MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Let's review some basics from the Michael Brown case:
I think you might detect a pattern here. The point is that killing someone who is not a clear (as in obvious) and present (meaning immediate) danger to someone else's life and safety is murder.
No one has suggested anything close to that kind of situation. The Ferguson Police Chief, who will clearly do everything and anything in his power to make excuses for his officer, has not been able to say that the shooter was in danger of his life. And there is no other excuse.
Can I imagine circumstances in which a police officer might use deadly force? You bet I can. But I don't even need to. I was raised by a police officer from a police family. I grew up around lots of police officers. And I do know a police officer who has killed someone in the line of duty (or rather, who was among the officers who killed someone in the line of duty; I don't think any of them want to know who fired the fatal bullet.) Why did they do it? Because a suspect was shooting at them and trying to kill them.
That is what what we're talking about. That is justification for using your weapon. None of this other stuff is even on the same planet as a real reason.
Almost every day we hear some fresh "revelation" about the young man killed by the police in Ferguson. Every day that revelation is offered up as if it changes the question of whether his murder was justified. And every day that revelation is utterly ridiculous. It says nothing about the real questions. It does say a lot about the moral compass of the person bringing it up.
If you're discussing an unarmed and completely defenseless man being shot to death and you bring up five dollars worth of stolen cigars, what you are saying is that you are too morally depraved, your moral judgment too impaired, to understand the value of human life.
If you bring up marijuana residue or rap music, same thing. You have announced your idiocy and depravity for all to hear. And you have insulted your listeners by presuming that they too were moral idiots.
(Remember the Eighties, when you kept hearing stories about how young black gang members were so morally bankrupt that they would shoot someone to death for a pair of sneakers? Shooting someone for a hundred-dollar pair of shoes would mean your moral compass was broken. But what would shooting someone over five dollars of merchandise mean?)
Mike Brown was endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All three were taken away from him on the street, with no process of any kind, by a paid officer of the law.
Michael Brown had a right to due process. He had a right to his life. There are no other questions. Whether or not you would have liked Mike Brown is not the issue. Whether or not you approved of Mike Brown is not the issue. Mike Brown's right to his life was not conditional on your approval, or mine, or any government authority's. He could only forfeit that right by endangering another life, and even then only while he posed an active danger. But Mike Brown was no danger to any living soul when he was killed. He had nothing in his hands but his own life. That was given to him by God. It was not for anyone else to take.
If you ask yourself whether or not Mike Brown deserved life, you are a lost soul. No one has set you to judge who should live and die. No one will and no one should. Mike Brown was a citizen like you, a human being like you. His rights are not subject to your little moods. If you will not defend his right to live, then you are no longer a citizen. I leave the question of your humanity to another judge.
Comments
Doc, you lay it out clearly and cleanly as usual. Though one complication:
Apparently, Missouri law gives a lot of leeway in that regard. But this is still a murder. I can't imagine anything that changes that.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 4:56pm
"A significant and serious threat" based on what? The not having a gun part? or the not having hurt anyone part?
That law is bad;y written, and on dubious moral grounds, because it departs frm the "clear and present danger" standard. When you invite an officer to fire based on speculation about potential future dangers, you've taken away any firm moral ground.
Even so, that clause is meant to deal with, people who've committed long strings of dangerous crimes. If a bank robber who's already killed two people is escaping, you can expect that he'll shoot up another bank. If the teenaged cigarillo thief gets away, that isn't a public menace.
by Doctor Cleveland on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 6:41pm
You don't have to convince me twice. Just anticipating the defense, such as it will be... The law is clearly about shooting a fleeing suspect who is likely going to kill during the escape. But, I bet they grasp at this and we've seen worse work.
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 7:00pm
BTW, this seems to be a recurring Missouri problem.
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 8:58am
This cop is a bad cop. A very bad cop. He should never have been issued a weapon, he should never have been on patrol. He should not be wearing the uniform of a cop.
The city will pay Brown's family well into 7 figures. The reality is, however, the cop who did this will almost certainly not go to prison for murder, if he is even put on trial for it.
Police officers kill about 150 people in the line of duty each year. I could find no instances of cops being convicted of murder in the line of official duty.
Trigger happy cops may get dismissed, disciplined, police departments may settle with victims families, but as Michael's Guardian link says indictments are rare, convictions even rarer.
To convict, prosecutor must prove not that the officer was wrong, but that the officer KNEW he was wrong in his beliefs, lied about his beliefs, or had another reason to shoot, when he used his weapon:
Guardian:
by NCD on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:25am
With a city with well over 50% unemployment who'll pay?
Businesses looted and burned, who'll pay?
Glad to see everyone exercising their 1st Amendment Rights, but who is going to pay?
Not them ...... YOU
Pass a law; white cops in white neighborhoods and black cops in black neighborhoods. In this way, we remove the threat or even the perception of racism; or the accusation, that those in authority do not understand the community they serve.
We wouldn't need cops if citizens and communities behaved themselves.
He who pays the piper calls the tone.
Edited to add: A friend of mine, who lived in LA, told me, there are places in LA where the police wont even patrol after dark, because the community is so bad.
