We talk often at school about most of the points Obama raises here ~ kidlets are astute and ask questions that can be very difficult to answer ~ and they share experiences that prove latent racism is never far from bubbling over ~ I'm hoping [but admittedly skeptical] that Trayvon Martin will be the touchstone to open an honest dialog on racism and bigotry ~ Sooz

'Trayvon Martin could've been me'
By Steve Benen - Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:18 PM EDT

[Sooz says video accessible via the end link]

Last weekend, not long after the jury delivered its verdict in the George Zimmerman trial, President Obama issued a written statement, urging all Americans to "respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son." Today, however, the president made an unexpected appearance at the White House press briefing room to speak to the issue in more detail.

For those who can't watch the video posted above, this was a rather remarkable moment for the nation's first African-American president, who reflected on the story and race in America with an eloquence that has sometimes been lacking of late.

President Barack Obama emerged Friday to give voice to African Americans' reaction to last weekend's verdict in the George Zimmerman case, saying that Trayvon Martin "could have been me 35 years ago."

He also suggested that the outcome of the case could have been different if Martin were white. "If a white male teen would have been involved in this scenario," he said, "both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama went on to reflect on his own experiences as a black man, drawing scrutiny in department stores, hearing car-door clicks as he walked down sidewalks, and seeing women clutch their purses nervously with him in an elevator. "The African-American community is looking at this through a set of experiences and history that doesn't go away," he said.

Obama also broached the subject of "racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws" -- including the death penalty and drug laws -- which generally is left out of our public conversation.

But perhaps most provocatively, the president reflected on an imaginary scenario. "If Trayvon Martin was of age and was armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?" Obama asked. "If the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we should examine those laws."

It was a rather remarkable display. A transcript of the remarks is below.

The president said the following:

I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session. The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there's going to obviously be a whole range of issues -- immigration, economics, et cetera -- we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week -- the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle's, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they've dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they're going through, and it's remarkable how they've handled it.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there's going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws -- everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they're disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It's not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that's unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there's no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

That doesn't mean, though, that as a nation we can't do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I'm still bouncing around with my staff, so we're not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that's one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let's figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn't mean we're in a post-racial society. It doesn't mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they're better than we are -- they're better than we were -- on these issues. And that's true in every community that I've visited all across the country.

And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we're becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/07/19/19563566-trayvon-martin-couldve-been-me?lite

This explains my skepticism on an honest dialog ~ for some reason, I can't c/p or code the tweets to post here ~ all are beyond stupidly offensive and accessible via the end link ~ ~ Sooz

Top 12 Conservative Freakouts After Obama’s Race Speech
By Scott Keyes on Jul 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Conservatives didn’t even wait for President Obama to finish his deeply personal remarks on Trayvon Martin’s killing and the role of race in America to go ballistic, accusing the president of being a “Racist in Chief” who is “trying to tear our country apart.”

On Twitter, Fox News, and elsewhere, many conservatives took a predictably depressing response, arguing that Obama is the true racist for having the courage to speak about race in our country.

Here is a roundup of the top conservatives attacking the president’s speech:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/19/2330191/conservative-freakout-race-speech/

Solid evidence for non-believers ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating info in the original ~ Sooz

Four Charts That Prove Obama’s Right About Being Black In America
By Annie-Rose Strasser on Jul 19, 2013 at 4:23 pm

On Friday, President Obama gave a personal, emotional speech about the killing of Trayvon Martin, in which he spoke extensively on the broader issue of race in the United States.

Obama addressed the experiences of racial profiling that are all too common for Black men. “There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store,” Obama said. “That includes me. And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator.”

“The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws,” Obama said, “everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

There’s no need to examine, anecdote by anecdote, whether Obama is right about this. It doesn’t take a single case, like the case of 17-year-old Martin, to make the President’s point; there is a lot of data already on the books to substantiate his claims. Here are just a few charts that make Obama’s point:

1. Justified killings of Black people under ‘Stand Your Ground.’ PBS’s Frontline made this instructive chart on the way that defendants who invoke ‘Stand Your Ground’ — the policy that allowed George Zimmerman to walk free on the night that he killed Trayvon Martin — fare. PBS explains, “The figures represent the percentage likelihood that the deaths will be found justifiable compared to white-on-white killings.” The result? A huge racial disparity of when the defense works — and when it doesn’t:



