Two days after he was consecrated as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida, Gregory Brewer was marching Monday with the crowd demanding justice for Trayvon Martin.
He was the only white clergyman to address the Sanford City Commission inside the Civic Center that evening, urging city leaders to address the concerns of the black community.
“I thought it was very courageous,” said Andy Searles, a pastor with Aloma United Methodist Church in Winter Park. “It would have been very easy for him to sit in his office and organize the paperwork on his desk, but he made a statement of what the church should be.”
One probably ought to aver that he is most likely out of touch with the people in the pews, already.
There are many stories swirling around about this sad death. Some may be true, and others may not be. Sorting this out is the job of prosecutors and a grand jury, to begin with, and if charges are filed, a fair trial is what we promise the defendant. How does the bishop’s intervention help any of these processes?
The only way George Zimmerman will be able to get a fair trial is if they have a change of venue to American Samoa.
Its sad that the rule of law has been replaced by mob rule.
I wouldn’t be so quick to equate Neighborhood Watch programs with mob rule, No. 4. This incident has hints of that possibility, but there is still much to find out about the actual circumstances. I think a well-run, well-instructed Neighborhood Watch program that forbids firearms and that emphasizes the “watch” component can serve a useful purpose without crossing the lines into vigilantism.
Perhaps the good bishop should have said he wanted to see justice for both the deceased and the shooter. There are two sides seeking justice here.
RE: “I think a well-run, well-instructed Neighborhood Watch program that forbids firearms . . . ”
Heh.
If only we could forbid firearms of *all* citizens, not simply those who work under a Neighborhood Watch program!
rlw6 — good comment. I see that the usual libs here support mob rule. No surprise.
But I don’t think most people do, despite the silly actions of the new bishop of Central Florida. What a ridiculous start! And how dumb is he going to feel once he just catches up with the news about the whole Trayvon thing.
Maybe he should start reading some blogs and Drudge a bit so that he can discover last week’s new witnesses and evidence.
Sigh…….let the new bishop discover Drudge after he finds the coffee pot and bathroom on E. Robinson St.
As for the call to have neighborhood watch without guns; I guess people have to learn the hard way [with their lives?] that depending on the police for protection is a fool’s game. The police have no legal burden to protect any of us. This is settled law in the courts. The police are charged with keeping law and order. If they can help you when you are attacked by a rapist, a drug-crazed burgler, or someone who wants to invade your property, they will. But there is no legal requirement or duty involved in that.
Thus, we need to be our own “first responders”. It is the height of hypocrisy on the left to scream “take away their guns” and then leave us with the status quo concerning police powers. It truly leaves us all vulnerable to the rule of the mob.
Heh, heh, of the reported 31,000 members of the Diocese of Central Florida, I wonder how many are scratching their heads over the new bishop?
I am familiar with an admittedly small sample, and one which tends to be in more urban areas, but most Neighborhood Watch organizations with which I’m familiar regard it as a matter of paramount importance that their volunteers not carry firearms. It puts the volunteers at great risk in a number of ways and completely distorts the idea of protecting a neighborhood simply by having more eyes on the streets. Re No. 8, if the police are not for protection, I’m hard pressed to understand their purpose. Law and Order includes protecting innocent citizens from violence.
Re No. 7’s desire to strip all citizens of their weapons, if that’s what you want, you’ll have to put through a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. I don’t think that’ll get very far. Nor should it.
[i]if the police are not for protection, I’m hard pressed to understand their purpose[/i]
Thank you very much for making my point. The vast majority of citizens I suspect share your confusion.
Perhaps this will clarify for you;
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1
And there are other cases out there. Maintaining law and order does not mean the police have a burden to be at your house in time to prevent the burgler you suprise from shooting you. It means after your are dead, they will pursue him and attempt to bring him to justice. Not that that does you a whole lot of good.
Neighborhood Watch is often a “feel good” response to a series of neighborhood crimes where the police cannot stop the criminal events [one was formed in our community last year for that EXACT reason]. Anyone who volunteers to prowl around at the times where criminals are most active, and who cares not for his/her protection, is asking for trouble. I suspect most prudent folks will want to have some form of protection. Many prudent folks will want that form of protection to be as good as it can be. Many, I presume, will pick a firearm over a whistle.
You grossly over-read the two decisions referenced in the link. They do not stand for the proposition that the police do not protect citizens from lawlessness. They do bar recovering damages for lapses in that protection. To draw from that that the population needs to deputize themselves to undertake armed patrols seems to invite vigilantism of the worst sort. Neighborhood Watch’s function is to make clear that the area is alert and to summon police when appropriate. It is not their job to blow away suspicious people in the neighborhood.