If I have revealed my inner thoughts by stating a fact, then you would probably conclude if I say Aristotle was a Greek that must reveal I am secretly a Lithuanian dwarf. If the analogy doesn’t make sense to you, go back and consider your initial conditions and the conclusion you reached from them.

AND
“- – - if I were walking home from the grocery store wearing my hood, (because it’s cold, or I if just liked to wear it) and David Huie Green pulled up beside me in his “Big Shiny Yellow School Bus” and began to question me “in plain clothes”. – - – he does not have a right to then continue to pursue and follow me to my home.”

Very good example.

You believe school buses are yellow because you’ve been told they’re yellow. If you were to put a yellow object and an orange object up beside one of them, you’d discover they aren’t yellow but are orange. But you won’t do that because you already know they’re yellow.

Similarly, you have the culprit stalking and challenging the innocent child. You didn’t see it happen but you KNOW it happened exactly that way.

AND
“ If people could put their biases aside and think if the tables were turned, I think they would be able to see things a little bit differently.”

I agree with that too. But then, I’m not the one who KNOWS exactly what happened without being there.

David for true knowledge

The court must examine the facts and come to the best logical conclusion. Just because Mr. Martin was unarmed does not mean that he was not the aggressor, nor does it meant that he was. Hopefully there will be enough facts in the case that justice will prevail what ever that is.

Ms. Fulton fails to see that she could benefit from Stand Your Ground were she ever attacked by a man, God forbid. Without the law, she could be prosecuted for using deadly force against an unarmed attacker. This seems unreasonable to most of us around here, but it certainly happens in other states where people are prosecuted for defending themselves.

To answer your question…..NO I wouldn’t call for a repeal on the law! The law has been passed for a reason, which I support 110%. Each case is different, period and it’s for the court system to decide.

Remember……Martin didn’t live in Sanford, a central Florida city of about 53,000 people. Yet by that winter night, he’d been there for seven days, after being suspended for the third time from Dr. Michael M. Krop High School in Miami, in this instance, for 10 days after drug residue was found in his backpack, according to records obtained by the Miami Herald.

So, please tell me how Trayvon had every right to be in that neighborhood? He didn’t even live in Sanford. His father and mother took him {4} hours away from home after he continued to cause trouble in high school. His father Tracy had taken his son four hours away from home because neither he or Trayvon Martin’s mother wanted the teen to stay in his hometown. Why is that?

But, if Trayvon was 100% INNOCENT why didn’t he just stop and talk to Zimmerman and explain why he was in the neighborhood? Either way a life was taken. Now it’s up to the court system to do their job and do what is right. Bashing the “stand your ground” law without educating yourself further is ignorant any people’s part. It was put into place for a reason…..do some research!