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 8:27am
Can you cite a source for your 50% unemployment rate?
http://time.com/3138176/ferguson-demographic-change/
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 8:52am
Wow. For someone who prides himself on following the teachings of Jesus, you sure like to judge.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 9:09am
The county and or city of St. Louis. They likely have some form of insurance in addition to tax revenue from a much wider area than Ferguson.
Bad cops cost money and lives.
by NCD on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 10:31am
Great analysis
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 5:14pm
Thanks.
by Doctor Cleveland on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 6:44pm
I think this is a very rational explanation of what very likely occurred, though on the other hand I think you begin with a series of straw premises that few if any would disagree with (I hope!). Clearly all should understand that smoking dope, jay walking, and talking back to a cop, etc. are not grounds for being shot and killed by a police officer.
On the other hand, while I think Missouri and Ferguson specifically should be ashamed of themselves for the way they have handled this, I do not understand nor can I condone convicting the police officer in the press. That police officer is entitled to the due process that, unfortunately, I have a fairly good hunch minorities in Ferguson do not enjoy. That doesn't make it right to convict anyone on the basis of what they've been reading or seeing in the paper. That is not what we are about.
Ultimately, the real problem here is that we have barely scratched the surface in eliminating discrimination in fact in this country against African Americans and other minorities, but particularly with respect to African Americans in this instance. Obviously, what bubbles beneath everyday life has been unleashed by this tragedy. But there is more at stake here than what the outcome of this particular incident will be. I'm afraid under these circumstances that will become lost in a back and forth about what we (reasonably) believe to have occurred.
I hope for justice, and I hope for more.
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 8:16pm
One of the major problems is that many on the police force go out of their way not to make any attempt to understand the Black community. If you read comments made by members of the all-White crowd that came out in support of the Ferguson police officer, you note that they do not feel any need to change their approach to policing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/17/darren-wilson-protest_n_5686491...
The problem is that by dismissing the tension felt by people who are supposed to comply with any request by police to undergo an interrogation on the street. Often, there is no explanation for why the questioning is warranted. The fact that citizens see racist behavior in the actions of local police is dismissed. Police officers with attitudes that ignore community concerns are ill-equipped to serve the community.
Slight flight of ideas here, but is interesting that the inept local police chief was replaced by a State Police Captain who happened to be Black. The Brigadier General, Gregory Mason, in charge of the National Guard troops also happens to be Black. One can imagine the Ferguson police chief experiencing angina.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 8:31pm
I am absolutely stunned by how poorly prepared the public authorities have been, and it's made a horrible situation even worse. The selective release of information about the defendant, allegedly per a FOIA request, just seems totally disingenuous (although I am totally unfamiliar with Missouri law, but just seems absurd).
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 8:34pm
They hoped it would all blow over. A few protests, quelled, promises of investigations, then they let the cop off after the media forgets about it. SOP, but this time it didn't work. They didn't have a plan B for this scenario.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 8:43pm
I think that sums things up, at least as I see it as well.
by Bruce Levine on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 10:57pm
No, what you saw was a Chief defending one of his men, against false accusations. Realizing the FEDS, were going to come in and destroy this officer, in order to appease the blood thirsty crowd.
Better one lone officer be placed upon the stake, to prevent a revolt?
Pontius Pilate: This man is innocent
Savage Blood Thirsty Crowd: Kill him
Pontius Pilate. Fine, but his blood is on your hands.
Peace restored .... but NO JUSTICE.
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 1:26am
So the police officer who gunned down an unarmed man is akin to Jesus?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 8:03am
NO, I was hoping you would consider, the example set by the blood thirsty crowd, agitating others and some responding with violence towards others; all the while promoting the punishing of the officer,(who may be determined to have been innocent of the charge of murder and after all the facts, are considered had a right to defend himself and the community. Truth?
A black community, by their actions, screaming loudly, "Who cares about the truth" "The officer is white and the victim black. No need for truth, the officer is guilty"
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:02pm
Then Jesus stood in front of the mob and said, "Let the first among you willing to assemble a blue ribbon commission to investigate the effects of whoredom in our society cast the first stone..."
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:02pm
It seems you're the only one screaming loudly, "Who cares about the truth". As others have tried to explain to you, the scenario that you yourself previously presented has this cop guilty of homicide. Can you come up with a plausible scenario under which he is not legally guilty of homicide?
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:11pm
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:43pm
Good point. I should use more careful language. The scenario you yourself described earlier is legally recognized as murder. Can you come up with a plausible scenario under which the officer is not guilty of murder?
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:54pm
I'm hearing crickets, so apparently he can't?
by stillidealistic on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 2:43pm
The officer didn't commit murder, so what is there to answer?
In self defense cases, manslaughter is excusable.
In case you didn't know what man slaughter is, I have provided a link
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 4:00pm
But the scenario that you yourself presented does not count as self-defense. Can you come up with one that is self-defense where the man ends up dead 35 feet from the patrol car with 6 bullets in him?
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 4:30pm
What scenario are you referring to? Copy the exact location so I can read the entire context.
Then I may be able to answer your question
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 7:09pm
Here's what you said:
Here it is in context.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 9:04am
As it turns out, according to the officer; M.Brown was charging towards the officer and was stopped at the 35 ft mark. A self defense?
Witness reporting on CNN that the raised hands, may not have been as high as some thought.
Consider this scenario as it relates to your question
An unknown suspect, assaults an officer on patrol, attempting to get the police officers gun and is now trying to escape into the neighborhood.
Should the officer have let the attacker go into the neighborhood?
A reasonable officer having just suffered a felonious assault would have to act. If he hadn't what could the morning news report be
Suspect in two separate murders was allowed to escape. Officer had a chance to stop suspect before he entered into the neighborhood to commit another crime.
You don't know if the officer ever knew who he was dealing with, all the officer knew, was the suspect had just committed an assault against the officer and was capable of hurting others.
by Resistance on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 10:38am
According to the law, yes.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 11:53am
see below
by Resistance on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 1:16pm
Guardian: SCOTUS 1980: An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.
by NCD on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 11:25pm
by Resistance on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 1:15pm
As I've already pointed out:
Note that this came after the 1980 decision.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 1:32pm
Probable cause existed.
by Resistance on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 4:58pm
See below.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 5:44pm
The community observes a dead, unarmed man and asks questions about the shooting. Thus far information has been released about the victim. The victim had marijuana, stole cigars, and walked in the middle of the street. Are you not surprised that the shooter was allowed to leave the city immediately but witnesses were not interviewed until several days later. Why did the police not interview witnesses shortly after the event? Why isn't information about the shooting coming forward from official police sources. A government only deserves respect if it gives respect.
Your analogy Is without merit. The community is asking for an investigation. The investigation may result in a trial. Asking for a trial is not bloodthirsty, it is a legal avenue of assessing facts. In prior cases that went to trial after unarmed Black youths were killed, there were no riots. Ferguson is an outlier, why is that?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:38pm
For the protection of the officer and his family.
A prudent response, considering the death threats. The authorities evidently considered the officer was not a flight risk and have found him credible and cooperative. With an exemplary record. The city isn't run by mob rule.
Is this the truth or another lie, intended to cast doubt, on the lawful, proper custodian of the evidence?
Mob rule doesn't dictate the gathering or dissemination of information, For good reason.
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 3:01pm
You bare false witness
Name one lie!
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 3:46pm
I asked a question, so how is that bearing false witness? It is obvious your bias has clouded your reasoning ability. BYE
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 3:55pm
Run
Your supposed question implies that I would post a lie.
The man walking with Brown was not interviewed until days later
Tifanny Mitchell, another witness, appeared on The Last Word last week and had not yet been approached by Ferguson police for an interview.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 4:12pm
We''ll have to see if either side calls them up as witnesses.
There have been so many lies and half truths, already repeated as TRUTH by many, that I don't trust anything, other than what will be presented at trial.
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 4:48pm
So you agree that, given the circumstances, a trial is warranted. That is what the parents and community desire.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 5:15pm
If that is determined to be the right course of action; Absolutely
And if it is determined that the officer violated the law, then he should be punished.
Here is a website, sent to me concerning this events of the Brown shooting
(Witness testimony: Page 5)
http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri/mike-brown-shooting-facts-details#E5793690
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 5:39pm
[carrying over conversation from parallel thread]
Not according to any legal precedent that I'm aware of. He was unarmed. There were numerous other means available for safely subduing him.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 5:45pm
In the early stages of this investigation lot of suppositions and scenarios were reflected upon of what may have happened in order to offer a defense for the officer. I did not want rush to any conclusions or to hear only the mob. I
hopepray that justice will prevail and the truth will shine a light on this tragedy.Seriously, when I looked at that big kid; 6'4" with those big tennis shoes and realized he wasn't going home to his mom, I cried. But I can't let my emotions cloud a fair judgment for the officer either.
JR is right I might snivel at times but I am a very emotional person at times.
by Resistance on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 7:37pm
I also want justice, and if the evidence shows that the officer had reasonable cause then he shouldn't be convicted. I'm willing to presume innocence, but I do think that there is sufficient question for a trial to be held.
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 9:37pm
There are many questions I too would like answered.
The blood spilled cries out for justice.
by Resistance on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 11:23pm
What I find so amusing is that if you were a victim in a mistaken botched drug raid someone like you would be posting the same things about you and defending the police for killing you.
It happens all the time. Remember this?
But you don't have to worry. It rarely happens to white guys. That makes it easy for you to ignore the problem.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:49pm
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 1:36pm
My interpretation of Docs article, is that he is a proponent of the idea that no one can take a life INCLUDING the Authorities. In affect saying the State has no right to execute serious wrong doers.
Clearly not an idea, originating from the God; the founders gave acknowledgement to, when they wrote "certain inalienable rights" The forefathers understood the need for Serious wrongdoers to be punished by the sword, for the good of all.
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:28pm
Should Cliven Bundy been shot? Would the Supreme (earthly) Authority been justified
Should Blacks have meekly complied with Jim Crow laws? Was the Supreme (earthly) Authority to be obeyed?
http://www.redletterchristians.org/can-civil-disobedience-be-christian/
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 3:01pm
Re-read Doc's article and focus on the part where he explicitly says:
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:52pm
That's an easy response
Self defense... Most reasonable people would agree is a right. Maybe not with the gun control advocates though
Does the State have the Right to execute serious wrong doers?
