican President did the reverse.

Fergus_Nash · 29-03-2012 08:59PM

Do you know how many letters Obama receives each day? I don't by the way. I can only guess this is news because a British paper has listened to the story of the parents, and publicised it.

Maybe highlighting the race was a stupid thing to do, I don't know. But when I first read these posts, I thought of sectarian killings in the North and how the President and various leading Ministers would have to make comments about the deaths to try and ease any possible backlash of violence. The undercurrent is similar, and keeping a lid on it is very desirable. That's why Obama might have had to wade in on the discussion.

As for a Republican President, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if he or she publicly condemned a black person killing a white person if it seemed racially motivated, and didn't comment on a white person killing two black tourists from England.

Carcharodon · 30-03-2012 12:11AM

steelcityblues wrote: »

How do you explain the odd 'he could have been my son' comment, and would a simple statement of regret not have sufficed?

I think it is significant that the parents of one of the victims wrote to Obama, which I doubt happens in the majority of cases in the US.

I think Memnoch has answered your questions/grievances with Obama in a very conclusive and polite manner.
When I see posts like your it makes my head spin, just feels like a way for people to discredit the president with any type of complaint no matter how trivial.

At the end of the day the Trayvon Martin case is a national story which strikes a nerve among racial tensions in America, Obama is a politician and is only doing what politicians do.
Or maybe he genuinely felt a connection to the senseless murder of a young black youth and which the murderer has yet to be held accountable, who knows...

Overheal · 30-03-2012 02:46AM

Fergus_Nash wrote: »

The Trayvon incident was seemingly a racist issue

How? Seriously. Only by the media, that have spun this entire thing out of whack. First they were upset with inaudible words that can't even be made out, introducing the racial slur 'coons' which is *widely used*, let me tell you :rolleyes: and this whole thing where they all wear hoodies now. wtf, like.

There was no racial controversy until the media made it one. There is nothing in the case that suggests racial motivation. This became a race issue because the media wanted it to be.

Carcharodon · 30-03-2012 05:06AM

Overheal wrote: »

How? Seriously. Only by the media, that have spun this entire thing out of whack. First they were upset with inaudible words that can't even be made out, introducing the racial slur 'coons' which is *widely used*, let me tell you :rolleyes: and this whole thing where they all wear hoodies now. wtf, like.

There was no racial controversy until the media made it one. There is nothing in the case that suggests racial motivation. This became a race issue because the media wanted it to be.

The media will always be the media and sensationalize things but to suggest that there is nothing in the case to suggest racial motivation is a bit naive. I think that one could easily make the case that racial profiling took place with the given facts and If anyone says that the same thing would of happened to a white kid walking home eating a pack of skittles, then they are deluded in my opinion.

Who would "they" be ? Black people ? coons ?

I am not saying the kid was an angel but the facts remain that he was unarmed and shot dead my a man that took it upon himself to follow him even after he was told not to. Race shouldn't even have to come into it in my opinion, Zimmerman should be put on trial and this stand your ground law is just nuts.

Manic Moran · 30-03-2012 05:59AM

I am not saying the kid was an angel but the facts remain that he was unarmed and shot dead my a man that took it upon himself to follow him even after he was told not to. Race shouldn't even have to come into it in my opinion, Zimmerman should be put on trial and this stand your ground law is just nuts.

Well, firstly, the 'Stand your ground' law doesn't apply in this case anyway. Even Zimmerman's lawyer hasn't claimed that it does, and I'm not quite sure who started that tack of conversation. Secondly, in the cases that it does apply, it merely codeified extant law anyway. All it does is reduce the worries of Monday-morning quarterbacking amongst the innocent. It's similar to the recent Irish legislation about meeting burglars with force. That was the case it used to be anyway under Irish common law, just most people didn't know it.

The problem with the Martin case is that there are actually two entirely separate issues, which are generally not being separated by, for lack of a better term, the rabble rousers.

1) Was Mr Zimmerman a racist, or at least, racially profiling?
2) Why has Mr Zimmerman not been charged?

