To the original poster, Health: I will happily and enthusiastically pull the lever for the reelection of President Obama (or check the box, or scan the scanner, or begin the biguine, or whatever we do in New York these days to vote), for a number or reasons, including my expectation that his foreign and related policies will be best for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. But for now, let me respond to your comments.
1. Mr. Obama is the president of the US, not France. Toulousse is in France, Florida is in the US. You could look it up. So even if President Obama said nothing about the assassination of 3 Jews in France, his focus on a killing in Florida is reasonable and appropriate. And I believe that Mr. Obama did make some reasonable and appropriate comments about the killings in France, but that is neither here nor there.
2. Mr. Obama did not jump to any conclusions. He called for a continuing investigation. He noted – in a locution which I personally abhor – that the deceased child is African-American. I don’t like the locution, but I see nothing harmful in noting the victim’s race. The locution he used personalized the comments in a touching way, but there is nothing inappropriate about that.
3. Your legal analysis of the currently unknown facts about the confrontation is just plain wrong. If Mr. Zimmerman was unlawfully following young Mr. Martin, and Mr. Martin “stood his ground” with his fists, Mr. Zimmerman had no right to defend himself, with a gun or otherwise, as Mr. Zimmerman was apparently – to you – engaging in conduct that could reasonably be expected to provoke ground-standing by Mr. Martin. A 911 operator specifically told Mr. Zimmerman to back off – police were dispatched to check out what the armed, goyishe shomrim has complained about – no need to do anything further if the cops are on their way.
4. You wrote, in part: “What I feel happened after the pushing [by the gunman, Zimmerman] was the kid [young Mr. Martin] got very angry and violently attacked the accused.” If your feeling is correct, then you fail to see the applicability of the Florida “stand you ground” law to Mr. Martin – he has a right to attack someone who was pushing him. The gunman at that point, having provoked Mr. Martin, was not rightfully standing his ground, he was losing a fight, from which he had to retreat. Your interpretation of the “stand your ground” law is preposterous. It surely is not intended to authorize a citizen to provoke someone into a fight and then “stand his ground” with a lethal weapon. That would be an insult to the Florida legislature … I hope. The “stand your ground” law applies equally to a colored kid in a hoody carrying a bag of skittles as it does to anybody else, even an armed and dangerous shomrim.