Yeena

I'm the author of the linked blog post. Just wanted to note that while it's possible Trayvon dropped the candy and tea prior to the confrontation with Zimmerman, there's enough evidence against the possibility that I didn't spend much time discussing it.
Most importantly, we know that no one has reported Zimmerman as claiming that Trayvon dropped any items immediately before the fight. It's a safe guess that he didn't see anything like that or else he'd have mentioned it pretty prominently -- as someone else mentioned, seeing someone throw down the objects in their hands is a pretty blatant sign of aggression.
So the other options are that Trayvon dropped the snacks prior to re-encountering Zimmerman, or that he was holding them in a pocket or bag or his hands. The first possibility can probably be ruled out because the police seem to have known about the skittles bag and the Arizona Iced Tea very soon into the investigation, such as it was. If Trayvon had dropped them off in secret somewhere else, it's doubtful that the police would have known that some random snack food they found stashed in the housing complex had belonged to him.
So, most likely, Trayvon still had them on his person. It explains how the cops knew about them right away. We still don't know exactly where they were, but, to me, carrying about snacks in any fashion is entirely inconsistent with a plan to pounce out of the dark and punch someone in the nose. Arizona Iced Tea bottles are pretty hefty -- even if it's in a hoodie pocket, it's going to be lurching about awkwardly there.
Plus the kid walked a mile to get the damned snacks. Is he really going to just abandon them when he's finally back in the housing complex, just because he had a sudden whim to run up and punch someone?

This is not the case. Manslaughter is a lesser included charge of Murder 2 -- the jury has the option of convicting under either.

The element of racism in the case is less about Zimmerman's motivations -- it's likely present there, in that his snap judgement that Trayvon was somehow a "threat" was based on him being young and male and black. But one individual's racism is not hugely significant; there are racist people out there, that's not exactly a shocking revelation.
But racism becomes a more serious issue when looking at the Sanford government's handling of the case. Whether or not individuals in the population are racist, people should be able to expect that, at a bare minimum, government agencies will give a thorough and race neutral review of any murder in the community. By all available accounts, people high up in the chain of command of both the DA's office and the police department were scarily willing to cut Zimmerman loose after hardly any consideration at all. And although we can't know for absolute certain, it's hard to believe that, had Trayvon Martin been some white or asian teenager, and had Zimmerman been a black dude, the police sure has heck would have been giving the murder of a neighborhood kid much closer scrutiny.

I'm the author of the linked blog post. Just wanted to note that while it's possible Trayvon dropped the candy and tea prior to the confrontation with Zimmerman, there's enough evidence against the possibility that I didn't spend much time discussing it.
Most importantly, we know that no one has reported Zimmerman as claiming that Trayvon dropped any items immediately before the fight. It's a safe guess that he didn't see anything like that or else he'd have mentioned it pretty prominently -- as someone else mentioned, seeing someone throw down the objects in their hands is a pretty blatant sign of aggression.
So the other options are that Trayvon dropped the snacks prior to re-encountering Zimmerman, or that he was holding them in a pocket or bag or his hands. The first possibility can probably be ruled out because the police seem to have known about the skittles bag and the Arizona Iced Tea very soon into the investigation, such as it was. If Trayvon had dropped them off in secret somewhere else, it's doubtful that the police would have known that some random snack food they found stashed in the housing complex had belonged to him.
So, most likely, Trayvon still had them on his person. It explains how the cops knew about them right away. We still don't know exactly where they were, but, to me, carrying about snacks in any fashion is entirely inconsistent with a plan to pounce out of the dark and punch someone in the nose. Arizona Iced Tea bottles are pretty hefty -- even if it's in a hoodie pocket, it's going to be lurching about awkwardly there.
Plus the kid walked a mile to get the damned snacks. Is he really going to just abandon them when he's finally back in the housing complex, just because he had a sudden whim to run up and punch someone?

The element of racism in the case is less about Zimmerman's motivations -- it's likely present there, in that his snap judgement that Trayvon was somehow a "threat" was based on him being young and male and black. But one individual's racism is not hugely significant; there are racist people out there, that's not exactly a shocking revelation.
But racism becomes a more serious issue when looking at the Sanford government's handling of the case. Whether or not individuals in the population are racist, people should be able to expect that, at a bare minimum, government agencies will give a thorough and race neutral review of any murder in the community. By all available accounts, people high up in the chain of command of both the DA's office and the police department were scarily willing to cut Zimmerman loose after hardly any consideration at all. And although we can't know for absolute certain, it's hard to believe that, had Trayvon Martin been some white or asian teenager, and had Zimmerman been a black dude, the police sure has heck would have been giving the murder of a neighborhood kid much closer scrutiny.

The element of racism in the case is less about Zimmerman's motivations -- it's likely present there, in that his snap judgement that Trayvon was somehow a "threat" was based on him being young and male and black. But one individual's racism is not hugely significant; there are racist people out there, that's not exactly a shocking revelation.
But racism becomes a more serious issue when looking at the Sanford government's handling of the case. Whether or not individuals in the population are racist, people should be able to expect that, at a bare minimum, government agencies will give a thorough and race neutral review of any murder in the community. By all available accounts, people high up in the chain of command of both the DA's office and the police department were scarily willing to cut Zimmerman loose after hardly any consideration at all. And although we can't know for absolute certain, it's hard to believe that, had Trayvon Martin been some white or asian teenager, and had Zimmerman been a black dude, the police sure has heck would have been giving the murder of a neighborhood kid much closer scrutiny.

