Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[cup-O-coffee]

Did you say George started all of this? Wasn't he paid to be there

Actually, Zimmerman was a volunteer. He was watching out for the neighborhood for free.

You sure you never worked in public relations before?

Zimmerman that he was on an errand on the night he shot and killed Treyvon Martin.

Zimemrman was not on neighborhood watch rounds.

George has my vote to patrol my neighborhood any time 24/7.

You are intentionally missing so many things on so many levels. Clever.

[NanLaew]

Disbar the prosecutors is the view of Alan Dershowitz, I couldn't agree more.

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/dershowitz-zimmerman-trayvon-martin/2013/07/12/id/514847?promo_code=F53B-1&utm_source=Debka&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

This is the real story. God knows if the ones defending the evil racist would have concealed evidence.

Agreed. The prosecution's best shot would have been the unlawful killing of a child but they let that boat sail long before the court date was set.

It's a pity that the enraged 'masses' can't see that it was a flawed prosecution from the get go and absolutely nothing to do with any perceived abuse of 'bad' or prejudicial laws.

Why is it always the case that someone should always be seen to be responsible for someone else's bad judgement?

Really! You are going to try and prove to a jury that Trayvon was a child, in lieu of all the facts leading up to the shooting? Good luck. You wouldn't make it past the courtroom desk clerk.

There is nothing to prove in this regard. The legal definition of Age of Majority for Florida is 18, like most of the US states. It is the law.

If Trayvon had managed to get the gun, shot and killed George and was arrested and charged, the prosecution could (and possibly would) have petitioned that he be tried as an adult despite being legally still a child, or a minor which I consider is a much less evocative description.

The law itself does not consider if the minor is perceived as a saint or a sinner. Although not doing themselves any favours in a court of law, a minor does not forfeit his/her legal right to protection just because he/she wants to be or behaves like a bad-ass. That is for the prosecution and/or defense to argue.

Edited July 15, 2013 by NanLaew

[brewsterbudgen]

Armed man chases unarmed teen down, catches / confronts him. Teen does what most people would do in that situation, turns on man and uses some self defense measures of his own. Man's pride is hurt so he shoost the teen dead. I feel Mr Zimmerman instigated the situation and therefore should have been found guilty.

I agree. Those on the Right can claim what they like, but had the roles been reversed the outcome would have been very different.

A very shameful day for the USA, but hopefully it's not completely over yet.

[cup-O-coffee]

Armed man chases unarmed teen down, catches / confronts him. Teen does what most people would do in that situation, turns on man and uses some self defense measures of his own. Man's pride is hurt so he shoost the teen dead. I feel Mr Zimmerman instigated the situation and therefore should have been found guilty.

That is definitely one way of viewing the circumstances, except George did not chase anyone down, or catch him. He did confront him. You make it sound all so simple and clear with your logic. You have tried him and convicted him because you feel. That is exactly what the defense said for the jury not to do when they deliberated; to feel. Thankfully they did not feel, and instead viewed the evidence (and clearly the lack thereof) brought forward by the prosecution.

[brewsterbudgen]

Armed man chases unarmed teen down, catches / confronts him. Teen does what most people would do in that situation, turns on man and uses some self defense measures of his own. Man's pride is hurt so he shoost the teen dead. I feel Mr Zimmerman instigated the situation and therefore should have been found guilty.

That is definitely one way of viewing the circumstances, except George did not chase anyone down, or catch him. He did confront him. You make it sound all so simple and clear with your logic. You have tried him and convicted him because you feel. That is exactly what the defense said for the jury not to do when they deliberated; to feel. Thankfully they did not feel, and instead viewed the evidence (and clearly the lack thereof) brought forward by the prosecution.

Well he followed him in his car and then on foot and confronted him. His reason for doing this? Pretty obvious but not justifiable (IMO). Why wouldn't the person being followed react?

[coma]

I have seen the like of this " George " guy all too many times before. The world is full of wannabees. And this guy sure fits the bill. A Gungho cop want-to-be that lacks the metal to actually be a real law enforcement officer. So he arms himself and declares himself a vigilant neighbourhood watch volunteer. Just waiting and praying for a day to come when he gets to use deadly force. Sad but true.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts, replies and inflammatory posts have been deleted. Please stick to the topic.

