Some have asked - was the murdered 17 year on trial, too? Yes. Your actions shape the perception folks have. TM as a thief, bully, doper and rule breaker/multiple-arrestee drives a different perception than "the good child who's only crime was walking to the store for skittles." That's why we tell our children to follow the rules!
Short of trying to kill someone, though, no 17 year's old's irresponsibility justifies them being killed. But, that's just the rub, isn't it?
GZ's testimony was that TM said he would kill GZ, and attempted to cover GZ's nose/mouth as part of the assault. GZ's nose may well have been impossible to breathe through at that point anyway.
In short - even if TM was 17, if he wanted to kill GZ, said he was going to do so, and had the means, he's an attempted murderer IN ADDITION to being a doper, rule breaker, bully/fighter, and multiple arrestee.
Some will say, "TM did not threaten to kill GZ, GZ just made that story up to cover his murder of a 17 year old."
This is the reality of this kind of situation, and much like a he said/she said we'll never know the truth of who said what or didn't say anything at all.
I wonder - is it really such a stretch to believe that TM, an abandoned and out of control 17 year old, would act as GZ described?
I think the answer is yes or no depending upon the emotional investment in the issue one has.
I am struck by how unwilling people are to point a finger at TM's parents. It appears TM was not living with either parent very much, and it's pretty clear neither parent could or did make taking care of TM a priority. I can't tell from the readings for sure, but it appears his parents were virtually absent from the last 60 days of TM's life. I understand being sensitive to their loss, but it is clear that a 17 year old abandoned to his own devices is the significant portion of this tragedy. It appears unlikely that the story would have been the same had TM been living with his father or mother. That makes it not a whit less tragic.
Short of trying to kill someone, though, no 17 year's old's irresponsibility justifies them being killed. But, that's just the rub, isn't it?
GZ's testimony was that TM said he would kill GZ, and attempted to cover GZ's nose/mouth as part of the assault. GZ's nose may well have been impossible to breathe through at that point anyway.
In short - even if TM was 17, if he wanted to kill GZ, said he was going to do so, and had the means, he's an attempted murderer IN ADDITION to being a doper, rule breaker, bully/fighter, and multiple arrestee.
Some will say, "TM did not threaten to kill GZ, GZ just made that story up to cover his murder of a 17 year old."
This is the reality of this kind of situation, and much like a he said/she said we'll never know the truth of who said what or didn't say anything at all.
I wonder - is it really such a stretch to believe that TM, an abandoned and out of control 17 year old, would act as GZ described?
I think the answer is yes or no depending upon the emotional investment in the issue one has.
I am struck by how unwilling people are to point a finger at TM's parents. It appears TM was not living with either parent very much, and it's pretty clear neither parent could or did make taking care of TM a priority. I can't tell from the readings for sure, but it appears his parents were virtually absent from the last 60 days of TM's life. I understand being sensitive to their loss, but it is clear that a 17 year old abandoned to his own devices is the significant portion of this tragedy. It appears unlikely that the story would have been the same had TM been living with his father or mother. That makes it not a whit less tragic.
No comments:
Post a Comment