Trayvon is gone because he was on top of George Zimmerman beating him mercilessly. If Trayvon Martin had been on top of me doing what he did to George Zimmerman I would have shot him too, and rightly so...and I'm not white, in fact I'm almost as brown as Trayvon was. That's not profiling; that's defending your life.

One thing that always seems to get left out.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to pay for defense. It does not authorize federal payments for free school meals or food stamps.

If the states want to provide those things, that's fine. But the federal government has no business in any of that, so any choice between cutting defense and cutting "programs for the poor" should be obvious. There shouldn't be programs for the poor in the first place.

I do so love the Heritage Foundation! Nice job guys.

Actually, it is easy. I addressed Zimmerman's record in my post. You said he had a "criminal record" of violence. He has ZERO "criminal record" of violence, if you bothered to LOOK IT UP as I said.

BTW, your first comment was accidentally deleted. It got listed as posting twice, and when I deleted the one, both disappeared. Your basic argument was that Zimmerman is a violent criminal, when in fact there are no criminal records to support that.

That's an easy one. The correct answer is "neither." Look it up.

I understand where you\'re coming from and for the most part I agree with you. The bottom line for me is that at the exact moment the shot was fired, did George Zimmerman reasonably believe he was in fear for his life or great bodily injury? If the answer is yes, then it\'s a legal shooting...period. If the answer is no, then it isn\'t. The evidence to this point seems to indicate that he was in the right.

Self defense is not vigilante justice, genius. Dictionary much?

The evidence is there for anyone to see. It's not really my fault that you apparently are unable to read through the fog created by your liberal race-addled mind.

By the way, yes, gun owners know exactly how to disable an aggressive assailant. George Zimmerman apparently used the proper method, since, as you noted, he shot him in the chest. You never resort to lethal force for anything less than lethal use. Shooting to wound is for Hollywood and fools, and since you're probably not Hollywood I think we can guess the latter.

Zimmerman got where he was because he was following Martin. That's not in dispute. What is in dispute is the claim by people like you that he followed Martin after being told "we don't need you to do that" by the dispatcher. He replied to the dispatcher "okay." That is when he said he was returning to his car. And that is why he was where he was when the shooting took place, by which point you can also hear him say "I lost him" and "I don't know where this kid is." In other words, at that point he was not following Martin and in fact could not even see him. The map reference is superfluous.

I read the entire article too "Bob" and unlike you I didn't cherry pick what sounds good to me. The alcohol was one of the methods used to judge "impairment"; it was not the only one, and it was not the conclusion, which I summarized very accurately. The link to the article is there for people to judge for themselves.

And I don't have to "twist" anything. You read the quote for yourself, as can anyone else. Quicker, efficient thinking results in conservative ideology. Not my words, "Bob," but the words of the study.

Incidentally, I happen to have brown skin. You just called me a knuckle dragger. Is that code language for monkey? Are you a racist, "Bob?"