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 3:22pm
Yes, for self defense, as well as if the "serious wrong doers" pose a clear and present danger. The scenario that you yourself suggest does not have Brown posing a clear and present danger (in the legal sense).
(Also note that it's not clear when you refer to "the state" whether you're referring solely to the executive branch — e.g., law enforcement officers — or whether you're also including trials under which the death penalty might be meted out. In the latter case at least there is due process, which was not the case here.)
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 3:29pm
What scenario have I suggested, that hasn't included the officers perception or fear?
Has it even sunk into your mind, that the store video proves, the suspect was unlawful and upon first impressions by many outsiders, some would consider the suspect was a thug and a thief, capable of any type of lawlessness. .
Is it a cognitive disconnect on your part; that it is plausible, the suspect may very well have threatened the officer, just as he did the store owner?
The store incident with it's theft and choking of store clerk, wouldn't have merited officer shooting; but an attack by someone already shown to be lawless,
A suspect/ person showing a propensity of harming others, it wouldn't surprise many honest and reasonable people to believe the officers recounting of events, That he felt threatened.
Instead of your bias
White officer shoots Blackman, White officer guilty because it turns out the Blackman was unarmed.
I and many others suspect; If Black officer shot black suspect, there would be no protest?
Officer felt threatened, defense of officer rests.
It is also clear to many; that if a jury exonerates the officer the mob will be incited to act lawlessly again.
I'd be telling the folks in Ferguson, Heres the bill, for restoring order, sorry there is no more money for anything else.
Self police yourselves.
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 4:32pm
"Does the State have the Right to execute ..."
An odd question coming from an adherent of Yahweh.
Let's go to the text, shall we?
I'll do a little exegesis, as needed.
Thou-this means YOU, I'm talkin' to YOU
Shalt not-don't fuckin' do this, ya feel me?
Kill-terminate the life processes.
What part of this, exactly, is giving you trouble?
by jollyroger on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 9:34pm
Christians don't kill or execute.
But Christians do obey, the one in authority over the affairs of their jurisdictions, their kingdoms government, Caesars laws; as long as it doesn't conflict with the Christian Gods laws.
Christians don't tell Caesar how he should enforce his laws or what punishment those who disobey the laws of Caesar, should receive.
Caesar does not feel compelled to obey the Christian God,
Nor did Pharoah, who made life intolerable for the Hebrew slaves, asking "who is this god that I should listen to him"
Caesar is the God to many and is the authority and he will be obeyed and he has also spelled out the punishment for disobedience.
According to Gods word; YES the State has the right to execute judgment. and NO Christian is to interfere with Caesar. their duty is only to obey.
For fear Caesar feeling threatened by disobedience, should strike out against Christians, as did Nero.
It would be wise to avoid the wrath of Caesar and the wrath of God.
by Resistance on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 11:20pm
Corinthians 7:21-23
Slave-holders, the Superior Authority read the passage as supporting Slavery. Slaves and Abolitionists read the passage as clearly stating that men should not be slaves and had a Christian duty to escape. In your religion, which interpretation was correct?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 08/24/2014 - 11:42pm
You should have included vs 20 and or even more than these few scripture to see , that the freedom the apostle was talking about, was freedom from the bondage of sin and death, that Christ ransom paid for.
20 r Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.
1 Corinthians 7:20-24
He did not say slaves should revolt
Rather
9 dBondservants1 are to be submissive to their own masters
ein everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, fbut showing all good faith, gso that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
Titus 2:9-10
Edited to add
I am glad to see though, that the abomination of slavery in this country was dealt with and Caesar freed the slaves,
Uncle Toms Cabin, may have instigated a war and did eventually free the slaves; but god wouldn't have condoned a runaway slave but instead; the slave was to become a better slave because of his Christianity.
God does use people of the Nations, to bring about his will. He may have also used Martin Luther King Jr. in such a capacity; just as he used Cyrus the Great ( non Jewish) many years before, to free the Jewish slaves, allowing them to return home.
Proving God, doesn't need Christians to pick up the sword. For he is the strong hand we rely upon, it is he that will bring about the changes he wants, in order to promote and establish his kingdom, He wants his people to preach and reach peoples hearts so they can escape his judgment, he will take care of whatever else needs to be done,
Let your will be done.
by Resistance on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 1:02am
It seems that God calls on those you label CINOs to do his work on Earth. Christian Harriet Beecher Stowe received inspiration for a novel that changed minds. Abolitionist Christians worked to change minds as well quoting Scripture as the basis for freeing the slaves This had to be divine intervention. A runaway Slave and Christian, Frederick Douglas, changed the mind of Abraham Lincoln on the issue of emancipation and ex-slaves fighting for the Union. Divinely inspired Martin Luther King Jr. challenged Jim Crow and changed hearts. There had to have been God's hand in the progress. Those you call CINOs are the ones called to do God's work on Earth. CINOs fought Hitler and sheltered Jews.
