Romney calls Martin shooting a 'tragedy', Gingrich weighs in too

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Copy Link

  Link Copied

Following remarks on the Trayvon Martin shooting by President Obama, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called the controversy a “tragedy,” invoking the same term the president used.

“What happened to Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. There needs to be a thorough investigation that reassures the public that justice is carried out with impartiality and integrity,” the former Massachusetts governor said in a statement released Friday.

The statement, while not surprising, illustrates that the shooting has drawn bi-partisan concern.

Newt Gingrich also weighed in:

Well I think it’s exactly right for the district attorney empanel a grand jury and I think people have to look at see what comes out of that experience. They have to review as I understand it this particular person had been calling something – again this is just hearsay I haven’t investigated it and I don’t want to pre-judge -apparently there have been 50 cases in the past year of him calling 911. Well there’s a point in there where it ought to be some kind of signal that’s pretty clear that this is a guy who found a hobby that’s pretty dangerous.

Again I think having local citizens concerned about their safety is reasonable having some kind of neighborhood watch is reasonable but if you have somebody who is clearly overreaching and as I understand Florida law what he was doing had nothing to do with the law that people are talking about. The law involves somebody who’s coming at you and as I understand he was trailing the young man. The young man wasn’t trailing him so I suspect that justice will be done. It’s a tragedy and in that sense you have to understand how much a tragedy it is for the family and for the young man involved but I think the district attorney has done the right thing to panel a grand jury.

I believe that there are some things that go to the other extreme where you can’t even defend yourself when somebody breaks into your own home. So there has to be some common ground. Do I think citizens ought to have the right to defend themselves if attack? Sure. The question here is was this attacked or was he the attacker and that’s what the grand jury will lead to. If they decide he was the attacker I suspect they’ll indict him and if they indict him their going to go to a jury trial. And I support that I think this is a case. Again if somebody breaks into your home and you’re at risk you ought to have the right to defend yourself.