[ASUADPi]

disclaimer: I can absolutely guarantee that someone isn't going to like what I have to say. The least you can be is RESPECTFUL. I haven't quoted anyone. I haven't called anyone out on their opinion, all I've done is stated mine.

Let's not turn this thread into a train-wreck that has to be closed because we can't respect others opinions.

I am probably one of the few people on this thread that thinks that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to take to trial, let alone convict. The prosecution was forced, due to media and society pressure, to take it to trial (the same can be said about Casey Anthony). When you are taking someone to trial with not enough hard evidence to make your case, chances are that it leaves room for reasonable doubt. What I know about the case, I wouldn't have been able to convict.

But my friend on facebook made a wonderful point, that people are just plain forgetting.....

"Anyone know why Treyvon had the right to defend himself against George in the alley for following him but George was not supposed to have the right to defend himself against Treyvon for attacking him?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Treyvon was allowed defend himself when George was following him, but that George wasn't allowed to defend himself when Treyvon was attacking him.

Just like George should have listened to the 9-1-1 operator and not have engaged Treyvon. Treyvon should have gotten off the phone with the girl and called 9-1-1, not attack George.

Everyone is really good about blaming George, because he's alive. God forbid we put any blame on Treyvon because he's dead. They both made choices that weren't correct.