Yes, "they" killed my son instead of "he" speaks volumes. It cries out an underlying belief that isn't spoken openly but is clearly held and believed.
I believe there is enough evidence to fairly label Trayvon a thug whether the jurors got to hear that evidence or not. Just lots of things that should *not* be normal for a 17 year old. If it is normal then there is something wrong with his environment / culture / society that he was brought up in.
As for him making it home ... that was the testimony of the prosecution witness that he was right outside his fathers house and it would tally with the timelines of where he was / what he was doing for those 4 minutes. He was at a place of safety and CHOSE not to go in but instead to go back and confront a stranger and assault him.
re: your daughters recital sosoconfused - that is a tough one. It certainly could be profiling, it could also be that they had incidents of some crime in the area against children that made them suspicious. Honestly, if something looks 'out of place' or just unusual and it involves a child then I think they should check it out - imagine the consequence if something happened and when asked why they witnessed it and didn't intervene had to say "because he was black and we didn't want to hurt his feelings".
I have been pulled over by the police but it is because I was doing something that looked suspicious - waiting outside a friends house to pick them up, they lived in a secluded location, had experienced burglaries in the area, it was dark, they scaled the high fence instead of going round and through the gate etc.
If I had been black would it have been victimisation? No, I don't think so ... but could I interpret it as such? Maybe sometimes that happens if that is what people are looking for.
If I was black and I'd been stopped multiple times every year as you describe and there was nothing I was doing that could possibly be interpreted as suspicious then yes, I believe that would be victimisation and downright wrong. It is bad policing if it isolates and distances a community.
Stop-and-search was a contentious issue in the UK - the real danger apart from the annoyance and distancing of the police is that it reverses the cause and effect: if you have evidence that most crimes in an area are by one group then y'know what ... stop more of them than others. I don't see much difference with paying more attention to certain people getting on planes and terrorism which most people don't object to. It's grossly unfair but isn't it also common sense?
However the insidious part of profiling is if more black people are stopped (for no reason other than color) and then because of those stop-and-searches more are found to have committed crime and convicted. Now the statistics are skewed because of the behaviour and that is a very bad thing. That's why controls are needed so if people are being profiled it is for a genuine reason and not the other way round (to provide a reason).
but I figured hey I would be just another whiney BLACK
I object to people taking an everyday event and attributing it to their color but do not think it is whiney AT ALL to point to experiences of plain racial profiling as I don't think this should happen or be allowed. What I find annoying is that the former wekens the case and distracts from the latter.