[cup-O-coffee]

Armed man chases unarmed teen down, catches / confronts him. Teen does what most people would do in that situation, turns on man and uses some self defense measures of his own. Man's pride is hurt so he shoost the teen dead. I feel Mr Zimmerman instigated the situation and therefore should have been found guilty.

That is definitely one way of viewing the circumstances, except George did not chase anyone down, or catch him. He did confront him. You make it sound all so simple and clear with your logic. You have tried him and convicted him because you feel. That is exactly what the defense said for the jury not to do when they deliberated; to feel. Thankfully they did not feel, and instead viewed the evidence (and clearly the lack thereof) brought forward by the prosecution.

Well he followed him in his car and then on foot and confronted him. His reason for doing this? Pretty obvious but not justifiable (IMO). Why wouldn't the person being followed react?

No. You are way off on so many levels like a lot of these other bleeding hearts. Even if he is what you imply, then you are essentially saying in reverse that it is acceptable to beat a racist so bad and with such fury that the racist cannot possibly know if the attacker is going to cease and desist until the racist is damaged or dead.

You are saying that aren't you?

You are saying that the racist should simply lay there and take it and not defend himself, or herself because they are racist, and anything they do to get the attacker off of them will land them in a lawsuit?

So, what are you saying?

[Chicog]

I have no idea about fact, fiction or speculation in the following narrative of Martin's last moments and what was allegedly observed him doing on surveillance cameras.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/m-what_the_media_choose_not_to_know_about_trayvon.html

Candidly, none of that's relevant to me except the bs political spin the media put on it to grab attention and get people riled up.

The only thing important here is two numbskulls crossed paths. A wanna be gang banger thug tried to kick his arse and got his own arse shot in the process. Parents should teach their kids manners and not to fight. Even if Zimmerman wrong, Martin acted liked a thug.

Damned right. Martin should have been tugging his forelock and saying "Yays boss, anyting you says boss".

If that is the only response that you can come up with, then civil rights for Americans of African descent are out the window, and I give a dam_n.

Oh dear.

[hawker9000]

The feds have competent prosecutors. Just as in the state's trial of OJ Simpson, Zimmerman in his state too got a way with murder. All there is now is a federal civil trail, which in Simpson's case found him liable. I suspect, I trust, Zimmerman the gunman gets the same fate.

The Simpson criminal trial jury dismissed its own duty to instead become an OJ Simpson fan club. The Zimmerman trail jury dismissed the reality of the murder, i.e., a guy with a gun initiating action against another who was unarmed.

We need to abide by the finding of any jury, anywhere, anytime. However, that doesn't mean we can't criticize the jury. I thought the state trial judge did a good job - she just couldn't in all reality override the jury's mistaken verdict. She certainly didn't have grounds to order a directed verdict.

I'm confident Attorney General Eric Holder will initiate a civil cause of action against Zimmerman and that competent prosecutors will convince a federal jury of Zimmerman's civil liability In this matter of a gross injustice.

The gross injustice is that the prosecutor in Florida succeeded in dragging Zimmerman to trial in the first place. Yes, there was a violation of civil rights. Zimmerman's. The police and local prosecutor didn't want to go to trial. Had it gone to a grand jury, there'd never have been a trial. Then mob hysteria took over it became a race-based, politically-driven issue and there had to be a trial, lack of probable cause notwithstanding. To some people, blacks can do no wrong, and whites can do no good. Thankfully, the jury handled the matter with objectivity. Despite the acquittal, Zimmerman has to pay a price, and for this he should be compensated for the malicious prosecution.

Oh, and the "Fox finding" wasn't Fox's. It was Alan Dershowitz', who is a law professor at guess where. Why Harvard Law School, the very law school our organizer-in-chief was graduated from!

Oh the carping and grumbling over this case will go on forever. 'Might as well learn to give it the attention it deserves.

[FireMedic]

For all those who are wondering about civil lawsuits... I'm from Florida, more specifically, Sanford, Florida. I was born,raised, and lived there my whole life. Now I'm in Thailand and watched this trial and coverage from here. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you agree with it or not, Mr. Zimmerman did not break any laws. If you don't like the laws in Florida, then don't go there. You are more than welcome to stay in whatever crime-free bubble fantasy world you live in. There is something else about the civil side to this case. If the person is found not guilty on the grounds of self defense, they are IMMUNE from further civil liability. So sure, the family, and anyone who's feelings were hurt by the verdict can sue whoever they want. It will be dropped at the first appearance. Ragging on Florida about their laws or legal system is like doing the same here in Thailand. You either deal with it or you don't. If you can't deal with it then leave. It really does no good for anyone for everyone to sit around bashing one side or the other. All it does is divide friends, families, and furthers the racial divide in the U.S. I further think it's a horrible and disgusting fact that the night of the verdict, 8 black people were shot by other black people in the city of Chicago. On the 4th of July weekend alone, 72 people were shot, 10 of which were killed by other black people in Chicago. And for the people who don't know, Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the U.S.! No handguns, no rifles, no standard capacity magazines..complete ban UK style. But these murders and shooting go on daily without any protest. No inflated, biased, or heated news coverage for the world to see. Nothing. So for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, if you are so emotionally involved in any other way than as the laws are written, you have in fact been swayed just as the media wants. The media is showing all the race baiters,all the Black Panthers saying how they are coming to Sanford to kill white babies. They are not showing the calmer, more reasonable side of the black community who agrees with the verdict. It doesn't make for good tv. Violence and racial tension keeps you glued to their channel, increasing their ratings and increasing their sponsors! They are making money hand over fist off the weak minded and uneducated. The horrible part is the people being swayed the most would never even consider this aspect. "What me be influenced by an outside force? Never! I'm Captain Freethinker, nobody influences me." But I see it all the time after these news broadcasts. So before anyone gets on some sort of moral high horse about anything, including comparing Florida law to the law of your home country, remember that is really doesn't matter. All this happened in Florida, not your home. We all have to respect the law as it's written. Like it or not.

I forgot to add this about the civil lawsuit:

776.032Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1)A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Alan Dershowitz: Harvard Law

Edited July 15, 2013 by FireMedic

[zydeco]

....and the lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee.

And so is the IRS, which gets a huge cut of everybody else's cut.

[mopar71]

Nobody outside of the USA is surprised at this verdict. Young black kid shot in the back by a wannabe cop. Nothing to see here, move on folks. Is one of the reasons why the USA is held in contempt by the rest of the civilised world.

This is an important and valid perspective to state and for the TVF Right Wing Caucus to know no matter how much you dislike it and need to dismiss it.

This post further notes the view of the rest of the civilized world that the US is ..

I don't think any of us can claim to know the view of everyone in our own country let alone the many countries across multiple continents and cultures that make up the "rest of the civilised world".

That said, I will go out on a limb and claim that most of the opinions on this case are not based on watching/listening to the trial and seeing the evidence presented by both sides and listening to witness testimony.

[mopar71]

Here are some irrelevant aspects of the case that have taken a lot of space here:

Was one a child or a young man? That is irrelevant.

Was one 5'11" or 6'2"? That is irrelevant.

Was one black? That is irrelevant.

Was one not black? That is irrelevant.

Were there traces of marijuana in one's blood? That is irrelevant.

Was one older and heavier than the other? That is irrelevant.

Was one trained in MMA? That is irrelevant.

Was one wannabe cop? That is irrelevant.

Did one approach the other first? That is irrelevant.

Did one ambush the other from the bushes? That is irrelevant.

So what is relevant? The physical evidence and witness testimony.

Witnesses say the one who survived was the one on the bottom getting punched. That is relevant.

One had wounds on his face and head from the beating he took. The other had none. That is relevant.

One had a gunshot wound that was consistent to the others' story that he fired while on his back. That is relevant.

The above three are consistent with Self Defense and not 2nd Degree Murder (or Manslaughter). That is relevant.

The jury made the right call. It was an amazingly brave thing to do on their part.

Edited July 15, 2013 by mopar71

[Ulysses G.]

Don West said it best. The jury prevented a tragedy from turning into a travesty. The travesty would have been if Zimmerman had been convicted.

The travesty is the transformation of George Zimmerman, a man with a history of anger issues as evidenced by his assault on a police officer and the restraining orders effected against him, into a hero.

What utter nonsense. No one has called George Zimmerman a hero, but he is not a murderer either.

George Zimmerman pushed an undercover policeman - who was not in uniform. That was his supposed "assault". The restraining order was placed by his wife who is still with him, and who also had one placed on her. So what, they had marital issues like many other young couples.

The one with the anger issues is the 17 year old man who broke Zimmermans nose, injured his head and threatened to kill the "cracker" for merely watching him walk down the street.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[mopar71]

Florida Prosecutor Angela Corey argued that the tragic case was a test of Florida's gun laws as well as social boundaries."This case has never been about race, nor has it ever been about the right to bear arms," Corey said. "But Trayvon Martin was profiled. There is no doubt that he was profiled to be a criminal. And if race was one of the aspects in George Zimmerman's mind, then we believe that we put out the proof necessary to show that Zimmerman did profile Trayvon Martin.

This is an outrageous statement by the prosecutor, a public official, which should result in her immediate dismissal.It is non-acceptance of the results of the system she's supposed to be there to defend and is incitement to racial hatred. She should know better......and is paid to know and behave better.....and therefore is worse then the rabble outside the court.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Zimmerman started all this because Martin fitted his profile of a young black criminal.

But in Zimmerman's original 911 call he didn't know the race of the suspicious individual. I'd say that leaves plenty of doubt that race had anything to do with it.

[Jingthing]

He had a long pathetic history of wasting 911's time. He was basically a PEST. REPEATED numerous calls about young black boys in his community. One case of a VERY YOUNG black boy. False alarms as was the boy he killed. OF COURSE he was racially profiling young black boys! That is a known fact. Yes there was crime in his community and yes the crims were largely black, but don't act like he wasn't profiling young black boys. Because he was. If you want to be honest, say it was LOGICAL to do that, not play games that he wasn't doing that.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

..........

Zimmerman broke the law in no way. Trayvon did and he paid for it with his life. As sad as that may be, Trayvon was the one that was responsible for what happened.

This is poor nonsense.

Because it was difficult - better impossible - to improve what happened that night. You cannot say "Z. broke the law in no way".

Sure I can. Zimmerman was carrying the gun legally and he used it in self defense legally. Trayvon attacked him - which IS against the law - for following him - which is not against the law. Trayvon is the only one who commited a crime.

[mopar71]

6:22

Trayvon, with his hoodie up, grabs two items from the shelves of 7-11. One is the Skittles. The other is Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. The media avoid the name of the real drink -- possibly because of the racial implications of the word "watermelon," but possibly to avoid probing the real reason for Trayon's trip.

Trayvon, in fact, had become a devotee of the druggy concoction known as "Lean," also known in southern hip-hop culture as "Sizzurp" and "Purple Drank." Lean consists of three basic ingredients -- codeine, a soft drink, and candy. If his Facebook postings are to be believed, Trayvon had been using Lean since at least June 2011.

On June 27, 2011, Trayvon asks a friend online, "unow a connect for codien?" He tells the friend that "robitussin nd soda" could make "some fire ass lean." He says, "I had it before" and that he wants "to make some more." On the night of February 26, if Brandy had some Robitussin at home, Trayvon had just bought the mixings for one "fire ass lean" cocktail.

This is the first I have heard of "lean". I remember reading those postings but didn't know what they meant. I wonder how many in the hip-hop community know about this but still used the Skittles and watermelon drink as a sign of innocence?

[thaibeachlovers]

The feds have competent prosecutors. Just as in the state's trial of OJ Simpson, Zimmerman in his state too got a way with murder. All there is now is a federal civil trail, which in Simpson's case found him liable. I suspect, I trust, Zimmerman the gunman gets the same fate.

The Simpson criminal trial jury dismissed its own duty to instead become an OJ Simpson fan club. The Zimmerman trail jury dismissed the reality of the murder, i.e., a guy with a gun initiating action against another who was unarmed.

We need to abide by the finding of any jury, anywhere, anytime. However, that doesn't mean we can't criticize the jury. I thought the state trial judge did a good job - she just couldn't in all reality override the jury's mistaken verdict. She certainly didn't have grounds to order a directed verdict.

I'm confident Attorney General Eric Holder will initiate a civil cause of action against Zimmerman and that competent prosecutors will convince a federal jury of Zimmerman's civil liability In this matter of a gross injustice.

You must have been watching a different trial. There was nothing presented by the prosecution that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not in fear for his life or maiming when Trayvon was beating him up. Everything else is irrelevant. The jury got it right, and good on them for not buckling to political pressure for a guilty verdict.

As for the call for a civil rights prosecution, that's just barking, and if they do so ( which would not be surprising under Holder ) under Florida's SYG law, Zimmerman should be immune from any further prosecution.

[Chicog]

Some of the attempts at concealing racist tendencies on this thread are almost laughable.

I'd like to ask one question. The general consensus seems to be:

( a ) If both were African American, this wouldn't have gone to trial.

( b ) If it had been an African American adult killing a white teen, the rednecks would want him strung up from the nearest tree.

But what if it had been a white adult killing an unarmed white teen?

I'm guessing then it would be about the right of curtain twitching wannabes to carry firearms and poke their noses into other peoples' business.

The whole race issue is what has got Zimmerman absolved of any responsibility, that and a crap prosecution case and a defence able to manipulate all kinds of deceptions and half-truths to finish the job off.

The truth of the matter is that Zimmerman is responsible for murdering someone's child and eventually he will pay the price.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Chicog

[mopar71]

Don West said it best. The jury prevented a tragedy from turning into a travesty. The travesty would have been if Zimmerman had been convicted.

The travesty is the transformation of George Zimmerman, a man with a history of anger issues as evidenced by his assault on a police officer and the restraining orders effected against him, into a hero.

"Assault on a police officer" is misleading. I remember reading last year how the police were going to arrest a neighbor/friend of Zimmerman's for underage drinking and he put his hand out, touching the officer. While technically "assault" I don't believe that's generally what people have in mind when they read your statement. Well, at least I don't.

[Ulysses G.]

He had a long pathetic history of wasting 911's time. He was basically a PEST.

He was a "pest" that many people in the community respected, because he helped them and made them feel safer. He was trying to prevent crime. There were witnesses at the trial that testified to that. He did report some black men - as well as white men and Hispanics - because there had been quite a few break ins in the area and many of the suspects had been black.

That "pest" did nothing illegal and he did a lot that was right.

[Chicog]

The jury got it right, and good on them for not buckling to political pressure for a guilty verdict.

I would agree that the jury got it right given the parameters, but where was this "political pressure for a guilty verdict" other than in your own mind or on Fox News?

I don't see anyone criticising the jury.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Chicog

[OldSalty]

234 replies to this topic. At least I know now where all the FOX TV watchers are living. 2 weeks of nothing else in this world but this court case, wake up guys there is more than the US in this world

[Jingthing]

He had a long pathetic history of wasting 911's time. He was basically a PEST.

He was a "pest" that many people in the community respected, because he helped them and made them feel safer. He was trying to prevent crime. There were witnesses at the trial that testified to that. He did report some black men - as well as white men and Hispanics - because there had been quite a few break ins in the area and many of the suspects had been black.

That "pest" did nothing illegal and he did a lot that was right.

The news reports I read is that his calls were almost all about BLACK men. Why run away from the truth that he was profiling?

[mopar71]

Armed man chases unarmed teen down, catches / confronts him. Teen does what most people would do in that situation, turns on man and uses some self defense measures of his own. Man's pride is hurt so he shoost the teen dead. I feel Mr Zimmerman instigated the situation and therefore should have been found guilty.

That is definitely one way of viewing the circumstances, except George did not chase anyone down, or catch him. He did confront him. You make it sound all so simple and clear with your logic. You have tried him and convicted him because you feel. That is exactly what the defense said for the jury not to do when they deliberated; to feel. Thankfully they did not feel, and instead viewed the evidence (and clearly the lack thereof) brought forward by the prosecution.

Well he followed him in his car and then on foot and confronted him. His reason for doing this? Pretty obvious but not justifiable (IMO). Why wouldn't the person being followed react?

As a child being followed by a larger man at night, his reaction logically would have been to run home to safety.

Edited July 15, 2013 by mopar71

[thaibeachlovers]

He had a long pathetic history of wasting 911's time. He was basically a PEST. REPEATED numerous calls about young black boys in his community. One case of a VERY YOUNG black boy. False alarms as was the boy he killed. OF COURSE he was racially profiling young black boys! That is a known fact. Yes there was crime in his community and yes the crims were largely black, but don't act like he wasn't profiling young black boys. Because he was. If you want to be honest, say it was LOGICAL to do that, not play games that he wasn't doing that.

He was the neighbourhood watch captain and there had been a lot of break ins by, gosh, young black men wearing hoodies. So what should he do, call 911 or just gun down anyone that looked suspicious? The only "profiling" that anyone can PROVE he was doing was of hooded young men, despite selectivelly edited 911 calls trying to prove he was racist.

Besides, he mentored young black men, so where's the racism?

[thaibeachlovers]

Armed man chases unarmed teen down, catches / confronts him. Teen does what most people would do in that situation, turns on man and uses some self defense measures of his own. Man's pride is hurt so he shoost the teen dead. I feel Mr Zimmerman instigated the situation and therefore should have been found guilty.

That is definitely one way of viewing the circumstances, except George did not chase anyone down, or catch him. He did confront him. You make it sound all so simple and clear with your logic. You have tried him and convicted him because you feel. That is exactly what the defense said for the jury not to do when they deliberated; to feel. Thankfully they did not feel, and instead viewed the evidence (and clearly the lack thereof) brought forward by the prosecution.

Well he followed him in his car and then on foot and confronted him. His reason for doing this? Pretty obvious but not justifiable (IMO). Why wouldn't the person being followed react?

As a child being followed by a larger man at night, his reaction logically would have been to run home to safety.

And he had 4 minutes in which to do so.

You are wrong about Zimmerman being larger. Trayvon was taller, fitter, stronger. Physically, Trayvon had nothing to fear from Zimmerman, and since when is a 17 year old a "child"?

Incidentally, Trayvon was the only one to use racist language.

[zydeco]

6:22

Trayvon, with his hoodie up, grabs two items from the shelves of 7-11. One is the Skittles. The other is Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. The media avoid the name of the real drink -- possibly because of the racial implications of the word "watermelon," but possibly to avoid probing the real reason for Trayon's trip.

Trayvon, in fact, had become a devotee of the druggy concoction known as "Lean," also known in southern hip-hop culture as "Sizzurp" and "Purple Drank." Lean consists of three basic ingredients -- codeine, a soft drink, and candy. If his Facebook postings are to be believed, Trayvon had been using Lean since at least June 2011.

On June 27, 2011, Trayvon asks a friend online, "unow a connect for codien?" He tells the friend that "robitussin nd soda" could make "some fire ass lean." He says, "I had it before" and that he wants "to make some more." On the night of February 26, if Brandy had some Robitussin at home, Trayvon had just bought the mixings for one "fire ass lean" cocktail.

This is the first I have heard of "lean". I remember reading those postings but didn't know what they meant. I wonder how many in the hip-hop community know about this but still used the Skittles and watermelon drink as a sign of innocence?

This was news to me, too. I followed this case but never heard about "lean". Or, if it was mentioned, it went right past me as one more gangster patois term. Cup-O-coffee has been especially enlightening on this issue. As for the Skittles, it sounds like it won't be long until they put Skittles behind the pharmacy desk, limit you to two packs per purchase, and take down your driver's license number--just like they do with Tylenol Cold Sinus meds back in the US.