Others stood by quoting Biblical snippets and doing nothing. While they sit idle. Others are called by God to aid people in distress.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 7:55am
From James, brother of Jesus
from Paul
Your Scripture snippets will not save you.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 9:49am
So because he might use CINO's or Non Christians, doesn't change the fact that Jesus, examines the congregation, (his bride) and is not pleased with those, who claim to be footstep followers but he finds they are adulterers with political partners.
Although MLK may have thought he was doing what God Commanded, he was caught up in the the politics of the Civil Rights movement. A good man killed for what purpose? Who would benefit most with his death? Had god chosen him, do you not think god could have protected him just as he did David?
As written for our sakes the unholy alliance between Ahab and Jezebel. was most likely for political reason and was an abhorrent marriage in the eyes of god.
Even Constantine, realized the power of using the church for his political gain and some religious leaders invited the alliance.( Leading to wars and such) The church talked Thier congregants into battle. Each CINO side, claiming God was on their side.
Jesus nor his followers are to be pawns. Most 20 century wars have two thing in common CINO religion and wars, because CINO's have become pawns of worldly rulers.
Instead of obeying the true king as they proclaim to be Christians, it is obvious they divide the congregations into harmful sects Instead of staying separate and clean as they were told to remain.
Evidently it went over your head when I asked you about whether Westboro Baptist Church was Christian? We wouldn't need to ask if they had obeyed and stop meddling with the kings of the world, who use Christians to achieve their goals, not Christ goals.
But very soon the Political Beast will turn on the harlot (false religion)
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Revelation 17:15
BYW The Beast is the United Nations, sick of the religious wars, it will turn against false religion, (CINO”S included) The Political power with its's might will also be attacking Gods chosen, where he promises to protect his unadulterated people.
by Resistance on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 11:27am
See below
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 11:28am
Thanks doc for posting it so clearly. The first eight sentences of your blog have been running through my head all week.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 8:39pm
Beautifully said, Doc. I agree with you 100% completely. It doesn't matter what Michael Brown did. He was unarmed and no danger to anybody. He was murdered.
I hate the rioting and the opportunists coming in from everywhere to take advantage of the chaos. I hate it even more in this case because it takes away from the only facts that matter: the needless death of Michael Brown and the guilt of the police officer who aimed at him and pulled the trigger SIX TIMES.
by Ramona on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 9:17pm
There is lying and there is a reckless disregard for the truth.
This cop out about:
Well I cannot read the guy's mind. How do I know what his intent is?
Bologna.
There is first degree murder and second degree murder and manslaughter and...
Supposedly the DA has to prove intent in one form or another.
But there is such a thing as reckless disregard of life for chrissakes!
That is where you find the DUI coupled with a reckless killing of an innocent on our highways which is just another type of manslaughter charge.
And sometimes the recklessness goes 'beyond' and becomes Murder-2.
Supposedly ten guilty men should go free rather than one innocent man should be imprisoned.
The truth of the matter is that ten white men go free for every Black Man who is imprisoned.
by Richard Day on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 11:28pm
Very well said.
by barefooted on Mon, 08/18/2014 - 11:58pm
What about Browns victims? Store clerks or any others, who may not have stepped forward for fear they too may be attacked by the blood thirsty vigilante mob. Fed and nourished by this inflammatory piece
Surprised you didn't incorporate Apple Pie in your post.
You bring God into the judgment of citizen Brown?
You need to go back and read Romans 13:1-4
Or the service revolver
According to reports, Brown resisted the Superior Authority, the Creator put in place for our good .
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 1:53am
So why do you talk about arming yourself in case the "Superior Authority" gets out of control? Why was Jesus in conflict with the "Superior Authority"?
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 8:07am
Additionally your CliffNotes Scripture snippet was from early Nero. Paul made have had different comments during the reign of the older Nero, don't you agree? Are you saying that Christians should have thought that a Pagan like Nero was God's favorite?
We have Biblical examples of civil disobedience
http://www.fbbc.com/messages/kohl_political_science_civildisobedience.htm
In more recent times, we can turn to the example of Evangelical icon Billy Graham and Richard Nizon. Graham was supportive of a Nixon including actions in Vietnam. Graham later regretted supporting a liar like Nixon. Thus, it is unwise to assume that a government official was put in place by God. The blame more properly lies with the voter.
http://www.carolinapublicpress.org/7022/new-white-house-files-detail-bil...
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 12:32pm
I got your superior authority right here...
a
by jollyroger on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 8:15am
You believe the Christians should have taken up arms against the Superior Authority?
Waiving any claim to be rewarded, for their integrity, even in the face of death.
Did Jesus strike out to defend himself?
NO
by Resistance on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 8:32am
This is a prime example of how your Biblical interpretations turn into word salad. You have argued in the past that one should arm themselves because of possible government overreach. This goes against Romans. The people protesting abortions are also going against Romans.
On a secular level, Edmund Burke believed that the masses should be ruled by a small group of the elite.