2. Stop-and-Frisks of young Black men. In May, the Public Advocate for New York put out a report detailing the way that the city’s controversial ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ policy is unevenly applied. Not only did it find that Blacks and Latinos make up, on average, 85 percent of stops under the program, but it also conveyed exactly how skewed those numbers are compared to the city’s demographics:



3. Drug arrests for White and Black users. The number of White drug users is about the same as the number of Black users — but you wouldn’t know it from the arrest statistics. In recent history, Black people have been four times as likely to be arrested on marijuana charges:



4. Death penalty for Black prisoners. In Texas, the state that accounts for the most executions in the nation, 40 percent of death row inmates are Black. That reflects a national trend; across several states that have the death penalty, Black inmates make up a hugely disproportionate number of those sentenced to death, despite Black people’s relatively small percentage of the population. But perhaps the chart that best makes the point is this, from deathpenaltyinfo.org, that shows the racial breakdown of who gets the death sentence for interracial crimes:



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/19/2331481/four-charts-that-prove-obamas-right-about-being-black-in-america/

Absolutely true, Chaos ~ and as Kath posted elsewhere "haters got to hate" ~ but I'm not willing to just accept it ~ never have, never will ~

Sooz

Yesterday, I was in one of "those moods". With the Z verdict, the racism directed toward Marc Anthony and the remarks from the right about Obama's talk, I was greatly saddened and angry. I don't recognize the country right now. The haters are drowning out the people who have good sense and it's disgusting.

I follow one person on Twitter who takes people to task handily and without holding back any punches. He's a joy to watch/read. I admire and envy his tenacity. Most of the time, when he "wins" the argument (or they don't have any more clever come-backs), they block him. LOL On top of that, he has a wicked sense of humor.

If you are on twitter, here's his handle:

Middle Class Warrior
@ZeitgeistGhost

I thought President Obama's remarks were absolutely right on the mark. Of course I expected the Obama haters to come out against him and FOX News and I wasn't wrong about that. In this area where I live I have found more people don't want to know the truth because in doing so they would have to go beyond their comfort zone.

This is a very solid, and perhaps the best, critique I've read on President Obama's remarks ~ and the title here was a "DUH!" moment for me ~ I am generally very sensitive to "teaching moments" because we search for and use them wherever we can at school ~ and Obama's remarks were certainly a "teaching moment" ~ you don't need to be black or Hispanic, or Jewish or Muslim, or gay or straight, or disabled or disadvantaged, or male or female to understand, abhor, and reject the damage and pain caused by BOTH latent and overt racism and bigotry ~ Sooz

Obama Uses a Teaching Moment to Challenge 'Stand Your Ground' Laws
John Nichols on July 20, 2013 - 9:21 AM ET

President Obama’s decision to speak frankly, and extensively, about a Florida jury’s acquittal of George Zimmerman, and about the array of issues that have arisen since Zimmerman shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was broadly significant. Only rarely does an American president step so directly and so intentionally into so charged a debate, and even more rarely does a president do so in such personal terms.

“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son,” the president explained Friday. “Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. “

That was the headline statement.

But the president did not make his unexpected appearance Friday to talk about himself. He was talking issues, specific issues, and explaining why they matter.

It was a teaching moment. And Obama used it well:


Obama got specific, especially with regard to the “stand your ground” laws that have come into focus since Trayvon Martin’s killing. And his remarks, coming at a critical point in the development of the debate about those laws, and of the national movement to overturn them laws, will sustain and encourage those who argue, as the Seattle Times has, that “the single best memorial to Trayvon Martin—Justice for Trayvon—is repeal of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.”

Developed in Florida by a National Rifle Association lobbyist and her allies in 2005, that state’s “stand your ground” law became the basis for laws that the NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council succeeded over the next seven years in getting enacted in more than two dozen states. The outcry over the Trayvon Martin killing led large corporations, which had backed ALEC, to quit the group, and ALEC eventually announced that it was “refocusing” away from advocacy for “stand your ground” legislation. But the laws the group created remain on the books, and they continue to influence criminal justice in Florida and nationally—as Illinois Senator Dick Durbin highlighted in announcing Friday that his Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee will hold hearings on how “stand your ground” laws were passed, and their impact on society.

