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."
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
03-25-12, 02:42 PM (EST)
20. "RE: The Trayvon Martin shooting."
We know the case is going to the grand jury April 10. That's really all we know for sure.
Personally, what I think is most likely to have happened (with no evidence, which means this is just a wild guess based on the limited evidence that we have or think we have) is that Martin ducked behind bushes or something like that, and Zimmerman lost him, so he got out of his truck to see if he could locate Martin. Then Martin jumped him in some way and knocked him down. The eyewitness said Zimmerman was yelling for help at that point, and I believe him -- but would you say that Martin acted unreasonably, given the circumstances? I wouldn't, presuming that those actually were the facts.
At that point, you could legitimately say that both people were afraid for their lives. Martin was afraid of this stranger who was tailing him, and Zimmerman was afraid of this stranger who had jumped him. If anyone, Zimmerman had been the aggressor by having followed Martin. It's hard for me to accept that the law would work in such a way that one of them would lose his life as a result of a deliberate discharge of firearms by the other but the other would walk away scot-free, at least on the homicide charge -- but that does appear to be the way the "stand your ground" law works.
One of the oldest maxims of legal thought is that "hard cases make bad law." Here, it appears more likely that the legislature made a bad law, and that law has led to a hard case. I expect that the intent of the law was that someone would not be required to run if he or she was being menaced by someone else. But here, it looks like the victim was the one being menaced during most of the incident (although probably not at the very end), and I doubt the legislature ever intended for the law to cost a person in that position his life without the killing being at least manslaughter.
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 -