the basic problem with the idea #1 is that even if you could build a telescope capable of resolving human-sized targets from 100,000 light years away, you'd still need to spend 1,000,000 years to travel there, assuming you could travel at 10% of the speed of light.

Pretty f*ck'd up situation.

If you ran, what would the person following you (with a gun) do?

The only evidence we have that Trayvon bashed someone's head against a sidewalk is from Zimmerman's story of what transpired

if an older and heavier man followed my 17-yo-self in the dark—and i find it highly improbable that Zimmerman made known that he has a gun, but even more so then—i would run.

i'm not saying that Zimmerman did everything right. he certainly shouldn't have followed him. but who initiated the violence is of utmost importance. following someone in the dark is stupid. bashing someone's head in the sidewalk is attempted murder.

so is it "Trayvon did nothing wrong" or "he might have done something wrong"? because if we have no idea, we really can't put a man in jail for that.

again, i am not arguing with the body of the article—which i find interesting—only with the conclusion that Trayvon is innocent because there are prejudices.

Sounds a lot like you are marshalling evidence that just being 17 makes you "suspicious" (which is a ridiculous thing to state).

so you find it more likely that Zimmerman approached Trayvon with the gun drawn, let Trayvon get over him, took some beating, and then shot him at last?

i have nothing against the rest of the article. but arguing that Trayvon did nothing wrong, "even if he attacked Zimmerman" is plain stupid.

racial profiling is not fair, and you are basically arguing the same thing in reverse. if Trayvon was right to preemptively attack Zimmerman to "defend" himself, then what exactly did Zimmerman wrong by preemptively following Trayvon to make sure he isn't vandalizing something?

Trayvon's guilt is inherent because he is 17 years old

Trayvon must have tried to kill Zimmerman even though we have no evidence supporting that

Even if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman... it was Trayvon who was defending himself.

he had no clue that Zimmerman was armed, not until he was on top of him and allegedly started reaching for his gun.

Zimmerman might have thought that Trayvon is up to vandalize something. that's not very nice of him, sure, but that doesn't mean Trayvon is acting in self defense when he initiates the violence.

point being that 17 year olds are no little angels, but a demographic most likely to commit murder. whether they use guns or pavement doesn't make much of a difference for the dead or brain–damaged victim.

stalking is a crime, but only being followed does not justify using lethal force.

i wasn't there, but jury has seen the evidence, and seems to believe Trayvon was smashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement. care for being repeatedly hit in the head with a brick? exactly the same thing. and 17 year old "skinny teenagers" commit the largest percentage of all murders, so it can't be that hard for them.

the point being made is that Trayvon did nothing wrong, and that he was "unlawfully executed", presumably for being black. which is racist bullshit. he tried to kill a man who wasn't hurting him in any way.

is it wrong to presume that a black teen in a hoodie is up to no good? it may be wrong, but it's not a crime. is it wrong to shoot someone who tries to kill you? definitely not.

would be appropriate for a white boy to bash black man's head into the pavement, grab for a gun and tell him he's gonna die, because he felt the black man was following him?

he couldn't choose the color of his skin. but he could choose not to try murder Zimmerman for following him.

beating the crap out of someone for following you = self defense. shooting someone who's bashing your head into concrete and reaching for your gun = murder.

Zimmerman didn't shoot him for being black. he shot him because Trayvon was going to select him out of the gene pool.