Greg and I come from on the racist topic, but I think this tidbit might explain that the views of this case aren't  blinded by one side or the other.  Greg and I have argued this case until I'm blue in the face (or red as it were the other night).  I spent several minutes the other night hanging upside down on the inversion table due to a back ache as I argued my point and he argued his.  I kept having to pull myself upright so I didn't pass out from the blood rushing to my head as I didn't give up on my argument.  He didn't give up on his.  

His stupid (IMO) contention was that he would hope if someone was following Nick that he would run home. Mine was that why would he run if he was just walking home minding his own business, we paid for years of karate lessons for he and K to protect themselves if someone attacked them.  TM was seemingly minding his own business in the neighborhood where he was staying with his father, why in the heck should he have to run?  I kept bringing up the whole racial profiling topic.

Any other time, Greg would agree with me, but after this case, his opinion is that TM should have just ran home.

We finally agreed that we will never agree on this, and as most of you know, I will still bring this up occasionally to prove that his opinion is wrong. ;-)) 

I guess the point of this is that the lines are divided on how people feel on this particular case.  It doesn't speak to the overall character of the person arguing "their" side.  This is just an emotionally charged case for both sides. 

You never know when you will come across with someone with a gun. Racism aside, the best way not to lose a fight is to avoid it in the first place. People can argue their "rights" all they want but that is a legal issue. Laws only have meaning when there exists a power to enforce them...and in the end, the laws of physics will always trump the laws of man. For the victim, it does not really matter much what a jury may say later. The bullet has already decided his fate.