Your Romans snippet would suggest that the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr. And the entire Civil Rights Movement was not Biblical. Here is my snippet to counter your snippet
Act 5:29
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 8:54am
Those opposing Brown's homicide have no faith in the supposed Superior Authority. They are called to oppose tyranny. The Superior Authority was asked to provide the shooter's action report, a report required by law. The form supplied to the ACLU, the requesting agency, is blank. The police office did not fill out a report. Why is their no report?
Why did local police invade a House of God as I noted in the link above? Why is the a Supreme Authority trying to intimidate a church?
People are demanding a trial because the Supreme Authority is not trustworthy. The pastor's involved in the protests are doing God's work.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 9:13am
Brown's victims? You mean the guy he allegedly stole cigars from? Yeah, stealing cigars merits the death penalty, for sure. And let's have the police carry out the execution; no need for courts.
This "bloodthirsty vigilante mob" only exists in your imagination.
by Aaron Carine on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 8:37am
It's kind of funny reading this argument coming from you, Resistance, because I've seen you argue hundreds of times that we need to interpret the 2nd Amendment as allowing for unlicensed firearms ownership by citizens so that citizens can protect against "superior authority" gone bad.
Had I not seen your arguments on this issue but just read all of your others in the past, I would have presumed that on this issue you'd be advocating that the citizens of Ferguson should be fighting a full-out rebellion with arms against the tyranny of the police force there, just like the American colonists against the Brits. And comparing Michael Brown to victims of the Boston Massacre, etc.
Don't you see how you are arguing against your own basic principles here? Why don't you see the Afro-American citizens of Ferguson as fighting a tyrannical government which is constantly infringing on their rights by hassling them, interrogating them, presuming guilt, frisking them and now has killed one of their own in that process?
As for looting, didn't the Tea Party loot the East India company's tea? Didn't they do that because they thought East India representatives of "the man," given that East India paid the tax which ended up giving them a monopoly of tea sales at a taxed rate in the colonies protected by the distant government? How is this different: Eric Garner, 43, died July 17 after being confronted by police on Staten Island for allegedly selling cigarettes illegally?. He ended up in a choke hold because he was going around the cigarette taxing and selling laws of the "superior authority."
Which are you for, "law and order" over all, or allowing citizens to protect themselves against superior authorities they don't think are treating them fairly? Because police officers by a vast majority everywhere in this country want to see arms licensed in order to keep that law and order, and they don't want to see no Tea Parties and they feel they have to use superior force to control unruly mobs like this one:
by artappraiser on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 12:48pm
This is why I view his Scripture quotes as word salad. He does not consider the context of the words.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 2:29pm
LAW AND ORDER
NOT TRUE
I have clearly stated in the past, Non- Christians can choose for themselves what course they will take.
My protection is from God. I don't need a gun as long as I remain under his protection.
Many people in America where the Second Amendment is so championed, have no desire to bring their lives into harmony, with gods will; so they most likely don't care to come under his wing of protection (As the hen protects her chicks) That is their Free will, in how they will protect themselves
The right to carry, is a personal conscience matter and no one, not even a Christian has the right to tell anyone, to disarm or be allowed to be disarmed., Each one of us will answer for their own conduct before the Great Judge.
This Ferguson tragedy could be a portent of things to come. Civil disobedience, Anarchy neighbor turning against neighbor, and if the Authorities are overthrown or the people turn against the police, I can imagine a limited and less than hopeful future for those unarmed, for no one would be safe from the mob.
Who are you and all your liberal friends to tell others, they have no right to bear arms when it is clear, that anarchy and chaos is the bleak future and direction this world of mankind is headed towards.
Christians are not going to fight or interfere in the affairs of the Superior authorities who themselves will be judged by the Great Judge, but Christians should not be forcing their will or conscience on Non- Christians.
by Resistance on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 5:24pm
Bonhoffer was not a Christian?
Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Christian?
Both forced their will on Christians and non-Christians.
Cathoilcs were forced to face their consciences by King.
Martin Luther King Jr. spoke to the conscience of Muslims
Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Christian
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 7:25pm
Were these men footstep followers of Jesus? Or did they do and act upon their desires and what they thought was the Will of God and did they truly listen to the one whom he sent forth?
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 3:24am
It's awesome that you think you understand the Will of God more than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 8:12am
Is awesome the same as astonished? It is not what I think but what I have heard and read
Surprised?
Are you recognizing what the people in Jesus' day thought about some of the apostles?
Fishermen, unlettered, common men, who had walked in the footsteps of Jesus and they had not the title of Doctor.
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 10:46am
This has nothing to do with VA's statement. It again is Scriptural word salad.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 10:47am
Oh, it has a lot to do with my statement. He's saying that because Dr. King was lettered and he is not, he actually understands God's Will better than Dr. King.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 10:49am
1 Corinthians 1:25-29
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 11:27am
It's good to see you speak of your expertise. I'm glad I don't have to worry about you being too humble.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 12:58pm
It remains word salad. Luke was a learned man, a physician, and a disciple of Paul. Learned men are capable of understanding the Word. R has created his own sect.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 1:29pm
You don't understand because the Spirit does not actuate your mind.
