Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:15:36 PM
P.S. - turdburglar - I would have PM'd this fyi if this website made that function possible, but you`re not the only one who`s inadvertently used the term "error" in error within this context; I was guilty myself for a time. The correct term you were looking for in this application would be "err," which means basically the same thing but is considered more journalistically proper for some reason. No detraction from your argument as a whole.
Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:14:57 AM
1-He was Innocent within the bounds of the law 2-He was Innocent within the bounds of the law 3-He was Innocent within the bounds of the law 4-He was Innocent within the bounds of the law 5-He was Innocent within the bounds of the law
"Where in my post did I ever mention I didn't know the basic details of the situation?"
"I didn`t follow the trial at all"
A lot of information was not publicly known until the trial (such a the balistics indicating Martin was on top).
You formed your opinion before you had access to the facts. That is called prejudice. It is the very definition of the word prejudice. Don`t be in denial about it: do something about it.
"So please don`t label me as prejudice simply because I wasn`t aware I had incorrect information."
Making a judgement on information you weren`t aware is bad is excusable.
Making a judgement without having access to even the pertinent information ISN`T. And you did not have that before the trial. And then when you had the opportunity to get it, during the trial...you didn`t.