I just found this - on Martin's MySpace. You can't see the inside of his wrists. In one photo you seem to see a tattoo on his upper left arm, but not on the other. Compare the two photos and tell me definitively, if you can, whether Trayvon Martin has tattoos. You don't know when the two photos were taken with respect to each other, or when he was supposed to have gotten tattoos. Me? I'll wait until the coroner's report is released and then I'll know when I read the report (not somebody else's analysis of the report). Currently, I have opinions and I've made assumptions about tattoos - but I'm not passing them off as facts.
Then I find photos like this on that 'Trayvon Martin" MySpace account. Its title: "my dog red."
I see it and I think: is somebody setting us up? How stereotypical is this. Some people are painting Trayvon Martin as a 'thug' wannabe and there's a pit/pit-mix dog on his MySpace account, listed as 'his dog, Red.' It's as if somebody is playing around with the knee-jerk 'Trayvon was a thug' people and is tweaking the MySpace account, yet the photo has 11,000+ hits, similar to the photos of Martin himself, so it appears to have been there all along.
There are going to be people suggesting that the shooting was righteous because Martin may have owned a pitbull, which they'll interpret as proof Martin was a thug, which they'll interpret as proof that Zimmerman's account is true. (Note: That wasn't me taking a position. That was me pointing out that for some people the presence of a pitbull on the MySpace page will be evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman.)