I grew up with order to respect my elders, and I have all along. I spend significant amounts of time with both of my grandmothers, having lost not really known my grandfathers due to their early demises.

So now we have two murder cases in Oakland County, one a teenager accused of beating his father to death and another a grandmother shooting her grandson to death.

I don't know the facts of these cases, except what little has been released. (The Freep.com has done some good reporting on the earlier one, the Cipriano case.)

But here is where I stand early on: If your grandmother has to shoot you, you likely have it coming, short of some sort of mental illness.

And if you have to break into your folks home to steal for your drug habit, and someone dies, you deserve life without parole, no matter how young you are.

We'll see what the facts prove, but this is my early stance. If the grandmother is acquitted, though, the prosecutors who filed the charges should question how they do their jobs.

Well, it happened. A man on a motorcycle without a helmet has died after a crash.

One reader angrily pointed out the media should stop hyping the helmet law, noting the violence of this collision with a pickup truck would have been fatal no matter how big of a helmet the victim wore.

Yes, that is likely right.

The reader pointed out the emphasis should be on the driver of the pickup truck, who police say was drinking alcohol and was legally drunk.

Of course, that's a common story and the helmet law is new, so the media will always emphasize what's new. It's the nature of news.

But several months from now, when the pickup driver is in court, perhaps charged with drunken driving causing death, it will come down to 12 jurors and their opinions on helmets' ability to keep the noggin safe.

Just one juror could agree with the defense attorney that the victim would not have died if he had been wearing a helmet. That's when this law is going to get interesting.

I wonder if the state will have rewrite some laws, as they've found they did after their poorly planned attempt at legalizing medical marijuana.

I had my first doubts about Obama's reelection after he made his announcement in favor of gay marriage, having heard many of the hostile reactions to his viewpoint.

I've thought Mitt Romney is the uninspiring candidate, much like Bob Dole, Al Gore and John Kerry.

But there is an intense dislike of gay people in this country, it seems, and this distrust will bring many voters to stay away from Obama. I give him credit for saying what he feels, but he should have done this a year ago so people forget. Maybe they will forget, or maybe more people feel it is time to get past this issue -- like civil rights, it's coming; nothing will stop gay marriages -- and focus on the economy.

We'll see how it goes in November. 

The president has come out in support of gay marriage.

While he may have hedged around the issue, isn't allowing gay marriage one of the standard Democratic Party platforms. You know, pro-union, support for lowest classes, entitlements for elderly, racial equality, equality,.... it's down the list, but generally Dems favor gay marriage.

Otherwise, with the Republicans so against it, there wouldn't be any fights.

So what's the big deal about the president coming out and saying he's for it, except for the question, what took so long? Why change your mind? Why the build up to announce it like LeBron going to South Beach?

It's part of your party's platform. Sounds a lot like evolving his opinion is going to give Romney plenty of explanation for the evolution of his ideas about abortion, the auto bailout, and tax cuts.

Yes, they are, and Shep sums it up better than anyone I've ever heard: