About Obama's address on the Zimmerman trial

Looking over at Althouse, she had a link to this piece at TalkLeft; they're not happy with the address, and lay out why.  I'm going to pull a few things:
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.
The problem there is that Obama and Holder worked hard to help PUT that target there; why would he display any empathy for someone he helped try to destroy?


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.
You and us both.
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.
Hey, he's worked hard helping make this case about race and gun ownership; what else would he endorse?
And if he acknowledged that Zimmerman was caught between a rock and a hardcase, he'd be causing problems for Sharpton and Jackson and the NBP and Holder; and he's not going to do that, no matter what.*  Again- especially through the DoJ- he's worked to change the case from what it was to what it became: from a local case of a self-defense killing to a national mess involving race and SYG laws and gun laws, so he's not going to say anything to cause a problem for his preferred narrative.


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.
Problem: for Obama EVERYTHING is about sending a message.  Which I think is why he went into the 'We need to redo/get rid of these SYG laws'; he doesn't like them(he doesn't like the peasants having arms in the first place), he wishes he could get rid of them, so here's his chance to Send His Message!
He knows SYG had not a damn thing to do with this trial; he doesn't care.  "I can send my message now!" is all that counts.


One more thought: This gave Obama a chance to do what he really likes doing: Make this about me.  'He could have been my son' before, now it's 'He could be me!'


And something I think we can all agree with:
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.



*Considering Obama, if something came up/came out which caused him to decide that throwing all those people under the bus would help his situation, he'd do it in a heartbeat; without that, he'll stand behind them no matter what.