A little article I'm working on, I'd really love some feedback before finishing it...

Responses to questions about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
Two days ago, I published a video detailing largely unknown facts about the trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc
Tonight, Sunday, 14 July 2013, as of 10 PM EST, the jury has agreed with my assessment and found him not guilty on all counts.

Before the verdict was returned, I received a large number of powerful, passionate, interesting and critical questions regarding my video, which I will attempt to answer here. As usual, I will do my best to make my answer is as relevant to future situations as possible, since we surely have not seen the last of this kind of disaster circus.

Before we get to the questions, however, there are a few additional thoughts I would like to share about this whole mess.

The “Child” Victim?
Referring to Trayvon Martin, who was 17, as a “child,” is lowlife propaganda at its most obvious. Can you imagine a 17-year-old actor being referred to as a “child actor”? Given that most teenagers are allowed to drive at the age of 16, have you ever seen an article referring to the modern horror of allowing children to get behind the wheels of cars? You can join the US military at the age of 17 with signed parental consent, have you seen many articles raging against the practice of the US army in recruiting children as soldiers? When a 17-year-old Onar Åmerican soldier is killed overseas, did you see articles reporting the death of a child?

Of course not – the word is only used to inflame prejudice and provoke base-of-the-brain parental protection instincts.

The “Unarmed” Victim?
With dull, monotonous, metronome repetition, the mainstream media refers to Martin as “unarmed.” Only hyper-liberal victim mongers completely unaware of the reality of gun ownership would imagine that the word “unarmed” somehow invalidates shooting an attacker in self-defense, or that the word “unarmed” somehow translates into “harmless.”
One of the main purposes of gun ownership is to protect yourself from people who are going to attack you without a gun. I mean, come on, just think about it for a moment – how many people buy a handgun to protect themselves from snipers? Well, no one, because if someone is going to shoot you from a distance, without warning, your handgun isn’t going to do much to protect you, now is it?

If Trayvon Martin was in possession of the handgun he was reportedly trying to acquire, and if he had decided to kill George Zimmerman, he would have shot him from the bushes, without warning, and Zimmerman’s gun would have done nothing to help or save him.

So yes, Martin was in fact unarmed. So was Mike Tyson when he bit someone’s ear off. So were Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and Richard Speck - all serial killers who didn’t use guns. So were the little old lady poisoners in the movie “Arsenic and Old Lace.” So what? Self-defense does not require that your attacker be armed with a gun, a hand grenade, a rocket launcher, a bag of killer bees or have the ability to call in an airstrike. It only requires that you believe with reasonable justification that you are in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death.

And, if memory serves, the capacity of human beings to cause bodily harm to each other did not magically appear with the first handgun.
As propaganda goes, the worst part about it is that it’s also pathetically transparent. Personally, I prefer my neurolinguistic programming just a little bit more sophisticated. This stuff is all sort of on the level of “monkey want a banana?”

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.