It is quite possible that Mr Zimmerman is a racist or was racially profiling. Being bigoted is not a crime. Neither is following someone on a public street, disregarding a dispatcher's advice, nor even asking someone what they're up to. The police and State Attorney can only act if they have evidence to show a crime has been committed and they have no reason to believe that no matter what the motivation was for Mr Zimmerman to follow Mr Martin in the first place, that at the time the gunshot was fired, Mr Zimmerman was not in fear of serious bodily harm, or even had actually started the violent confrontation. Without such evidence, the police's hands are pretty much tied, no matter how much Jesse Jackson or Mr Martin's parents may want Zimmerman charged.

NTM

Memnoch · 30-03-2012 08:18AM

Overheal wrote: »

How? Seriously. Only by the media, that have spun this entire thing out of whack. First they were upset with inaudible words that can't even be made out, introducing the racial slur 'coons' which is *widely used*, let me tell you :rolleyes: and this whole thing where they all wear hoodies now. wtf, like.

There was no racial controversy until the media made it one. There is nothing in the case that suggests racial motivation. This became a race issue because the media wanted it to be.

You're joking right? There is this emerging trend of 'white victimisation,' where people seem to get upset anytime it's pointed out that racism is still a big problem. Words like political correctness get thrown around a lot and the whole theme of white people being unfairly oppressed or sullied is very popular among many circles. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. There are always idiots who will cry racism at everything. But in this case, it really does seem obvious. I don't need the media to tell me that this guy's actions were most likely racially motivated.

It is quite possible that Mr Zimmerman is a racist or was racially profiling. Being bigoted is not a crime. Neither is following someone on a public street, disregarding a dispatcher's advice, nor even asking someone what they're up to. The police and State Attorney can only act if they have evidence to show a crime has been committed and they have no reason to believe that no matter what the motivation was for Mr Zimmerman to follow Mr Martin in the first place, that at the time the gunshot was fired, Mr Zimmerman was not in fear of serious bodily harm, or even had actually started the violent confrontation. Without such evidence, the police's hands are pretty much tied, no matter how much Jesse Jackson or Mr Martin's parents may want Zimmerman charged.

Being racist isn't a crime. ACTING on your racist ideas is. It's called hate crime. The items you list might not be crimes on their own but they are, most certainly, pieces of evidence. Since the only other person who could tell us definitively what happened is dead, we are left with the issue of is Mr. Zimmerman trustworthy and telling the truth about what happened? All these pieces of evidence suggest that at the very least he is being dishonest.

I don't think the police's hands are tied at all. Zimmerman seems to be lying and there is a strong alternate hypothesis under which he can be charged.

Ironically, the stand your ground law probably applies to Trayvon more than to Zimmerman. Since it was Zimmerman who sought confrontation with an unarmed, innocent kid who was minding his own business.

P.S. Just as a matter of clarification. How does the new law work in Ireland? What can/can't I do to potential burglers in my home?

RichieC · 30-03-2012 01:27PM

This Trayvon case is a tinder box about to go off, I was unsurprised the president weighed in.

There's video footage of Zimmerman being led into the police station, sure doesnt look like a man who had his nose broken and his head smashed.

It should be noted that Zimmermans father is a retired Judge, so it's rather unsurprising that no charges have been filed.

Cork boy 55 · 30-03-2012 03:23PM

The POTUS should not discuss on-going crimnal cases
is he is forced by media to comment they should stay neturl just offer condolences and tell people the legal system is in play.
and he/she should not take sides and play the race card nuts.

Imagine this

"Zimmerman looks like my son"
George W Bush

Nuts

Manic Moran · 30-03-2012 03:23PM

Memnoch wrote: »

Being racist isn't a crime. ACTING on your racist ideas is. It's called hate crime.

No. Acting unlawfully on your racist ideas is a crime. Hate crime laws are generally sentencing enhancements. eg: If battery ordinarily gets you two years in jail, battery because the victim was black will get you ten. But the battery has to be unlawful to begin with.

The items you list might not be crimes on their own but they are, most certainly, pieces of evidence. Since the only other person who could tell us definitively what happened is dead, we are left with the issue of is Mr. Zimmerman trustworthy and telling the truth about what happened? All these pieces of evidence suggest that at the very least he is being dishonest.

And that he has lied to police or the State Attorney's office can be proven? His actions and comments may leave him open to the inevitable civil suit, but that's a different issue.

