Did you know that Arizona brand watermelon fruit drink, Skittles, and cough syrup make "Lean", a drug that makes people paranoid and violent?  I didn't.
Did you know that a school would admit that they would list "appropriated" jewelry in a student locker as found property rather than stolen in order to avoid inflated crime stats? I didn't.
Did you know that self defense courses teach that when you are followed, you should call 911 and find the nearest safe place?  And if those options are unavailable, to choose the best place for you to physically confront an attacker, turn your phone video on, yell for help, and, as a last resort, confront verbally before physically?  I didn't, but it makes sense, and might save a life.
Did you know that in legal lingo, the term "pursue" implies an intent to capture, where "follow" inplies no such thing?  That "stalking" is a pattern of repeated behavior?  That's helpful in that using the same terms lets people discuss events more truthfully.
Did you know that ninety five percent of liars are reliably exposed by new polygraph techniques?
Do you know that Stand Your Ground laws have no racial language or implied preference in them?  Perhaps discussion of the laws is warranted, but not based on race.
Have you heard who a boycott of Florida by performers and conventions would harm, and how many dollars might be involved?
Have you seen an interview with the "retired" Sanford police chief?  Seems his story might generate some interest.
Are you aware the extent to which we are all followed, online, by cameras public and private, by car license readers, financial records, and facial recognition devices?  Have you seen any interviews with loss prevention specialists, whether they profile and why, or how they follow safely?  Might make an interesting journalistic foray.
Do you understand why no news groups are approaching these topics? I don't.  Journalism is SUPPOSED to find the truth and expose it.  Where are the journalists? I now know where I can find information marketers.  They duped us, criminally, in the Martin/Zimmerman story.  I'm looking back, searching for a news source that had a reserved, more sceptical less sensational approach.  Maybe BBC?  While boycotting, perhaps we should quit rewarding NBC and the AP For forcefeeding us crap.
A year ago, on this site, I asked people to keep an open mind in this story because the details were sketchy, and folks had a gut-felt reaction to the appearance of a great injustice based on racial profiling, a stand-your-ground justified murder, and police turning a blind eye.  Feelings were running so strong that, just for reserved judgement, I was verbally confronted, even attacked.  Big deal.  I have a life.
But I've watched the events unfold.  And because my vacation time was uncrowded, I streamed and watched the trial.  I tried to consider the evidence as though I were a juror.  And now, I'm having a hard time believing anyone is still asking for Justice for Trayon, based on the trial.  I'm having trouble understanding why anyone is still trumping this killing, the reluctance to arrest, or the verdict as racially motivated.  I looked into SYG, and don't see what the fuss is about there, either.  I feel confident that every logical point accusing Zimmerman has been answered, with several of them not presenting him in the best light, but he's no murderer.
There is a lot of heated discussion.  Logic doesn't play in them much.  But a few points that seem to confuse folks:
(1) Zimmerman was armed because he had been responsible for reporting folks who were subsequently arrested and released.  Understandable.  Zimmerman admits to being a wannabe cop, in that it is/was his chosen profession.  He knew well the limitations of neighborhood watch, and acted accordingly within the law.  An actual cop would have questioned Martin at first contact, and would have deployed his weapon at the first sign of confrontation.
(2) When Zimmerman was asked if he was following the person he reported, the dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that." That is different than the police ordering him away. With the responders minutes away, he lost sight of the person he had reported.  Attempting to locate is different than pursuing with intent to contact, and grounds for attack.  Comparing Martin's right to self defense to Zimmerman being pummeled is ludicrous.
(3)  There is NO evidence that anything Zimmerman did was racially motivated.  Martin was not on trial, but his words and actions suggest his own racial issues.
(4) The police did not avoid grilling Zimmerman.  Their efforts to implicate him in a crime were amply demonstrated in the trial.  They did not arrest him because his story checked out.  Period.
(5) The appointed special prosecutor tactfully stated that the trial was a response to public pressure by stating their job "was to make sure Martin and Zimmerman got their day in court.  We did that."  I thought that the attorneys for the state actually did a pretty credible job considering they had little but minor inconsistencies and emotion to work with.  Tough job.
And so, I'm embarrassed for those who press ahead with the protests against racism using this case.  I'm sad for those who emotionally reacted to a sound bite and have yet to wake to the facts, in particular those still spewing venom.  I'm shocked at those supporting threats against Zimmerman and his family, proving that violent hate knows no melanin levels. I agree that it's time to have a national talk about race, but this time a two way discussion.
I wrote, when Obama was elected, that I didn't want a president who would feel the need to pander to any special interest groups.  But that is exactly what he and Holder are doing by interjecting themselves into the discussion of this case.  The president was almost apologist in saying that black people see this case through a "racial filter."  He said that Martin could have been him when young.  He described the feeling of being followed in a department store, and watching a lady clutch her purse in an elevator with him.
Well, Mr. President, perhaps it's time for a leader stronger than you to honestly approach the reasons you may have been profiled.  You said very tactfully that "African Americans are disproportionally involved in the judicial system."  The racial filter would interpret that statement as "blacks are unfairly persecuted."  But I believe you understand that blacks are disproportionally criminals.  Department store loss prevention personnel, rewarded for stops and value recovered, will racially profile because it works.  I'm glad you didn't attack when followed.  Zimmerman, while there's no evidence of it, could be justified for profiling Martin based on the skin color of ALL of the thugs involved in crimes he'd reported in his neighborhood.  You, Mr President, are classified as black, while Mr. Zimmerman is conveniently white to his accusers, both of you sharing the same amount of anglo heritage.  There is a VERY good reason that lady clutches her purse, and tries to get away.  Approach the reasons why black society is disproportionately dysfunctional, Mr. President, then whine about profiling with impunity.  I'm not discounting the contribution of black individuals to our culture, wealth, leadership, and progress.   But:

"I'm old enough to remember when most of the people propogating racial hate were white."  Thomas  Sowell