Trump tries to smear Martin Gugino, Catholic Peace Activist

  • Thread starter Thread starter vivsim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s a weak argument, and you know it. Lots of folks do stuff that they think is exciting - then something happens where they get injured or in trouble and suddenly they’re wailing.

The lawyers who threw a molotov cocktail at an New York PD van surely thought it was fun at the time – too bad they’re now facing federal charges (there is no parole in the federal system) and eventual disbarment & loss of all livelihood. Now it’s not so fun.

Maybe this was an old hippie out to act cool…or be an “elder statesman” to the protesters…or get his chuckles tweaking a cop or photographing the cop. Or just being an agitator. Or just acting like he was hot stuff. Maybe he really was Antifa, agitating. Well, he agitated, all right. Any more & he’d be lucky he’s not dead.

Editing: Never agitate men with guns who possess arrest powers. If you do, don’t be shocked when something bad happens to you - whether arrest, injury, or worse.
 
Last edited:
VonDerTann said:
That’s a weak argument, and you know it. Lots of folks do stuff that they think is exciting - then something happens where they get injured or in trouble and suddenly they’re wailing.

The lawyers who threw a molotov cocktail at an New York PD van surely thought it was fun at the time – too bad they’re now facing federal charges (there is no parole in the federal system) and eventual disbarment & loss of all livelihood. Now it’s not so fun.

Maybe this was an old hippie out to act cool…or be an “elder statesman” to the protesters…or get his chuckles tweaking a cop or photographing the cop. Or just being an agitator. Or just acting like he was hot stuff. Maybe he really was Antifa, agitating. Well, he agitated, all right. Any more & he’d be lucky he’s not dead.

Editing: Never agitate men with guns who possess arrest powers. If you do, don’t be shocked when something bad happens to you - whether arrest, injury, or worse.
Click to expand...
The lawyers are in their 30s. He is 75, so presumably older and wiser. As far as I am aware he has no history of provocative alterations with police.

Why would someone at his age and with his lack of history suddenly change their definition of “fun”?
 
Last edited:
One more point, conceptually, along the lines of my edit: My dad was one of the kindest, smartest men I ever met. He taught me a great lesson once, as a kid, that lots of folks: Protesters, George Floyd, whoever, should have learned: Never act in a way where your safety depends on someone else acting better than you.

Thanks, Dad.
 
StudentMI said:
40.png
LilyM:
Why would someone at his age and with his lack of history suddenly change their definition of “fun”?
Click to expand...
Politics does that to people.
Click to expand...
There is no indication his politics are any different now to what they were 30 or 40 years ago 🤔
 
Actually, he has a long history as a protester. It just happens that this time he got hurt.
 
The President’s Twitter rumor-mongering is not defensible under Catholic moral teaching.

A concrete accusation–such as, “could be an ANTIFA provocateur”–requires a concrete connection. In other words, when you attack someone’s reputation, the burden of proof is on YOU, not the victim of your accusation.

Under Catholic moral teaching, we do not just get to make stuff up about people and then defend it with “well, how do you know it ISN’T true?” There must be compelling evidence, evidence that does not reasonably have more charitable interpretation.

CCC 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.[277 f. ⇒ CIC, can. 220. (see below)]
He becomes guilty:
  • of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
  • of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;[278: Cf. ⇒ Sir 21:28.]
  • of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
CCC 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.[279:
St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22.]

CCC 2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

Can. 220 No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.

I don’t know what the officer who pushed Martin Gugino meant to do; I don’t think he meant to hurt him and I really have no reason to believe he meant to hospitalize him. The problem is that during a protest that the police do not take enough care to avoid harming suspects, that incident is a very bad look. I don’t think any police department wants that incident to happen, no matter how many old guys try to keep them from getting curfew started.

As for the President, his (name removed by moderator)ut is both against Catholic moral teaching and also totally counter-productive in a practical sense.

There. Done. Have at it; I have had my say and then some.
 