I don't think the police's hands are tied at all. Zimmerman seems to be lying and there is a strong alternate hypothesis under which he can be charged.

Hypothesis is well and good. Can evidence be provided that will convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt? If 'no', then the issue is closed as far as the criminal justice system is concerned.

P.S. Just as a matter of clarification. How does the new law work in Ireland? What can/can't I do to potential burglers in my home?

Irish common law before the legislation: The Constitution protects a dwellinghouse against both government and private invasion. A burglar is violating this Constitutional protection, and is considered an attacker against the person and may be met with reasonable force to drive him off or end the threat. Homeowners are not under an obligation to retreat or avoid confrontation (DPP v Barnes)

Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling Act 2011 :
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0113/home.html

The Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling Act 2011 recognises the constitutional position of a person's home and allows for a person to use reasonable force in defending the home.

The aim is to protect people in their dwelling from assault and to protect their property.

The new Act provides that a person is not under an obligation to retreat from their home when there is an intruder.

If you compare the text of the legislation http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/index.html with the Judgement of the Court in 2006 http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument you'll find that they're pretty much identical.

There's video footage of Zimmerman being led into the police station, sure doesnt look like a man who had his nose broken and his head smashed.

I believe that video was taken four hours after the shooting, in which time the medical teams had a bit of an opportunity to clean him up a bit. I don't recall anyone in a position to make the claim that the nose was broken actually doing so, but there does seem to be sufficient evidence that there was a fight.

NTM

RichieC · 30-03-2012 03:28PM

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The POTUS should not discuss on-going crimnal cases
is he is forced by media to comment they should stay neturl just offer condolences and tell people the legal system is in play.
and he/she should not take sides and play the race card nuts.

Imagine this

"Zimmerman looks like my son"
George W Bush

Nuts

Bush is Hispanic?

he allowed himself one personal word in an otherwise measured statement. You're obviously a republican (or at least ideologically identify with them) since you're a military hard guy, so it's no surprise your taking Malkin et alls sides in the row.

Overheal · 30-03-2012 04:02PM

Carcharodon wrote: »

Who would "they" be ? Black people ? coons ?

By They, I meant the media.

Seriously. You've just exemplified what pisses me off about the entire spiel.

Memnoch wrote: »

in this case, it really does seem obvious. I don't need the media to tell me that this guy's actions were most likely racially motivated.

Not good enough. Why does it seem obvious? What evidence are you basing this off?

RichieC · 30-03-2012 04:07PM

This outragious tale isnt getting half the press:

As the Trayvon Martin case draws national attention, we look at another fatal shooting of an African-American male that has received far less scrutiny. Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., a 68-year-old African-American Marine veteran, was fatally shot in November by White Plains, NY, police who responded to a false alarm from his medical alert pendant. The officers broke down Chamberlain’s door, tasered him, and then shot him dead. Audio of the entire incident was recorded by the medical alert device in Chamberlain’s apartment. We’re joined by family attorneys and Chamberlain’s son, Kenneth Chamberlain, Jr., who struggles through tears to recount his father’s final moments, including the way police officers mocked his father’s past as a marine. "For them to look at my father that way, (with) no regard for his life, every morning I think about it," he says.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny

The police are actually recorded calling him the N word and laughing about his military career while he lay there dead.

Carcharodon · 30-03-2012 04:07PM

Overheal wrote: »

Dont make me get myself banned. By They, I meant the media.

Seriously. You've just exemplified what pisses me off about the entire spiel.

I didn't realize all the media are wearing hoodies now, must of missed that one.

RichieC · 30-03-2012 04:08PM

Carcharodon wrote: »

I didn't realize all the media are wearing hoodies now, must of missed that one.

A few politicians did too, and a basketball team.

Overheal · 30-03-2012 04:12PM

I mean **** I was wearing Hoodies before it was a political statement. I doubt wearing one makes me come off as a dangerous criminal though.

Carcharodon · 30-03-2012 05:22PM

RichieC wrote: »

A few politicians did too, and a basketball team.

Yea, I saw the Miami heat team make that statement and also the politician do it in congress or some political setting, he was thrown out(correctly so).

James Cessna · 31-03-2012 02:28AM

steelcityblues wrote: »

In relation to the murder of two British students last year.

