Replies

You’re suggesting that not a month after my child’s murder that I’d be able to come out of my grief and make legal decisions. That’s insane, not just for me but for anybody.

Actually, Trayvon’s mother could have eliminated our conversation . All Jackson, Shaprton or her lawyer needed to do was offer the explanation that you did about safeguarding her dead child’s name. I’m stymied as to why this wasn’t and to this day hasn’t been done, especially when thir side is courting public sympathy.

Okay, you get the last word. I hope you treat me with the same degree of respect I’ve shown you. But really I’m done with this conversation. This is too emotional a subject, and I’d much rather focus on what’s happy in the world and get away from hate and all that goes with it.

Well, I did pose my first post to you couched in the qualification that I didn't know if this was the case here, but, if I were the relative of somebody who had been killed under contentious circumstances and I saw others trying to use, abuse and exploit my dead relative's identity for their own commercial and political agenda, I would feel compelled to shut it down by any means I could...and if that included trademarking the same, so be it.

Again, I don't know that's the case here, and yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that if her motives were driven to profit from her son's death, that is truly odious. Since you prefer to focus on what's happy in the world, why is it so hard to (until proven otherwise) extend her the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that her seeking a trademark was to protect her son's memory? If it proves to be otherwise, then I'll be right next to you in despising this lady, but for right now, I would argue that I'm the one wanting to cling to the belief in the best in people, by not ruling out that she sought the trademark with a plausible, honorable intent. Unless you have information that she's actually cashed in, or intends to cash in on her trademark, it's you who are merely assuming the worst.