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.//