The element of racism in the case is less about Zimmerman's motivations -- it's likely present there, in that his snap judgement that Trayvon was somehow a "threat" was based on him being young and male and black. But one individual's racism is not hugely significant; there are racist people out there, that's not exactly a shocking revelation.
But racism becomes a more serious issue when looking at the Sanford government's handling of the case. Whether or not individuals in the population are racist, people should be able to expect that, at a bare minimum, government agencies will give a thorough and race neutral review of any murder in the community. By all available accounts, people high up in the chain of command of both the DA's office and the police department were scarily willing to cut Zimmerman loose after hardly any consideration at all. And although we can't know for absolute certain, it's hard to believe that, had Trayvon Martin been some white or asian teenager, and had Zimmerman been a black dude, the police sure has heck would have been giving the murder of a neighborhood kid much closer scrutiny.

I'm the author of the linked blog post. Just wanted to note that while it's possible Trayvon dropped the candy and tea prior to the confrontation with Zimmerman, there's enough evidence against the possibility that I didn't spend much time discussing it.
Most importantly, we know that no one has reported Zimmerman as claiming that Trayvon dropped any items immediately before the fight. It's a safe guess that he didn't see anything like that or else he'd have mentioned it pretty prominently -- as someone else mentioned, seeing someone throw down the objects in their hands is a pretty blatant sign of aggression.
So the other options are that Trayvon dropped the snacks prior to re-encountering Zimmerman, or that he was holding them in a pocket or bag or his hands. The first possibility can probably be ruled out because the police seem to have known about the skittles bag and the Arizona Iced Tea very soon into the investigation, such as it was. If Trayvon had dropped them off in secret somewhere else, it's doubtful that the police would have known that some random snack food they found stashed in the housing complex had belonged to him.
So, most likely, Trayvon still had them on his person. It explains how the cops knew about them right away. We still don't know exactly where they were, but, to me, carrying about snacks in any fashion is entirely inconsistent with a plan to pounce out of the dark and punch someone in the nose. Arizona Iced Tea bottles are pretty hefty -- even if it's in a hoodie pocket, it's going to be lurching about awkwardly there.
Plus the kid walked a mile to get the damned snacks. Is he really going to just abandon them when he's finally back in the housing complex, just because he had a sudden whim to run up and punch someone?

This is not the case. Manslaughter is a lesser included charge of Murder 2 -- the jury has the option of convicting under either.

You mean like when over a million people apply for one of only 62,000 McDonald's jobs?
That's 950,000 people who were not 'too good' to apply for a McJob, but still didn't get it.
You may not have noticed, but we have a little structural unemployment issue currently going on here. Blaming people who are currently unemployed for being too haughty or too lazy to get a job is just nonsensical.

You mean like when over a million people apply for one of only 62,000 McDonald's jobs?
That's 950,000 people who were not 'too good' to apply for a McJob, but still didn't get it.
You may not have noticed, but we have a little structural unemployment issue currently going on here. Blaming people who are currently unemployed for being too haughty or too lazy to get a job is just nonsensical.

How on earth did you get that impression?
Her statement is clear: she believes the system strongly encourages people not to find work. This is because she tried to get a job -- and when she was unable to pass the test associated with it, she lost not only the job but also her unemployment benefits. In other words, if she hadn't been trying to get a job in the first place, she would have been better off. But because she did try to find work (and possibly was desperate enough to try for a job she was not 100% qualified for), she is now in a worse position than she otherwise would be.

So, a number of months ago she lost her job and the unemployment benefits. Now, with the benefit of neither, she is still trying to find a job, and hasn't been able to.
And yet you think the obvious explanation is she was just pretending to get the financial advisor job when really she could have easily gotten another job?
As the other posters here have indicated, it is not an easy test, and not at all uncommon for people in that field to take it a couple times to pass. She had no way of knowing that she would be unable to keep the job, but you seem to think she should be faulted for even trying. It is not clear from the article what her actual qualifications are, but it's very possible she would be considered 'overqualified' and unhirable for the jobs you believe are available, and this bank job is the only sort of employment she is likely to get.

How on earth did you get that impression?
Her statement is clear: she believes the system strongly encourages people not to find work. This is because she tried to get a job -- and when she was unable to pass the test associated with it, she lost not only the job but also her unemployment benefits. In other words, if she hadn't been trying to get a job in the first place, she would have been better off. But because she did try to find work (and possibly was desperate enough to try for a job she was not 100% qualified for), she is now in a worse position than she otherwise would be.

How on earth did you get that impression?
Her statement is clear: she believes the system strongly encourages people not to find work. This is because she tried to get a job -- and when she was unable to pass the test associated with it, she lost not only the job but also her unemployment benefits. In other words, if she hadn't been trying to get a job in the first place, she would have been better off. But because she did try to find work (and possibly was desperate enough to try for a job she was not 100% qualified for), she is now in a worse position than she otherwise would be.

How on earth did you get that impression?
Her statement is clear: she believes the system strongly encourages people not to find work. This is because she tried to get a job -- and when she was unable to pass the test associated with it, she lost not only the job but also her unemployment benefits. In other words, if she hadn't been trying to get a job in the first place, she would have been better off. But because she did try to find work (and possibly was desperate enough to try for a job she was not 100% qualified for), she is now in a worse position than she otherwise would be.

So, a number of months ago she lost her job and the unemployment benefits. Now, with the benefit of neither, she is still trying to find a job, and hasn't been able to.
And yet you think the obvious explanation is she was just pretending to get the financial advisor job when really she could have easily gotten another job?
As the other posters here have indicated, it is not an easy test, and not at all uncommon for people in that field to take it a couple times to pass. She had no way of knowing that she would be unable to keep the job, but you seem to think she should be faulted for even trying. It is not clear from the article what her actual qualifications are, but it's very possible she would be considered 'overqualified' and unhirable for the jobs you believe are available, and this bank job is the only sort of employment she is likely to get.