His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.

Not long after not being shy of speaking on Trayvon Martin, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9173820/Parents-of-murdered-British-students-criticise-Barack-Obama.html

The Left is clearly “milking” this incident for all it is worth!

They clearly want George Zimmerman to be the aggressor in this incident.

They are hoping against all hope they can rally the blacks and Hispanics in America to cast a "sympathy" vote against the "white" Republicans.

Those on the left have no shame! They will use any "incident" to their political advantage if they believe they have an opportunity for even the slightest bit of success!

They could care less about Trayvon Martin. They are using the death of this poor child to advance their own political agenda!

southsiderosie · 31-03-2012 02:56AM

James Cessna wrote: »

The Left is clearly “milking” this incident for all it is worth!

They clearly want George Zimmerman to be the aggressor in this incident.

They are hoping against all hope they can rally the blacks and Hispanics in America to cast a "sympathy" vote against the "white" Republicans.

Those on the left have no shame! They will use any "incident" to their political advantage if they believe they have an opportunity for even the slightest bit of success!

They could care less about Trayvon Martin. They are using the death of this poor child to advance their own political agenda!

Last I checked, Jeb Bush was not a liberal, and when asked about this incident, not only called it a "tragedy", but said that he did not think the Stand Your Ground Law (which he signed) was applicable in this case.

The capacity to be appalled by this situation, or to have some sense of empathy for the victim and his family, is not limited to liberals or blacks.

Overheal · 31-03-2012 05:10AM

southsiderosie wrote: »

The capacity to be appalled by this situation, or to have some sense of empathy for the victim and his family, is not limited to liberals or blacks.

Or to people who think this is a race issue. Still isn't one though.

Manic Moran · 31-03-2012 06:12AM

Those on the left have no shame! They will use any "incident" to their political advantage if they believe they have an opportunity for even the slightest bit of success!

How does this differ from the more enthusiastic members of the right? And what's with the bold lettering? Emphasis doesn't make you any more correct.

NTM

steelcityblues · 31-03-2012 06:29PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Last I checked, Jeb Bush was not a liberal, and when asked about this incident, not only called it a "tragedy", but said that he did not think the Stand Your Ground Law (which he signed) was applicable in this case.

The capacity to be appalled by this situation, or to have some sense of empathy for the victim and his family, is not limited to liberals or blacks.

I think Pres Obama was right to feel appalled by another murder, but he should have refrained from putting his comments into a racial context. Zimmerman might be a murderer, but whether he is a racist is another matter.

RichieC · 31-03-2012 06:43PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think Pres Obama was right to feel appalled by another murder, but he should have refrained from putting his comments into a racial context. Zimmerman might be a murderer, but whether he is a racist is another matter.

He says under his breath while on the phone to the police "fking Coons".

it's funny, because MSNBC said they used the best sound gear in the business to extract it, and it wasn't clear at all, but when the young turks done with their - I dunno, obviously crappy gear it was clear as day.

here it is... (flick to 2:40 in the video to hear the extracted audio)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

The guy was pretty much harassing the police every time he spotted a black guy in his neighbourhood. He clearly has issues.

I'm pretty much convinced at this stage that the only reason he's not being charged is because his father is a retired magistrate. The right wing press/blogosphere didn't even get involved in this story until they had a bunch of ad hominem nonsense about Tray with which to smear his image with in the media.

this is a decent write up on how this story initially baffled those on the right.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203270002

steelcityblues · 31-03-2012 07:03PM

On one comment, you are going to label him as a racist? Even the YT hosts are not doing it in that clip.

You are probably closer to the mark that he is out free because of his Dad being a Judge.

This wasn't exactly a normal, care free day, which is obvious from him making a 9/11 call in the first place. People don't always say the right things in times of panic.

The fact that NBC edited the phone call shows that a large part of the media are getting a warped thrill out of this whole story.

RichieC · 31-03-2012 07:39PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

On one comment, you are going to label him as a racist? Even the YT hosts are not doing it in that clip..

In the context which he made it? I'm gonna say there's a decent chance he is. Also based on his incessant calls to the police every time he spotted a black youth in the area, of course I already said that so why I'm having to explain it again is a bit weird.

Pres Obama's selective public grief

Comments