I have more faith in the next generation than that. I also would not categorize DOMA as a behavioral trend. I would call it a FIX to a terrible injustice that took far too long to happen. I have hope for a better America as I have witnessed so many changes to society that has brought love and fairness to so many. I do agree with you in your assessment about there always being "haters", "homophobes", "bigots" and "racists" but with each passing generation we will have fewer.

:pray:

Kitty Genovese 1964.

All the facts evidence is not in yet. Trials are such that each side presents convincing stories. The real issue here is the mindset of this jury. The incident was purposefully position as a race issue to satisify the Sharpton's of the nation and that has led to a bias reporting by the media in favor of Martin and against Zimmerman. Many facts concerning Martin's background have been kept from the public as we are seeing now coming out with each witness.

I deplore these public trials and don't watch the actual trial but with 24/7 coverage on every news station you can't get away from it.

I only hope the decision is fair based on the facts of the case, unlike that of Casey Anthony

I have an opinion but then it is just an opinion

Coming from New York, we don't have "stand your ground" laws. Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Anyone can feel threatened by a look. Can someone tell me why the jury has 6 people on it. I always thought juries were made up of 12.

It's Fla. law.

sharonga I was reared in New York and in my view they could use the Stand Your Ground Law The decision to have six/twelve jurors is discussed by the atorneys with the court (Judge) and they stipulate as to the number.

12 jurors for a Capital crime,6 jurors for 2nd Degree

Did Trayvon Martin make this about race when he said "creepy ass cracker" and referred to George Zimmerman as a "******"???

Did he say that to GZ? No.

Let's just hope this jury will prove to gun carriers (of which I have been for 11 years now) that you cannot follow a person around enough to scare and annoy that person to become concerned about their safety until they turn and jump on the gun carrier resulting in being shot. I don't think that is what the law was written for.

Feeling threatened by a look is NOT grounds for a stand your ground defense. I am not a lawyer but it is my interpretation that your life has to be in jeopardy!

This could mean a gun, knife, bat, etc. or someone beating the hell out of you and not stopping. NO, I did not put this in there because of the case.

What happens if you are the one who put yourself in that jeopardy?

This is not a "Stand your ground" case, it's self defense.

So using your beliefs, if I have an issue with a person who I do not like all I need to do is take my gun, follow that guy around until he approaches me and I feeling that my life is in danger can shoot that person dead? My action does not come into question? This is the reason and scenario that those whom were against this law were afraid would happen.

My point is that the Zimmerman defense team is not using the
"Stand your ground" law as the basis of their defense, they are using a "self defense" defense.

Ok. Point made. But I guess my point still is what responsibility does the person claiming self defense have in putting themselves in the situation to start with.

To me that is what this case is all about.