Anecdote are normally useful, but they can be hard to take serious [sic] when they are clearly full of personal spite and bias.
Heheheh. You believe the negative spin about me. Cute.
Let's leave the direct personal information about Martin out of any justification for Zimmerman's actions, since if nothing else, he clearly demonstrated he didn't specifically know Martin on sight with the "He looks black" comment.
Martin's propensity towards crime and violence may be the whole reason for this tragedy. Some people try to place all the blame on Zimmerman, yet if Martin decided [sic] to use his words instead of his fists, then Zimmerman wouldn't had [sic] felt the need to use a gun to stop Martin from slamming his head against concrete. Some try to portray Martin as the victim, but he is likely the aggressor too [sic]. If Zimmerman was [sic] unarmed, then he could have easily been the one killed by Martin that night.
Some amount of this may or may not be true, but that's really not the issue I'm focusing on here. You can't use this information about Martin in the context of justifying Zimmerman's profiling of him, since it's not information he could have possibly had access to. That is, you cited the information about Martin's and Zimmerman's lives and about perceptions of them by others pretty directly in response to Craig's note about circumstancial evidence -- I'm just trying to clarify that the second part of what you said had no bearing on the matter, unless of course you'd like to argue that Zimmerman could have taken a look at Treyvon and said to himself, "Yeah, he looks like a guy with pro-gun violence text messages on his phone," which is a whole separate level of lunacy.
[spoiler=semantics][To clarify, the separate level is of lunacy, and not the first one -- if I were to say as such, I would be saying that you were talking crazy talk, and that is clearly not a kind or considerate sentiment. Such might have been stated with certainty if I had said "a whole 'nother level of lunacy", but I did not.][/spoiler]
