Other than paint a picture of a near ideal son and friend, we've been told very little by family and friends.
In recent years, it has been customary for mainstream media to run to social media to fill in the holes in profiling a perp or victim in a major story. I haven't seen any of that in this case.
Then I ran across a post at Wagist.com (which, seems to post at a suspiciously infrequent rate in the past year). I don't vouch for its accuracy. But it certainly raises some questions.
Suggesting Tray was a drug dealer may be a cheap shot, and the writer leaps to other conclusions that would be better off framed as speculation. But between the Tweets and My Space photos presented, you have some fodder for reasonable doubt that Tray may not be the sweet, innocent Skittle-eatin' kid that some have tried to sell us on.
Just a little digging, and I find the creator of Wagist, posting online back in 2006, cited his plans for his site in this fashion:
So, I've been stewing over the idea of developing a clean, progressive news aggregation site for some time now. I'm going to officially start on it tonight, and I thought it would be nice to dedicate a thread to the process. Transparency plus plus.So why does an inactive website come back to life to tell us about Trayvon? Maybe its webmaster just got tired of mainstream media not doing it's job. I'm delighted to see at least some evidence not all progressives are donning hoodies to blindly follow un-vetted tales and other rhetoric being spewed by self-appointed activists. Many of them seem to make their impassioned pitches based not on fact, but on their own prejudices.
What's the harm in waiting for more facts before jumping to conclusions?
Post a Comment