Dana Perino: Where’s Obama speech on blacks shooting white babies?

perino

Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino questioned President Obama’s motives for speaking out Friday on Trayvon Martin’s death.

In a weekend appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Perino asked why the president would choose to speak about that incident, but not about the death of a white Georgia baby shot during a robbery attempt by two black teens.

“When a president speaks, it’s to multiple audiences,” Perino said. “So from the prism of self-defense, when you think of a young mother whose 2-year-old son was shot in the face by the two black teens who approached her in Atlanta, and that baby has died, why do presidents choose to speak about one case and not the other? That’s why it’s better maybe not to talk about any of them. They chose to talk about this one.”

“I do think that the president is signaling: We’re going to have to move on, good luck on Stand Your Ground,” Perino said.

Former Obama advisor Van Jones offered his view of the controversial law.

“The Stand Your Ground situation is very, very problematic,” Jones said. “You have Marissa Alexander, that’s the next big case. She’s the African American woman who tried to stand her ground against her abusive husband. She fired a bullet into the ceiling, she gets 20 years in jail for firing a shot in the ceiling, whereas somebody who fires a shot into a teenager is still walking the streets a free person.”

Watch the exchange here via Raw Story.

[poll id=”73″]

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Cheryl Carpenter Klimek has been a political consultant handling public affairs, political campaigns and PAC management for nearly 20 years.
Cheryl Carpenter Klimek

Comments

25 thoughts on “Dana Perino: Where’s Obama speech on blacks shooting white babies?

  1. focusedman1 says:

    Who gets to choose what stories the president response to. If he had responded to this story, well it would have been another story that he didn’t respond to. He responded to this story because it’s getting the most media attention right now. Unlike Zimmerman, the two men were arrested and locked up.

  2. johnackerby says:

    Marissa Alexander was having a disagreement with her husband inside a house. She left the house, walked out to her car, got her gun and went back inside the house and fired a warning shot. On the other hand, George Zimmerman was underneath Trayvon Martin almost completely under the control of Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was not given the ability to leave the violent situation to go and get a gun to bring back into the situation. George Zimmerman secured a gun that was already right there in the immediate location and used it to stop Trayvon Martin from murdering him. If he had not done that then Trayvon Martin would have murdered George Zimmerman. Obviously Melissa Alexander was under no threat of being killed or harmed severely because the person she was arguing with let her leave since she did leave the immediate location and go outside to her car to get the gun and then went back inside the house and confronted the person whom she had been previously been arguing with.

    The Alexander situation is totally different from the Zimmerman situation, although I do think that Alexander was given too much time in prison. As I understand it she had gone to the house to get her things and the person she was arguing with was perhaps trying to prevent her from securing her things. If that is the case there is something to be said for the fact that he was interfering with her right to secure her belongings and she just went out to the car to get her gun so that she could keep him from preventing her from getting her own property out of the house. I suspect the person she was arguing with was trying to keep her from getting her belongings out of the house and she had every right to her own belongings. But the person she was arguing with is a man so he could have been behaving in a manner of utilizing his stronger physical capabilities in a manner to make her feel threatened about trying to secure her own belongings. I don’t think she would have gone to get the gun if the man had been allowing her free and unfettered access to the home so that she could get her belongings. I suspect he was likely using his “male” size/strength to intimidate her and inhibit her ability to get her own belongings. I do not think 20 years is appropriate at all in a case like this. If the man was obstructing her ability to get her belongings then I think her punishment should be down under a year because if he was doing that then it’s very close to stand your ground. If all she wanted was her stuff then having the right to secure her own stuff, which was scattered throughout the house, seems to me that, that means that even though she left the house to get her gun in spirit she was still all throughout that house because her stuff was all throughout that house. It’s very very close to SYG and she should not do over a year if she does any time at all.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts