PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
I dunno what happened, (or if there will ever be a proper description of what happened) but the implication from me is Trayvon didn't run away, assume the position or submit completely. I dunno if he just "stood his ground" or went on the attack, or what. I'm sure he didn't offer himself up for a citizen arrest in a submissive manner, but that's about all I can be sure of.
I don't really trust Zimmerman's side of the story, after all he has enough self-interest to say what he thinks will keep him out of jail. I don't really trust the eyewitnesses, I know the court system often does, but all too often people don't remember what they saw, and sometimes didn't even see (cognitively process) what they saw (light that hit their eyeballs) accurately. We don't really have Trayvon's side of the story, but his family has their own grief and self-interests that play a role in what they will say, so....a big mess all round.
There is enough conflicting information coming out I certainly couldn't say if things were verbal, physical, or who started what.
Seems most people who are involved in the writing of the law agree that the "stand your ground" law should not be applied in this case or at least one of the other cases where it has been the defense used when someone went to trial.
It does seem to be a DAW-paloosa all the way around and way too many people using it to get on TV with something they want to promote as fact/proof. So much "evidence" on the TV that will likely not be in any way admissible in court. I have a feeling if they ever do bring this to trial it is going to be one of those the jury decides on what was presented in court as they are supposed to, and the public can't understand why they didn't take evidence presented on TV by a hype-monster as the facts of the case.
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -