Dave: Actually, all three - they are used as immunity from civil lawsuits for wrongful death; they are also used as a defense against criminal charges; and finally, the facts of the case are initially looked at by the Police, who are allowed to use their discretion to decide whether to even forward the matter to the Prosecutor for a decision on whether a crime was committed. (Any time a death is involved, however, police ought to err on the side of forwarding the results of their investigation to the Prosecutors Office!)

Thanks for answering that for me. I can understand the immunity from civil lawsuits, and defense against criminal charges, but the discretion on the part of the police is what really smells wrong here. What training do the officers have which makes them experts on the law where they are even capable of deciding which defense a suspect will use in court? My issue is with the lack of due process afforded to the victim when they take it upon themselves to refuse to report one side in favor of another. That's what got those officers down in florida in trouble isn't it? That they wouldn't pursue charges made by Trayvon's family based on their beleif that it was self defense. I still don't know who decided it was self defense... did Zimmerman claim it was? This story about trayvon's killing and all these accusations of racism would of never made national news had they simply taken a report from the family and forwarded it on to the prosecutor. Let the prosecutor make the decision whether or not there was enough evidence to file charges. From what i've read and seen on the news that's not what they did.

Actually...what is insane is the koolaid you're drinking thinking this was some 250 man running down a "skinny" little kid. They are withing 20 - 30 lbs of each other and within a few inches of height. This isn't David and Goliath....

Show me a gun that killed someone and I'll show you the person who used it.
More gun laws takes the guns out of law abiding citizens and keeps them in the hands of criminals... Do some fact research before you talk about gun laws.

DJG-

I'm curious if you hold that same rationale when it comes to stricter voting requirements? That if you require photo identification that some voters do not have, you take away law-abiding citizens' right to vote, whereas those trying to commit voter fraud (criminals) will simply have to get a fake ID to still commit their crime. Which do you think is more difficult for a criminal to obtain- an illegal firearm, or a fake ID?

DJG-- I can not personally show you a gun that has killed someone, but I'm sure the Detroit Police Department can. And I'm sure they could really use your help in identifying the persons who used said guns to shoot and kill people.

DJG you should put on a cape and volunteer your services.

These are such great comments and questions I feel compelled to try to answer some. J. Genso: You point out a real key issue, namely to what degree should the culpability of the person who, although he was in a "lawful place" at the time he used deadly force, nevertheless was himself partly responsible for creating the situation leading to the need for deadly force to begin with, i.e. what about the situation in which that person is initially the aggressor? The law says the person cannot be acting "unlawfully" or engaged in an illegal act himself at the time, but determining this can be very tricky. Apparently police assumed by Zimmerman's bruises and grass stains, that he was attacked. But he might have provoked such an attack to begin with; and regardless, his use of deadly force (a gun) is arguably too extreme of a response.

Next question for you is why didn't the prosecutor take this to the judge and ask him to interpet the statute as to it's meaning? If the trial judge has the discretion to define ambigous statutes and the author of the bill says he never intended it to be used in this circumstance. Wouldn't that be ambiguous enough for the judge to interpret what the legislators meant when it was written. Should be simple enough for him to just say whether GZ can use that as a defense or not. From the looks of it there is are many differences of opinon between the DA and Police and the Legislator who wrote it...not to mention public opinion. I would think that alone would warrant a hearing. It's not like he's taking away GZ rights or anything.. just let him know if it is a valid defense against a manslaughter charge. Then if it is or isn't let him prove it in court. The Judge is going to make the final decision eventually anyways. I would think it should of been before they decided they didn't have enough evidence. Just bothers me that the Martin family is being denied their constitutional rights to accuse their son's murder in court. I see this whole process messed up. From the police to the prosecutor to the special prosecutor to the Judge. Why couldn't the police just of asked the Judge too... I don't know bout you but i think this could of all been avoided had they just held a prelimary hearing to see if there was enough evidence before releasing George.

Don't blame the law for it's misuse.. it's still a good law. Just not applicable in this case. Now the question is who decided it was? That at least should of been left up to a prosecutor to decide whether to have an arrainment or not. Trayvon's family was only asking that it be investigated and the police refused based on their beliefs. Now we got a whole nother set of issues. Why? Was it an abuse of their descretion or just another bad law. If you want to blame laws as bad you'd be better off picking the one the officers used. I don't beleive it should of been their decision to let Zimmerman slide on this. Maybe i'm wrong.. but i don't beleive police should be deciding guilt or innocence without at least questioning some people about it.

This has been national news for more than two weeks. It escalated to where even YOU heard about it after more time passed where the police and prosecutors in Florida continue to neither arrest arrest George Zimmerman nor press charges against him.

Every day as a result, the outrage has grown...and yes, more "activists" are "geting into gear" precisely BECAUSE it looks more and more like justice will only be served once suffciient national outrage is expressed.

Among all those people, are there some opportunists? Probably. Just as there's been a small group of commentators and bloggers -- presumably the ones you read and/or listen to -- who want to defend Zimmerman, defame Trayvon Martin and are perfectly happy with the status quo.

Ed--shouldn't you be out raising money for the Save Janice Daniels recall campaign? It doesn't surprise me that a Tea Bagger like you just caught wind of this injustice. Rush Limbaugh most not have covered the story.

Because it was left to slide by the irresponsible police force that also left the murderer free, with his gun.

@Michael Johnson.... He did NOT leave the station with his gun. It was held onto and tagged as evidence by the police. This was an obvious death by gunshot case. In what country would you live in where the police called to the scene would NOT take the weapon into evidence? C'mon....

What does the presidential campaign have to do with this? Pls connect the dots for me.

But Zimmerman wasn't a police officer nor their proxy.. he had no authority to detain Trayvon or accost him. So whether he was a neighborhood watch captain or not he had no right to claim he beleived trayvon was involved with anything.

I cant believe that you think this Mr. Guarnieri. This law was written in defense of car jackings. Everyday, individuals with a CPL go to work, out to lunch or shopping. What happens if they get carjacked by a armed individual at this time? By your logic, they have to stand there and pray to god that this individual CHOOSES not to kill them. I am proudly a lifetime member of the NRA and I helped to get these laws passed. If you dont want a person with a CPL to shoot you, then you really shouldnt try to murder them by bashing their brains into the concrete. Just following a person, does not give them that right either. This law has saved the lives of thousands of people, a few are good friends of mine. Please read articles in the NRA magazine to learn more about how these type of laws have protected law abiding citizens. If someone where on top of you, stabbing you on the street, wouldnt you want someone on the street with a CPL to stop that person from killing you? Thats in the Self Defense Act too!

Mr. Holeton, my CCW does not give me the right to confront people breaking the law, it gives me the right to defend myself if someone violently confronts me. Of course I would shoot a carjacker but by law I know I am not allowed to shoot a guy stealing an unmanned vehicle that does not belong to me.

He did more than willfully and purposely follow trayvon. He took a gun which according to his own rules for the neighborhood watch group he was not supposed to carry while on patrol and he hunted him down with the intention of instigating a confrontation. That kid must of been scared to death having a man with a gun chasing after him for no reason. I know Zimmerman has his side of the story and i've heard some of what he's been telling his friends. I know he's crying now about it. But he intentionally went looking for an excuse to use his gun on someone, and he broke the law. Concealed weapons permit or not he had no right to hunt people down with his gun. Now his cop friends are taking a fall for covering up his crimes. They all need to be held accountable

I agree.. what was wrong with the police holding him (under arrest) for 72 hours while they questioned witnesses and talked with the family, girlfriend, store owner, other neighbors etc.. and then gone to the judge together with the prosecutor and argued whichever crimes the police could of determined from that. Perhaps there was stalking, profiling, denial of due process or some other charges which might of applied in this case. Who's to say there wasn't some perjury from any of them.. how sure were the police when they questioned these people that they weren't making up a story? That to me would be lying.. that would be considered perjury.. that would be a felony to say it in a statement in court. There could be more than one person to be charged for more than one crime in this case for all we know.

I got no problem with the laws. They aren't applicable in this case. No one can kill someone on purpose and then claim self defense. The problem is how the police are allowed to decide not to take a report or do an investigation just because someone claims it's applicable. What ever happened to justice? Do the police now decide who is quilty or innocent of murder?

It is interesting to know that Kathy. What else do these bills say?
Cause i don't see much difference in allowing people the right to carry a legal weapon to church or school and not allowing them to carry inside of the those zones. I can see the reasoning to eliminate those restricted zones, we've all seen the stories of some crazed person or persons shooting up schools, churches, post offices and places of employment. Alot of that might of been ended quickly had someone with a concealed weapons permit been on the scene at the time. So, i can see that side of the reasoning... people should have the right to defend themselves regardless of where they are at. But, I can also see the schools, churches and whomever's desire not to have people in their buildings with a loaded gun. With these increased rights there should also be increased responsibilities. Do these bills have any provisions for that? There should also be increased scrutiny of the people who are allowed to be carrying the weapon's background and mental stability. Is there? The way this "stand your ground" law is being used, i still say it was not applicable to this case because of the fact that Mr.Z intentionally put himself into that situation where he ended up pulling the trigger. The only way it should be applied is against him... for believing he had a free pass. That's where i disagree with the law is with it's misuse. There should be more of an investigation into the incident instead of less.

You do realize that the outrage is based on the fact that Zimmerman hasn't even been charged, right?

I too get upset when the public mingles in court cases, trying to influence the jury's decision (like that one in Florida last year with the mother charged with killing her child). But that's not what is happening here. There is no court case. There is no jury. And *that* is the issue here.

I believe in trusting our court system to determine guilt/innocence to the best of its ability. There will be times when it gets it wrong, hopefully erring on the side of letting a guilty person go free (rather than the other way around), but we have little choice but to accept the outcome.

I fully support the outcry in this situation though, exactly because the system is being prevented from making that determination.

"I think the family that Spike Lee mistakenly gave the address out as being that of Zimmerman should sue his arse off. What a joke. So Spike Lee is now the judge and jury"
That looks to me like a non sequitur. I think Spike Lee made a big mistake in retweeting the wrong address, and I think he would've been making a mistake had he tweeted the correct address. But I don't see how that would've made him "judge and jury".
--------
"and for everyone on one side of the fence screaming, there's someone on the other side screaming back just as loud."
Because that is the strategy of one side- to muddy the waters and pretend like each side has an equally valid position. Don't fall for the false equivalency. There are those who are willing to take horrific positions simply because they can't let go of the tribalistic mentality that says if the other "tribe" is against it, therefore they must be for it. There are times, and this is one of them, when everyone can join in the demands for a trial to determine guilt/innocence.
-------
"What we don't need is politicians involved and the race baiters/Rev. Jesse and Al."
We obviously do need public figures involved, since it appeared as if justice wasn't even going to have a chance to be determined had there not been a public outcry.

And how would you feel if I suggested that we sink you to the bottom of the ocean? I think that would be an abhorrent thing to say, regardless of whether or not I disagree with you or your actions.

It says a lot about dig that he's more outraged about spike's tweet than he is about this young man's murderer and the accompanying coverup.

Why urge us to wait for the FACTS in the shooting but slightly less restraint for spike-jesse-sharpton? Just askin'

DJG-- what you think is your right. Personally, I ignore peoples opinions if I feel strongly that their history of opinions indicates a clueless individual. For example, anyone who "thinks" Global warming is a myth, I completely dismiss those people's other opinions (no matter what the topic). Same with people who think George Bush was a "good" President who did a "good" job with Hurricane Katrina. And I have a sneaking suspicion you think Bush was a great "war time" President. And for the record, I support gun rights.

Mr. Zimmerman made the mistake of chasing this young man, this is true. But how many shopping mall security guards have done the same thing in michigan,today? Are they or are they not sworn officers? Also, there is testimony by the paramedics at the scene of the crime stating that Mr. Zimmerman was "treated" for injuries to his face/nose and back of head. Due to this fact, there may NOT be blood on his face or back of head as he is getting out of the squad car at the police station. Another thing that you must take into account is the "graininess" of the camera footage. Wouldnt you expect a police camera to be of better quality?
From the evidence & eye witness testimony that I have studied, Mr. Zimmerman had never revealed that he had a weapon until the young man was on top of him, bashing his head into the concrete (alledgedly). In Michigan & Florida, the legislation is specific: If you feel that your life is in danger, you may use lethal force if you have the "legal right" to be on the property. When the crime occured, Mr. Zimmerman was on a public street with his "back turned" to Mr. Martin. He was not in a aggressive stance at this point and was re-treating to his vehicle.This fact negates the assumption that Mr. Zimmerman had the INTENTION of harming Mr. Martin. This young man CHOSE to have a confrontation with Mr. Zimmerman because he felt that he had a "problem" with him.The Self Defense Act was written for when some maniac is bashing your brains into the concrete.

What exactly do you mean by manufacture a conviction? Are you implying that they are now trying to fabricate evidence in order to convict Mr Z on some charges? Or is it simply that now thru the passage of time more evidence has come out to dispute his story? Manufacture makes it sound as if it's some sort of witch hunt, or lynch mob who would be disregarding the evidence. Sorta like my complaint that they didn't investigate it to the fullest extent they could of because "they" had already decided Mr. Z shouldn't go to jail for this. A decision i believe which was made in haste. And it's the speed in which they came to that conclusion that bothers me.

I agree, it looks as if his case for self defense is really falling apart now. And it's a shame that he's now been pretty much convicted in the court of public opinion without having a chance to present his defense and all of his evidence in a court of law. If i were on the jury i don't know for sure that i would of found him guilty of homicide.. but there may of been a lesser charge that he would be guilty of. One thing i know for sure is that the Martin boy didn't receive fair treatment by the authorities. The original investigation, or lack thereof was a joke.

Ok.. then by that definition i agree. He's not going to have an easy time finding a jury that hasn't already heard this case in the court of public opinion. Not that it would be impossible to find a jury, but that it'd be harder. They do have ways of changing the location to another court in another area in cases like this though. But, as we all know the story has gone national.

I agree that they should not let anyone put a bounty on anyone's head too, and they should be pursuing criminal charges against the new black panthers for doing it.
As for his life being ruined.. i'm not so sure. Things have a way of being forgotten almost the minute the media attention goes away. Maybe in that town it is, but he can move elsewhere. And from the attention he's gotten so far, i'd say if he isn't found guilty he'll probably get a pretty good book deal from someone to tell his story. And from what i've seen and heard on tv, he appears to be someone who likes attention. Not this kind.. but he'd be out there pushing his book and he'd be loving all the attention then.

Now, if i saw someone "acting" suspicious i would of done just what he did. I'd of called 911. I would of gotten as good a description of the person and what it was i thought was suspicious as i could for the police. I may of even followed him. But i wouldn't of continued once advised not to and i wouldn't of taken it upon myself to detain the person. I'd of done what you said..watch him closely.

That would of been one of my questions as well Dan.. what was it that made Trayvon look suspicious?

Was he walking funny? Looking thru windows? Stopping and going? Wearing a Hoodie? or was he Black? I'm not saying what Mr Z thought was suspicious.. just wondering what it was that made him call 911. Granted they had break ins in the neighborhood and were on the lookout for suspects... but what made it so clear to Mr. Z that Trayvon was the person doing the break ins? He wasn't carrying anything other than the skittles and ice tea.

Neither would I..

I wonder myself why the police allowed someone to have a weapon permit who had a history of temper problems. Much less knowingly allow him to patrol the neighborhood with that gun. Regardless of whether he had the assault on an officer and disorderly conduct charges reduced from a felony down to a misdemeanor in a plea bargain back in 2005.. i would still think they should not of allowed him to carry a gun in the first place.. they should of never given him a permit. I think they should of told him to stop patrolling the streets with that gun, since his "neighborhood watch" group was not even sanctioned by the police. I would of thought that would of been a big red flag for them when they were questioning him and then reporting this to the DA.

This story of the lead investigator for the police wanting to charge Mr. Z with manslaughter didn't come out untill just a week or so ago. If he truly had then he should of done a better investigation by questioning Trayvon's girlfriend and even his parents to find out why he was there to begin with. At that time they spoke with neither. They'd of been able to check his and Georges criminal records fairly easily. And why no polygraph for George just to see if maybe he was lying? Then send a full report to the DA. That's one problem i have here, what was it he actually had in that report. The DA may have made the decision.. but it may of been based on incomplete information. I'm not ready to take all the blame off the police just because now their story is that they wanted to file charges. And this is where i believe all the outrage has been coming from. The lack of a proper investigation before the releasing the suspect. The media attention and subsequent uproar wouldn't of been necessary had the officers done a better job of listening to his family first before releasing George or forwarding the warrant request to the DA. I put blame on both the DA and the police for a poorly done investigation. I do blame the DA for being too quick to assign the "stand your ground" law without knowing what really happened first. From some accounts i've heard there was a struggle over the gun. Could it of gone off accidently? Stories can change and have, what was in the report?

@Dave, I won't debate who should have done what better, because I would prob agree with all you have to say about it. The only point I was trying to make was that right for the start, the night of the incident, the police labeled it 'manslaughter' and that night whoever the DA was denied the warrant. My thoughts are this... it's of 2 reasons, one,{who Georges dad is} or two {prosecutor felt he could not convict} .. prosecutors deny warrants on a regular basis simply because they don't think they will get a conviction. Facts are not relevant , getting a conviction is. I just think the ball dropped at the prosecutors office. Maybe the police officers could have done a better job at gathering evidence or witness accounts, but maybe they felt it wasn't necessary, maybe they didn't expect the DA to use the 'self defense' law. I know I initially thought he should have been charged with something. And that's before more information came out which does lead me to question that what occurred that night might fall under the 'self defense' law. But I will wait till all facts are made public before I decide what I believe.

I'll try not to get you wrong. You seem fairly sensible and impartial to me. I may be sounding a little more biased than you. And i'm trying not to take sides on this. I do see this as an injustice, both for George and Trayvon, If anything i'm taking the family's side because of a faulty system and improper procedures. I can also see the spin the media is putting on it by publishing old pictures and not mentioning either of their criminal records... George's is just as bad as Trayvon"s.
Now what if Trayvon was involved with any of the breakins? I would think the police would of put that in the report before sending it to the DA... did they? Did they decide since he'd just moved into the neighborhood he couldn't of been involved with them cause he wasn't there? We don't know.

With the different stories i too would expect further checking into the person's character. But who's telling the different stories? They'd of had to listen to both sides first to get a story from Trayvon's family. All the different stories are coming from George and the witnesses. Which are his neighbors and friends i might point out. At least in the beginning they were. Trayvon's story didn't come out untill after the charges were dropped. So now again, why no polygraph for Mr. Z? And as you mentioned.. why no background check on either of them before taking the report to the DA? Seems to me the police only looked for the answers they wanted to hear, not what was the whole truth.

Christine,

I am offended by some of your comments.

Is it spin to show photos of a young Trayvon, yes, but is it appropriate to assume because he looks like a "gangsta thug" in recent pictures, suddenly he is a less credible person? Absolutely Not! How a teen (or person) dresses is not an indicator of character.

All reports say that he was suspended for having a bag that tested positive for marijuana residue--is drug use our PERCEPTION of a normal teen? No, but a 2011 study conducted by a research center at the University of Michigan ( monitoringthefuture.org ), you might find what is Perceived as normal and what is really going on are two different things. In fact the most recent report based on a survey of 46,000+ 8th, 10th and 12th graders found that by the 12th grade 50% of students had tried either marijuana or some other illicit drug. This may not be what we want for our "normal teens," but, a teen making decision(s) we do not like does not make them a bad person, nor does it negate them from being "normal" whatever that really is.

It is possible that Trayvon was involved in home invasions, but unless there is proof to back that up, it is simply speculation & an attempt to justify his killing. Carrying candy to cover it up, thats genius, really--no officer, it wasn't me, see I have skittles. Burnie Madoff carried a brief case to further his cover as a business man... maybe everyone with a brief case is really running a ponzi scheme.

Good luck with having your support of racial stereotypes and prejudicial statements forever preserved on the internet for anyone to find, Christine. Should serve you well.

Wow. 2 thoughts:
1: substitute "white male" into your story and consider your reaction
2: relative to the 'character'issue: any thoughts as to what's been reported about the shooter's past?

@christine..

It's a good thing we're not debating it. Cause i'd probably end up agreeing with you, or you with me. And then that wouldn't be much of a debate at all. It'd be more like a trial where we were looking at all of the evidence then deciding a verdict.
I'd say you were right about there being alot of mistakes made.. and most likely point at the police investigation and the DA's as being highly suspicious. I'd also say that the prosecutor wasn't worried about serving justice myself.. but worried about his win-loss record. That to me is wrong in itself. But then it is what they do.

I'd still question why they came to that conclusion so fast. I mean they could of held Mr. Z for 72 hours without charging him.. what harm would it of been to talk to the family first before they made that snap judgement? What harm would it of been for the prosecutor to tell the officer to get more proof.. one way or another? What harm would it of been to gather all of the evidence? That's what really looks fishy. And that does make it appear as if there was some other reason other than this self defense statute as the reason he wasn't charged.

My thoughts are the same as yours i think.. that someone.. whether it was his friends on the police force or his father, exerted their influence on the DA to drop the case. I don't know what reason they would of dropped it otherwise.. i can't say any of them did it out of prejudice.. but it does leave the door open for speculation.

But I don't believe he ever should have had the gun out in the first place. I don't believe this was a self defense situation that the law was intented for. I believe GZ should be charged with something. Because if you're going to carry a weapon that could end someone life, you need to be held accountable for its use.But I could be wrong, maybe GM had good reason to fear for his life. My instincts don't tell me that though, so I could be wrong.

@Dave, I'll give my thoughts based on my instinct and common sense {which I'm always right about 99.9999% of the time} ... I could be wrong with exception to only a couple things, I 'll point that out. Trayvon M is walking to his dads girlfriends house with his snacks he, he's wearing a hoodie because its cold at night, its possible Trayvon hadn't been to the house before and was trying to find it by looking at the addresses , etc {if we believe G.Z in the 911tapes where he says TM is acting like hes on drugs or something}... although its possible he was just walking, either is plausible to me, then you have GZ, calling the police because he sees this kid he doesn't recognize walking in his neighborhood, GZ gets out of his truck to confront TM, I would guess TM is not going to be cooperative with this stranger he doesn't know, in turn this upsets GZ, GZ grabs at TMs hoodie ..{now this is the part I do believe happened} .. TM punched GZ in the face and GZ landed or fell hitting his head to the ground. But I wonder, could GZ have been hit/punched in the nose while TM was trying to break free of GZ, if GZ had a hold of him, this part I'm unsure of until I know what GZ actually told police. But its apparent others are adding to the fact GZ was hit in the nose and that his head hit the ground. GZ got out his gun and shot TM,. I don't believe GZ wanted to kill TM. ...contin below

@Calan, why are you getting offended by comments people say to what may have happened in a situation where little facts are actually known? It's mostly 'what if's' It is not normal for 17 yr olds to dress 'gansta thug', wear a gold grill and get suspended from school for drug par. If all that were normal the schools would be empty.

@Christine,

I am offended because your comments are a bunch of "what if's" based on stereotyping & in my opinion a "head in the sand" view of the world that you present as a reason to assassinate Trayvon's character and give a caveat to Zimmermans actions that smack of justification.

Would you be making the same comments if Trayvon was a white kid named Mark who was dressed preppy with Altoids & Starbucks in hand? Would you be commenting on his chinos & grill? Would you be focusing on his college applications & his upcoming SAT's or his recent suspension from school or maybe you would downplay it as being peer pressure or that "bad friend" or maybe it was just a misunderstanding? Would you immediately start speculating as to him being responsible for recent home invasions? Would you find some example of a white guy dressing up like a black man to rob 6 banks down in Ohio?

When you can buy "gangsta thug"clothing at Sears & JCPenny, etc, we are not talking about something that is isolated to "those kids." Its a Style, its "fashion!" I was going to agree that it is not normal for teenagers to get drug related suspensions, however at the small company I work out, we have 3 employees with 4 teenagers in high school-1 of those kids was given a 1 month suspension for drugs & then expelled for a 2nd drug offense-he was on the honor roll and is mostly a good kid btw.

