"By the comments here I see there is not much change in the southern white mentality. BTW I am white."

I much prefer the bigots of the sixties to the new crop now. They at least had honesty. The bigots of today do claim to be enlightened which we all know is total horse hockey. The bigots of the sixties wore their white robes and hoods proudly. Though they did wear hoods, we knew who they were. They did not skulk in the shadows, they stood proudly in the light of day. In their own twisted way they had honor and integrity that the current bigots do not possess. Though I do not in any way indorse the actions of the bigots of the sixties, I must acknowledge their integrity.

If the NAACP is defending you, you are without a doubt, GUILTY!

more of the same double standard.

affirmativediversity; Totally agree. Seems like he wants the rules to change based on the color you are.

Leave it to the NAACP and the ignorant Barber to make this a race issue...isn't that all they do?

The facts presented in this story sure sound like an open and shut acquittal. However, a jury of 12 still convicted him and I wonder what evidence they used. I don't buy the whole racism thing. WRAL, can you provide more from the prosecution than "too many unanswered questions".

Why is it that we havn't heard anything from Georgia's NAACP? Perhaps they work behind the scene instead of going out of state to beat their drums for attention. I really can't think of anything that Barber has done for what he calls HIS PEOPLE.

Local police agreed that McNeil acted in self-defense and did not arrest McNeil, but the local prosecutor still pursued the case.

"John McNeil was afraid for his life and his son's life, and he did what any father would do," state NAACP President Rev. William Barber said Friday at a news conference outside the Wilson County Courthouse.

----------------------

So Rev Barber are you trying to tell us that you've changed your position on the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident?

In other words are you now saying that the use of deadly force is appropriate when a person feels threatened or is in immediate danger of physical harm?

So, let me get this straight...its NOW okay with you for someone to use a gun to defend themselves even if they know, or suspect, the person they are going to shot does not?

Some clarification might be in order here!

For once i agree with something they stand behind but not because hes black but thathe was protecting his family . I would take out anybody threatening my family and had a feeling they would fulfill their threat

Redstarlean: Feel free to leave at anytime." Armando de Cabana Boy"

What an utterly nonintelligent response to an otherwise truthful statement.

page 1 | 2
<prev	next>

sort order: oldest first | newest first