[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is best to avoid these types of disclaimers. In addition to potentially insulting people's intelligence, you prepare people for an outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive, or shocking statement. There was nothing outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive or shocking about your post. I disagree with much of it but not because it is outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive, or shocking.

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

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.

Yeah, some of us agree the prosecution did not have enough evidence to meet their burden of proof. Some of us acknowledged that some of our thoughts on this case were not properly introduced by the prosecution or proven in a court of law. The defense went above and beyond but the onus was on the prosecution.

As for what Martin should have done, that is subjective as is what constitutes "stand your ground." That is one of the many criticisms of laws that take self-defense to the next level. I, as an individual, cannot tell everyone in the world when they should feel threatened nor can I tell everyone with 100% certainty what they should do 100% of the time. Should Trayvon Martin have gotten off the phone with his friend and called 911? In hindsight, MAYBE. We can all think of things that we do and in hindsight we are like "oh crap, that could have gone HORRIBLY wrong." When someone is walking to the car late at night and they get nervous and stay on the phone with a friend...should they call 911 instead? Hmmmm...the what ifs are endless in life. The only difference is that we know the outcome in the Martin-Zimmerman altercation. And he still could've been shot and killed if he called 911. People get shot and killed after calling 911 all the time. Hell...Zimmerman, himself, shot and killed someone after calling 911. Talk about 911 not saving the day....

Victim precipitation is victim precipitation. It is not victim blame. People precipitate their own victimization all of the time. Martin precipitated his own victimization. But, to blame Martin is to place the onus on the person who, although he may have been a good ass kicker, did not have a gun. I refuse to believe that it JUST SO HAPPENS that Zimmerman had a gun (the #1 facilitating factor for crime and violence) and ended up shooting and killing someone. The logic doesn't follow but the burden of proof requires evidence beyond what I consider to be logical.

On that note, I would like for people to think about what they would do if they were minding their own business and someone seemed to be following them. Then that person sits in the car and watches you OR comes up to you and asks you where you're going. Yeah...I'm a smartass already and I can tell you that if I felt I couldn't get away, even if I called 911, I may find a way to cuss the person out and may feel as though I was about to fight for my life. Again, even if Martin punched Zimmerman first, I believe Martin could have felt that he was defending his life. I refuse to believe that Zimmerman was innocently surveying the area and JUST SO HAPPENED to have a gun.

Martin: *turns around and walks up to Zimmerman* Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I'm neighborhood watch...where are you walking to?
Martin: Kick rocks, dude, why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I mean you no harm...blessings to you....
Martin: *punch*
Zimmerman: *getting his head banged on the street...somehow they end up in the grass (hmmmm....)* Oh shit, I FORGOT I HAD THIS GUN!!!!! I can't fight...so...BANG BANG BITCH!

Yeah...the prosecutors sucked (as do many attorneys hired by the state--money and politics, etc.) but I just don't believe the above scenario is how it really happened.