So I will compromise, maybe he wasn't your "normal" teen, but rather my average teen.

Calan, great perspective.

Ed

You should know the difference between a slur being used to demoralize, denigrate and demean a person and a person who would historically be the target of the slur reclaiming/empowering the slur.

A white person calling a black person the n* word is 100% offensive. A black person reclaiming the n* word is empowerment. Although some would disagree, I think the more black youth reclaim the word, the less power it has over them. A straight person/mayor referring to LBGT people as qu**** is 100% offensive, unless of course the mayor is really a lesbian and then it is empowerment.

I was getting off the EL in Chicago about 15 years ago and a man called me "cracker"--cheerfully I responded, "I prefer Mr. Cracker." He def. meant it as a slur, but I didn't give him that satisfaction, I reclaimed it.

No political party has a claim to empowering slurs either, yesterday I saw a Tea Party guy with a shirt on that said "Proud Tea Bagger" -- yep, I would say empowerment... tho maybe that example (and the humor) is lost on you.

If Trayvon chose to empower himself by reclaiming a slur, that was his business, using his social media handle as a politicized attack on his character is something else entirely. How does Trayvon's twitter addy add anything meaningful to the conversation of holding Zimmerman accountable or giving him a pass?

@Calan, you can not claim why anyone is calling another person a name or racial slur.

Very well-written comment Calan. +1

@ Christine

You are right, I "really" don't know what motivates a person to use a slur or racial slur towards another person.

When that guy called me a "cracker" maybe he just was saying Hi or he liked my Polo Shirt. When I see Fred Phelps at soldier's funerals holding up signs about dead soldiers, ied's and a whole host of gay slurs he really is just saying how much he supports the LGBT community and our military. I could never possibly know what he is really thinking right? When the klan goes marching and they shout the n-word, really its their way of inviting everyone to a pot luck or something?

But your right, maybe I should just ask and find out...

So Christine, when you call people names or use racial slurs, why do you do it? Don't hold back, I really want to know. Ed, feel free to answer too, I know you have an opinion in there someplace. Mayor Daniels consider this an invitation to discuss why you like to call people names and use slurs.

(rolling my eyes)

I stand by my comment that Trayvon's twitter handle, a version of the n-word, adds nothing relevant to the situation at hand and is empowerment in itself.

I grew up in KS, not Troy, all in KS are Jayhawks, why, because Jayhawker was a slur for "backwards" thinking, and when KS voted FREE, its citizens were labeled Jayhawks by those supporting slavery. The governor said YES WE ARE and empowered the name for his militia. Kansans have empowered that slur with honor ever since.

Thats an entire state empowering and reclaiming a slur for generations, so its not just the KU mascot. Today, Jayhawk certainly does not have the meaning it did before the civil war which is a very good thing.

@Christine... response to message above...

I think your instincts are pretty keen. I hope my perceptions are just as good. Your theory sounds quite plausible. I can't say too much about how it all went down.. but i do have my take on GZ too. I think he was a man with a big ego.. possibly arrogant at times and he had temper issues. I believe the gun gave him a false sense of bravado. It looks like he was a wanna be hero. He was seeking attention just not this kind. I think owning a gun supersized his balls and inflated his head. I don't think he would of been there in that situation without a weapon of some sort.. if not a gun, then a baseball bat or pepper spray or even a kitchen knife. I don't believe he ever learned to respect the power of the weapon he had in his hands, nor that he ever took proper training on how to use it. It doesn't appear as if he was ever a hunter or that he knew how to handle a weapon correctly. I think he was only outside of his vehicle because he had a false sense of security and he thought the weapon gave him more powers than he actually had. Without knowing how to use it he was worse off than if he hadn't had it at all. There is no doubt in my mind that TM's skin color had something to do with the fact that Mr Z singled him out as a suspect...he fit the profile Mr Z was looking for.

However it went down, Mr Z was overpowered and found himself at the losing end of a fight and at that point he had no choice except to shoot.

First time i heard it was at about the point where the police told the family that there was nothing they could do about it. That's what caught my interest.