Florida’s “stand your ground” law—which permits an individual who feels threatened to employ deadly force even when it would have been possible to retreat—influenced the Zimmerman case from start to finish. After an initial failure by local authorities to charge the man who shot an unarmed Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman was finally charged and then tried. Though Zimmerman’s lawyers mounted a classic self-defense argument at trail, the jury instructions said “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.” And a key juror told CNN that she reached her “not guilty” stance at least in part “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”

Now, in Florida and other states, newspapers are calling for the repeal of of “stand your ground” laws. Activists are demanding that they be struck from the books. And lawmakers, even some who backed the laws initially, are rethinking “stand your ground.”

It is in this context that the president entered the “stand your ground” debate. In addition to discussing the value of law that bar racial profiling, Obama said:


That’s a nuanced way in which to discuss “stand your ground” laws.

And it is valuable.

The key in opening the debate about “stand your ground” is not to convince legislators, and Americans, who are already opposed to the laws that they are properly offended. Nor is there much hope that politicians who have aligned themselves with the gun industry (which has advocated for “stand your ground” laws in hopes that they will limit liability for gun manufacturers and retailers) will be caused to rethink. There will always be those, like Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who imagine that any criticism of “stand your ground” laws represents a “disregard for the Bill of Rights”—conveniently forgetting that country survived as a constitutional republic for the better part of 220 years before any “stand your ground” laws began to be enacted.

The key is to speak to reasonable Americans, some of them Democrats and some of them Republicans, some of them liberals and some of them conservatives, who have a creeping suspicion that laws permitting the use of deadly force even when it could be avoided might not be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d all like to see.

The president was speaking to those Americans in his remarks on Friday. And it is vital to maintain that conversation.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175367/obama-uses-teaching-moment-challenge-stand-your-ground-laws#axzz2Zh7KhX3f

I agree with everything that Obama said. And I know there are racial issues that still need to be resolved in this country.

I just happen to believe that race was not a factor in the Martin/Zimmerman case. I've heard all the arguments pro and con, and it's my opinion that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was young, wearing a gangster-style hoodie, and because there had been many burglaries in the area, and not because Martin was black.

That doesn't mean that I don't think there are people who do target young black guys and follow them around the stores to make sure that they are not shoplifting, or stop them solely because they are black. All I am saying is, it is my belief that race was not a factor with Zimmerman.

For example: Gays are often targeted and beaten up because they are gay. But that doesn't mean that just because a straight guy gets into a fight with a gay guy that the straight guy started that fight just because the other guy was gay. His being gay might have been irrelevant to the fight.

Let's target bigotry where it exists. But let's also not target every act that occurs as bigotry or prejudice when the motivation of that act might not have been bigotry or prejudice.

I disagree that it wasn't racism ~ first of all, what is a "gangster-style hoodie"? ~ a hoodie is a hoodie is a hoodie ~ I, and virtually everyone I know [even my 88yo mom!] wear hoodies ~ I believe GZ followed Trayvon because he was black in a virtually all white gated community ~ and I believe even the original non-arrest and prosecution were steeped in racism ~ my feelings stem from GZ's personal history of racism, violence, and lying ~

Sooz

Whether race based or not seems rather irrelevant at this point. Florida now has a law passed by a bunch of idiots that legalizes murder, no matter what the reason/excuse.

I loved his speech and thought it was several years late. Sadly the results have shown that there is no way to have this conversation in America.

I wrote elsewhere; I guess it's OK that we elected our first black president, as long as he never speaks with the view of a black man.

I don't think we can discuss MUCH reasonably in America. I was thinking if Obama cannot broach this topic, who can???

I just happen to believe that race was not a factor in the Martin/Zimmerman case. I've heard all the arguments pro and con, and it's my opinion that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was young, wearing a gangster-style hoodie, and because there had been many burglaries in the area, and not because Martin was black.

I say that had Trayvon not been black, Zimmerman wouldn't have even bothered to follow him in the first place and even then, would not have gotten out of his truck. HE was the agressor. HE instigated a confrontation when he stepped out of his truck. HE pulled the trigger.

I can tell you this much: If someone followed me around a neighborhood, I would be fearful, wondering what THEY were doing or about to do. If they got out of their car, I would be petrified.

I believe this part. Trayvon was frightened by GZ following and his standing his ground was throwing the punch.

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

This law sucks. It truly does. Dee asked about justice for Trayvon. There is no justice for him. Can't be. Justice would have been to grow up and live the rest of his life. That has been robbed from him. All we can do now is try to help other people.

So did I. And I remember the address he gave during his first campaign. That was terrific, too.