# President Will Not Be Involved in Decision to Prosecute Zimmerman: Why Not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858 "2013-07-18T16:04:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/41 "2013-07-19T17:44:12Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Ok, but why did Obama inject himself into this in the first place? Because he’s the president and people frequently ask the president what he thinks about major current events. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/42 "2013-07-19T18:36:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because Obama does not want to be associated with this kind of racially motivated revenge prosecution. There’s no chance that they will find anything they can use against Zimmerman, and Obama knows it. > > Besides, the only people who want to prosecute Zimmerman are the race pimps, and Obama already has their support. > > Also besides, HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE OBAMA! RACIST! RACIST! > > Regards, > Shodan I like how, in your zeal to decry racism, you use racist words. I guess its irony or something, beating racism with itself :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/43 "2013-07-19T23:52:00Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Ok, but why did Obama inject himself into this in the first place? He saw some kind of political hay in this, so he should be judged by his actions. You realize, I hope, that _sometimes_ people speak off the cuff, without thinking, even politicians, and it turns out not so good for them? Biden does it all the time. That’s why he’s there. Just like Quayle, he’s an assassination preventative. He puts foot in mouth, often enough that his president can accidentally do it too, and everyone will say “well, at least he ain’t Biden”. I think we can forgive Biden’s boss one or two ‘foot-in-mouth’ episodes. He’s actually doing _far_ better than his predecessor, by that standard. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/44 "2013-07-20T00:51:08Z")
Traditionally the president leaves all prosecution decisions to professional prosecutors as a way to remove any political element from the Dept of Justice to place the DOJ above suspicion of playing politics. When Nixon was president he made some offhand comments that were interpreted as violating this longstanding tradition. More recently Obama has suggested in private that Bradley Manning broke the law, which was greeted with jeers of breaking with tradition. Those are the only two incidents that I can think of. The president does not comment on the criminality of individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/45 "2013-07-20T00:53:41Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Ok, but why did Obama inject himself into this in the first place? He saw some kind of political hay in this, so he should be judged by his actions. Er…, he didn’t “inject” himself into it, he was asked a question by the media. Similarly, both before and after the acquittal of the four LAPD police officers in the beating of Rodney King trial, George H. W. Bush was asked about the case and he answered. ---
**Author:** ![Tacit\_Knowledge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@Tacit\_Knowledge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tacit_Knowledge)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/46 "2013-07-21T22:49:31Z")
Umm, why WOULD Obama be involved? It’s a case of a prowler being shot by some other guy. That happens, probably, every day. Why the hell would any one think it’s a presidential matter or concern? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/47 "2013-07-21T23:15:40Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I like how, in your zeal to decry racism, you use racist words. I guess its irony or something, beating racism with itself :rolleyes: What racist words would those be? Perhaps he is referring to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who have a racist track record and make their living from exploiting racial turmoil? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/48 "2013-07-21T23:38:40Z")
> [@Tacit\_Knowledge](#): > > Umm, why WOULD Obama be involved? It’s a case of a prowler being shot by some other guy. That happens, probably, every day. Why the hell would any one think it’s a presidential matter or concern? Uh… Trayvon Martin wasn’t “a prowler”. ---
**Author:** ![Tacit\_Knowledge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@Tacit\_Knowledge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tacit_Knowledge)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/49 "2013-07-21T23:44:05Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Uh… Trayvon Martin wasn’t “a prowler”. Umm, OK? Then what was he? A meanderer? A lollygagger? A stroller by? No, I think prowler is a fitting description. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/50 "2013-07-21T23:48:16Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > What racist words would those be? > > Perhaps he is referring to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton who have a racist track record and make their living from exploiting racial turmoil? Er…you’re familiar with how historically African-Americans have been stereotyped as “pimps” aren’t you? Why do you think that people regularly call African-American activists “race pimps”, “poverty pimps”, or “race hustlers” while white activists aren’t attacked with such language. For example, no one accused Alan Dershowitz of being a “Jew hustler” or “Jew pimp” when he repeatedly insisted, quite vocally, that Leona Helmsley and Michael Milken were the victims of anti-Semitism. Nor has the phrase ever been used to describe Pamela Geller or similar activists. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/51 "2013-07-21T23:51:16Z")
> [@Tacit\_Knowledge](#): > > Umm, OK? Then what was he? A meanderer? A lollygagger? A stroller by? No, I think prowler is a fitting description. That is truly one of the stupidest comments I’ve read on this board in quite a while. If you believe it then I’d recommend actually learning about the case. He was walking home from the convenience store and not engaged in any criminal activity(unless you count toking up earlier). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/52 "2013-07-22T00:15:32Z")
> [@Tacit\_Knowledge](#): > > Umm, OK? Then what was he? A meanderer? A lollygagger? A stroller by? No, I think prowler is a fitting description. A guy walking through an apartment complex. ---
**Author:** ![chris3g](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@chris3g](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chris3g)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/53 "2013-07-22T02:45:12Z")
Wouldn’t it be a gross abuse of power if the president involve himself in a manner that he was not elected for? And further more, what kind precedence would that set if a president decides to influence a given legal process and its outcomes? ---
**Author:** ![Tracijo67](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@Tracijo67](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracijo67)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/54 "2013-07-22T02:56:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Google returns 5 million hits for NAACP + pimps. It also returns several million hits for “racist fucktard”. You learn something new every day! ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/55 "2013-07-22T13:33:00Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Traditionally the president leaves all prosecution decisions to professional prosecutors as a way to remove any political element from the Dept of Justice to place the DOJ above suspicion of playing politics. When Nixon was president he made some offhand comments that were interpreted as violating this longstanding tradition. More recently Obama has suggested in private that Bradley Manning broke the law, which was greeted with jeers of breaking with tradition. Those are the only two incidents that I can think of. The president does not comment on the criminality of individuals. To be clear, this thread was not about whether Obama should publically comment about the case, but about whether it would be proper for him to involve himself at some point in making the call as to whether the DOJ prosecutes. Not sure what your intention was in your post, but at any rate you seem to be conflating the two things. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/56 "2013-07-22T13:53:13Z")
He’s saying that people pointed to Obama’s comments on Manning as “direction” as to how the DOD should proceed. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/57 "2013-07-22T14:05:19Z")
That’s fine, but I’m saying there’s a difference between a president getting involved in a non-Justice department capacity and making the final call on a Justice Department decision. IOW, I would agree that it’s a bad idea for a president to influence prosecutions of individuals if he hasn’t carefully reviewed the case with careful attention to all the proper considerations etc. But if the DOJ does their review, and as is frequently the case there are competing arguments and considerations, and someone needs to make or sign off on the final decision, I’m questioning why that someone needs to be Eric Holder versus the president. Similar to any other decision about military matters or anything else. [As previous, a president typically doesn’t get involved in decisions about individuals of this sort, again, neither does the attorney general. This is obviously a much higher profile decision, and is going to get a much higher level review, and in that case I don’t see why it has to stop one level below the president. There seems to be a presumption that the president specifically is presumed to be poitical, which is what I’m questioning. But in any event, my specific point here is that what I’m discussing is not the same thing as general leadership-type pronouncements.] ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/58 "2013-07-22T14:07:57Z")
Because cabinet officers are not meant to be a rubber stamp for presidential decisionmaking in specific instances. They’re there to carry out the President’s _policies_. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/59 "2013-07-22T14:16:16Z")
I think they’re there to assist the president in running the executive branch in whatever way is most efficient. The specifics will vary by situation. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858/60 "2013-07-22T14:23:43Z")
Look at it this way: Obama is a lawyer. The last president wasn’t. Would you want _him_ making decisions on whether the DOJ had sufficient evidence and/or legal grounds to prosecute a case? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-will-not-be-involved-in-decision-to-prosecute-zimmerman-why-not/663858.md?page=4)