I was wondering how far the argument over my joke would go.I apologize.It was vz71 who made that statement.
I was wondering how far the argument over my joke would go.I apologize.It was vz71 who made that statement.
I believe the priest is seriously out of line."Priest’s perspective on Trayvon Martin case
By Matt C. Abbott
I asked Father Angel Sotelo, a priest of the Catholic Diocese of Fresno, for his perspective on the Trayvon Martin tragedy.
Father Sotelo’s comments are as follows:
[Regarding] the Trayvon Martin case, I would step back from the racial tension and look at how this started. Basically, the 911 dispatcher was right to ask in so many words, ‘Are you, George Zimmerman, a private citizen, not a police officer, walking around that neighborhood with a loaded firearm, following an African-American youth who has not harmed you or even threatened to harm you?’ When Zimmerman responded yes, he should have heeded the advice that followed, ‘You don’t need to be doing that.’"…
Blue excerpt from: renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/120328
Yeah, the gubment will protect you. Just put your trust in them.![]()
Funny.Government. I do not think the use of black phonetic spelling will help in easing the charge that this is a racial issue. We should be sensisitive to others.
If Zimmerman is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, then it logically goes that Martin is guilty of attacking Zimmerman. In order for Zimmerman to be innocent, Martin would have to be guilty and vis versa.There is a provision in their law where a judge finds, in a separate ruling, that this was a case of self defense and civil action is then barred. However, we might see the possibility that this law is challenged based not on the actions of Zimmerman during the conflict, but rather his initial pursuit that initiated the chain of events. Realize that even if Zimmerman is found not guilty, so also is Martin not guilty of any wrong-doing. So what are we to say? It was an accident? If so, in such cases, the reckless conduct that led to this accident might be open to civil suit even if it requires a challenge to Florida law. Remember, even federal law, like Obamacare, is subject to judicial review.
On this, we could use a lawyer’s (name removed by moderator)ut. On the self-defense issue, I think it would be good to hear from someone in Florida. A clerk* there* probably knows more than a lawyer elsewhere.
Perhaps. Context can get lost. In this case, it was carrying guns and how a random person can shoot someone else. I did not think that it might be because Trayvon was considered uneducated. I have not read anywhere anything about his intelligence, other than that he was in high school.Funny.
I thought that it was a highlight upon the uneducated.
I didn’t for a second entertain the idea that skin color entered into that particular distortion of the word.
This would only be true if the burden of guilt was preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt. Could not have Martin been acting in self-defense even as Zimmerman was? After all, Martin was initially the one doing nothing but walking home.If Zimmerman is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, then it logically goes that Martin is guilty of attacking Zimmerman. In order for Zimmerman to be innocent, Martin would have to be guilty and vis versa.
The thread is a serious one. If you intended your remark as a joke, you might have added an emoticon to that effect.I was wondering how far the argument over my joke would go.