Uhhh, skittles and watermelon ice tea?? He may have been stoned but he was carrying raw materials for "lean"-Seen it done with Jolly Ranchers and flat Big Red before-Punk was a punk and Zimmerman, an over-zealous paranoid speed-balling on anti-depressants and adderal. Recipe for disaster: Two dumb-asses, one gun. Race was an ancillary to this fubar and Florida laws kept one dumbass from being burried in a broken system.

This scenario could happen outside of racial prejudice, but in this scenario race was the catalyst that sparked the whole event. I believe if a white punk had been walking through his neighborhood with the same objects, Zimmerman wouldn't have batted an eye.

Also, truly hope your lean example was meant to be sarcastic!

I'm a cool pastor cause I smoked pot once that one time in college. I took 1 puff and now I know my shizzz

Would Zimmerman have followed a suspected burglar/criminal if he didn't have a gun in his pocket?

Zimmerman is guilty because he got out of his car and followed him on foot, after being told not to.

THAT IS WHY I KNOW ZIMMERMAN IS GUILTY.

He was found non-guilty because of racism.

I'm sick of these trials in the court of public opinion. The brief and over-sensationalized facts you gain from watching MSNBC doesn't make you an informed jury member. The justice system worked in this case as it was intended to work. End of story.

Why aren't we as outraged when LAPD burned Chris Dorner alive? Where was the public outcry for justice then? Or when an American minor was droned without his day in court? Where did all these incensed grandstanders go? But let the media spin a criminal trial between two individuals into a race war, and we all get our panties in a wad.

I will concede Obama made a great point, that if Trayvon was the one who stood his ground, would the police have let him go? Probably not. That's the real injustice, in my opinion. Not whether or not Zimmerman was convicted. *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, July 20th, 2013 11:40pm PDT - promote requested by blankfist.

Using your argument that because he didn't avoid a confrontation when he had the ability to, Zimmerman is guilty someone could make a very strong counterpoint.

Because Trayvon was only a couple of blocks from home but still decided to circle back once or twice even after losing his pursuer, he is guilty.

Now, depending on your bias you may or may not agree with the logic used to derive the second statement. However I'd be very curious to hear your logical analysis of why one of these two statements is accurate while the other is not.

Notice I said logical and not personal, as a logical analysis could be made and argued in court to convict someone like Zimmerman where as a personal argument would serve no good outside of trying to get people to say "oh, you ARE right and I was wrong."

*religion *talks

Adding video to channels (Religion, Talks) - requested by ant.

Two words. Troy Davis.

@dirkdeagler
What can I say?

Zimmerman was told to stay in his car. He didn't follow directions. He had a gun in his pocket. He approached first.

Did he approach because he felt invincible with a gun in his pocket?

Zimmerman set up the confrontation. And Trayvon died.

As soon as he stepped from his car, he abdicated "Stand Your Ground" as a defense, as far as I am concerned. He was adjudged not guilty under the Stand Your Ground law.

I don't see any holes in my logic. I don't see the word black or racist anywhere in my statements.

A gun is not a toy. It is a lethal weapon. Zimmerman approached a person with a lethal weapon in his possession, and that person died. Stand Your Ground, my ass.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, James David' to 'Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, James David Manning' - edited by bareboards2

Let's start with, he was found not guilty by reason of self-defense, not under Stand Your Ground...

Despite all you heard about it in the media, Stand Your Ground was not a defense raised at trial, and they did not even hold the pretrial motions to determine if the case could be dismissed based on that.

It's a totally different argument if you wanted to say if someone was entitled to self defense if they chased a teenager against advice, got into a fistfight, and thought it was okay to use deadly force when on the losing end.

@Raveni

I didn't know that Stand Your Ground wasn't actually used.

Substitute "self defense" for "stand your ground" and my LOGIC stands. Semantics is definitely faulty. Logic is still sound.

Moving this video to Encumberance's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.