Ivy League, in a recent post you preached that a person (Mel Gibson) should not not be judged by his worst moments, which included multiple rants with profanity and racially charged language. Yet without equivocation you label Trayvon Martin a "thug," and characterize the loss of his life as inconsequential. You base this on an interpretation of facts that have not been established. Moreover, you make assumptions from allegations to speculate that he would be headed for prison. While you lectured that it was improper to rely on substantiated facts to judge Gibson's character, why do you rely on unproven allegations to assail Trayvon's character and even speculate on inferences drawn from mere allegations to conclude that he would end up in prison.

What makes Gibson different than Martin?