Last edited:
VonDerTann said:
Actually, he has a long history as a protester. It just happens that this time he got hurt.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. He doesn’t seem to have changed. So what has?

And it didn’t “just happen” that he got hurt. He got hurt at least in part because someone made a conscious decision to push him around.

Why now, and why not then?
 
Last edited:
I read some of the comments under the article and there was this…

“why did he attempt to touch the officer with his phone on the 1st attempt, on the 2nd attempt he slid his phone down the officers arm… anyone else would cry assault especially with the corona virus going around. Who knows what was on the back of that phone… you touch me without my permission and yes, ill push you back from touching me again…”

from a viewer… I’m not savvy enough with the new smart phones to notice. I wondered why he was walking up to an armed policeman? I thought they pushed him a little hard. It looked like they wanted to stop and help him but another (maybe supervisor) made some communication with someone and told them to go on… sort of disturbing… but then I wasn’t there and I don’t know everything.
 
PetraG said:
They just left him laying there. Why? Because they were afraid he would injure them? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
You might say “it seems like they just left him laying there” because someone saw medics help him…
 
VonDerTann said:
…And therein lies the problem. Heck, your word choice says it: For some, nothing will ever be good enough. Appoint pro-life judges? Speak at the March for Life? Advocate for the unborn? NOPE! NEVER good enough!

(Editing to add: And even if he said exactly what you ask, some would say, “well, he’s dishonest, he doesn’t really believe it!”. As I said…for some, literally it will never be enough.
Click to expand...
I am Catholic, it is not good enough for me that there should be any support for abortion in any form at all.
full stop , end of story.
I am Catholic.
 
buffalo said:
CAF censors are at work flagging and removing post.
Click to expand...
If any posts have been removed then, from my experience on this forum, they have been removed for a good reason. And removed by moderators. Who are not censors. They do a lot of work behind the scenes on this forum. And, I would guess, on a volunteer basis. I would suggest that you show them some respect.
 
Last edited:
LilyM said:
As far as I am aware he has no history of provocative alterations with police.

Why would someone at his age and with his lack of history suddenly change their definition of “fun”?
Click to expand...
I posted this video earlier but it has everything I would reply with so just easier to repost:

 
It is odd he is not wearing a mask to speak to other people in Niagara square, but appears to be wearing 2 masks when he approaches the police later in the evening. There are many strange things about this incident.
 
Would you recommend that women go with any strange man that offers us a ride?

Do you consider women to be unreasonable if they refuse getting into a car with a strange man?

After all it’s the people you do know who are more likely to assault you right?

Same thing with black men and police. A lot of black men tell me that they try be as compliant as possible during a traffic stop to avoid triggering the cops. I have been stopped for speeding and luckily the cop was polite and I was polite right back.

Much better to stack the odds in your favor and NOT take the risk at all.
 
LilyM said:
He got hurt at least in part because someone made a conscious decision to push him around.
Click to expand...
More fundamentally, he got hurt because he made a conscious decision to act stupid. Natural consequences.

He might as well have gone into a tiger’s cage and poked it with a stick while wearing a steak around his neck. I bet people would blame the tiger for that, too.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
He might as well have gone into a tiger’s cage and poked it with a stick while wearing a steak around his neck. I bet people would blame the tiger for that , too.
Click to expand...
That is the most insulting thing about police officers I have heard yet.
 
Naga said:
I suspect that most posters here have never been responsible for performing police crowd control. In a stressful situation, where one has to act quickly,…
Click to expand...
But this was not one of those times. Nothing was happening that needed quick actions. An old man was standing in their way, protesting. That policeman had all the time in the world to consider his next actions. He chose not to take the time needed to think about it.
 
Not true. The police were under orders to clear the square, and they were confronted with a man who accosted them and who was obviously doing something overtly hostile: photographing them; or using a scanner.

Police rarely have the luxury of doing what posters here do all the time, namely, endlessly debating, over their computers as they sip coffee, the finer points of what should be done in harsh and hostile circumstances the people here will never face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top