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 11:30am
Not subverting Hitler's government because he was the Superior Authority is not Christian
Leaving children to starve at the US border is not Christian
Remaining silent during Jim Crow is not Christian
Supporting an oppressive local government in the killing of an unarmed bully and petty thief is not Christian
In fact John 19:11 reveals the following warning about going along to get along
One can obey the Superior Authority, but must be aware that complying with evils like the Holocaust, Slavery, Jim Crow, and Latino children abandoned at our border does not save you from judgment. Just because a Superior Authority does evil, you must resist or be judged.
Bonhoeffer had no other as a Christian. Martin Luther King Jr had no other choice as a Christian, The Christian pastors in Ferguson, Missouri have no other choice. They risk judgment by complying with evil.
Resistance is arguing that he is superior to Bonhoeffer and King because he would have done the evil for the Superior Authority by turning over the troublemaker, Jesus.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 10:45am
In fact, one wonders if the New Testament is all about obeying the Superior Authority, why was it that Paul wrote so many epistles from jail?
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 10:50am
And there was Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter From a Birmingham jail.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 1:25pm
King Saul was impetuous and he did not wait upon God as commanded by the prophet, Thinking his way was better.
The Hebrews were slaves of Egypt for centuries, God delivered the slaves out of Egypt, It was God who parted the Red Sea
Those familiar with the scriptures know God doesn't need Martin Luther King nor any other, to fight the Superior authorities.
In that way the Superior authorities are given no reason, to attack peaceful Christians and will be judged if they do,
Hitler was destroyed by men of the nations, Just as God used Babylon to destroy Jerusalem in 607 BC
Jesus told his disciples to obey the Superior authorities not to fight against them,
As the three Hebrew boys thrown in to the fiery furnace said; "whether we live or die, we will obey God as ruler and not men" Obedience under pressure is what is rewarded by God Loyalty and integrity are what please him.
Christians obey Jesus command, "Put away your swords"
He didn't tell his disciples, "force the nations to put away their swords or force the nations to do this or that?
In fact he told them what to expect, "the slave is not greater than the master, for what ever they did to the master, they will do to you"
CINO's bring consternation upon the footstep followers of Jesus,
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 11:19am
God uses men to challenge the Superior Authorities. That is how Slavery in the US came to an end and Hitler was defeated.
Once again you have the audacity to label others CINO. You do not represent any Christian authority except yourself.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 1:24pm
Where ever did you get the idea, that God uses Christians to challenge the Superior Authorities?
The other day, someone mentioned the remorse of Billy Graham, in his support of Nixon and the Vietnam war. Another CINO ignoring what the scriptures really say on the matter?
Graham and other CINO's convinced their followers to support "Caesar in his wars"
Clearly not a Bible teaching and it is possible many deaths might have been avoided, had the Christian leaders adhered to the Word.
Martin Kuther King and others like him ie. Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell, men claiming to be Christians, with good intentions, but they failed to understand, their godly mission, was to care for the downtrodden and to teach others, how to remain loyal to God, despite the trials and tribulations.
Had Martin Luther confined himself to doing the will of God, he still may have been alive today; carrying on the work, he was assigned to do. His work was to bring in disciples and find the lost sheep, not for Christians to forge ahead and trying to overturn the injustices they find.
Christians conquer the evil by finding disciples, willing to bring their lives into harmony with Gods will and this in turn helps society to learn how to live together.
Did he lack faith in God, being able to deliver his people? God doesn't need Martyrs to fulfill his divine plan.
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 2:06pm
If God doesn't want us to overturn justices, we're better off without God.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 2:29pm
No, we humans will never overturn this corrupt and decaying world, it will take an intervention from God to do this. "Let your Kingdom come"
The rider of the white horse, promises to do this for mankind.
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 8:09pm
Billy Graham was following the Superior Authority and you label him a CINO
Martin Luther King Jr opposed the Jim Crow of the Superior Authority and you label him a CINO.
I'm not going to address your assertion about King's death because I won't get into an argument with the evil entity who posted that abomination.
Name some of those you consider real Christians.
Edit to add
Martin Luther King Jr brought together people of various ethnicities. His technique is used in non-violent movements challenging evil Supreme Authorities across the globe. Your little sect does not know history.
That was Martin Luther King's work.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 3:07pm
First off; Jesus said put away the sword and the Superior authorities said pick up the sword and fight our wars; who should Billy Graham have listened to?
Bob, Tony, Susan and many more common names, but one thing for sure; they listened to Jesus and they do not give themselves Titles.
Matthew 23:5-12
On several occasions Jesus warned his disciples not to seek prominence or titles, and they warned us about those who do.
BTW I never said Martin Luther King wasn't a good man, you asked whether he was a Christian.
Are the folks of Westboro Baptist Church, Christians; they say they are? I don't believe it, but you would condemn me, for believing they have strayed away from TRUE Christianity.
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 7:44pm
I'll put this in words your evil heart will understand
The Sprit you are filled with is not of Christ.
Get behind me, You bow to the cruelty of men.
There are other words for you. We were warned of your type in Mathew 7:15
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 7:52pm
NEVER I accept the fact that cruel men will do to me, as they did Jesus.
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 7:53pm
Do not ever compare yourself to Jesus, Trickster.
Your words spew venom. You cannot fathom the love expressed in the Bible. You would let innocent children starve.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 7:57pm
Do not ever compare yourself to Jesus..
Trickster.Sniveler.
There, fixed it for you,
by jollyroger on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 8:10pm
Better to be a sniveler and receive life
4 And the Lord said to him, “Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and f put a mark on the foreheads of the men who g sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.”
Ezekiel 9:4
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 8:37pm
NO..... World rulers do that. But a solution is very near
44 And in the days of those kings b the God of heaven will set up c a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. d It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and c it shall stand forever,
Daniel 2:44
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 8:22pm
You likely have the mark on your forehead.
you have been possessed by something evil
I will pray for the person who is so fearful hat he arms himself and stands by while children starve. We are the ones selected to do God's works on Earth.. We know you by your fruits and your fruit is bitter and foul-smelling.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 8:56pm
.
by Resistance on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 9:38pm
It was God who parted the Red Sea
BZZZZZT. Wrong. It was Charlton "You can have my serpent/staff when you pry it from my cold dead hands" Heston.
Everyone knows that.
by jollyroger on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 7:58pm
Stop spoiling the story you smarty pants!
by Bruce Levine on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 8:04pm
I get my material straight from Cecil. B.
by jollyroger on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 8:11pm
A St Post-Dispatch reporter helped promote a bogus story that supported the police officer's version of events. She reported that dozens of witnesses saw the shooting and corroborated the Ferguson officer's story.It turns out that the reporter was on leave, got the story from a former Breitbart acolyte, and never interviewed anyone. The Breithart minion, a local Conservative radio talker, got the story from a friend of the Ferguson officer's girlfriend.
The story hit the usual Conservative websites, but also got quoted as truth by CNN's Jake Tapper and the NYPost. The MSM acts as stenographer once again
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2014/8/19/christine-byers-tweeted-wha...
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 7:06pm
This case is going to be difficult to sort out. I hope they put it on HLN.
It is plausible, there is already witness intimidation, and false stories being generated.
All in an attempt to taint the trial?
by Resistance on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 10:08pm
Who is doing the intimidation?
You might be interested in reading this perspective of the events in Ferguson post in the Dagblog "iIn The News" section
http://afroculinaria.com/2014/08/18/ferguson-my-thoughts-on-an-american-...
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/20/2014 - 11:34am
M.Brown is at the counter.
He then reaches in and walks away with items in his hand.
Notice the customers directly behind Brown and notice the reaction on both the woman and the child. Something happened at the counter
Evidently whatever transpired at the counter, has continued to escalate at the front door Because you see the store owner confront Brown
Then Brown shoves/assault the store clerk back into the store.
Police report filed
Now Just yesterday someone commented, and reamed me saying there was no robbery report after all.
Was the store owner threatened or intimidated to retract his complaint?
This image sent to me, is cut off by width limitation, refer to one below
by Resistance on Wed, 08/20/2014 - 10:23pm
Sigh,
Someone told you that there is no police report despite the fact that the police chief said publicly that there was a robbery report. The chief released the video that allegedly shows Brown committing the robbery. So you say there is intimidation because someone said something? have you seen a media site confirm that the robbery report disappeared.
if that is your example of intimidation, then there has been no intimidation.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/20/2014 - 10:28pm
You are correct, I misunderstood "as it turns out" as though new evidence has been established by a reliable source. My mistake.
Edited to add
Looking at this film, and seeing this BIG KID I am very saddened about his death, he may have made mistakes, as any juvenile, but his death tears at the heart.
by Resistance on Wed, 08/20/2014 - 10:47pm
Sigh again,
This is your evidence that there has been intimidation?
Tell me that you are not that gullible.
Tell me that you are joking.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 08/20/2014 - 10:51pm
I had two words in the wrong place
I wrote " It is plausible, there is already witness intimidation",
It should have read IS IT plausible ?
by Resistance on Wed, 08/20/2014 - 11:02pm
Yes it is plausible that some local authorities may try, or have tried to intimidate witnesses.
Edit to add:
Here is evidence of local police intimidation in action at a church serving to aid injured protestors.
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/st-louis-count-police-reportedly-raid-...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 08/21/2014 - 7:56am
Intimidation
video below
by Resistance on Thu, 08/21/2014 - 6:56pm
by Resistance on Wed, 08/20/2014 - 10:28pm
He paid for the cigars, just sayin'...
by jollyroger on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 10:00am
The 'full video' shows squat, plus your link contradicts itself twice in it's own text. If Brown did pay, he did a helluva a job faking theft. Whether he did or not however, does not excuse the police killing him.
by NCD on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 10:51am
by jr (not verified) on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 2:37pm
Intimidation?
The only thing the mob is interested in; is a vigorous l prosecution and not a vigorous investigation.
http://www.conservativefiringline.com/video-supporters-officer-darren-wilson-attacked-ferguson-protesters/wilson-supporters/
Only those who want to protest against the officer are allowed to exercise their rights ?
Absolutely this is intimidation to silence anyone who doesn't go along with the plan to crucify the officer.
@1:18
by Resistance on Thu, 08/21/2014 - 7:17pm
Well, Resistance, a big part of the point of the protests is that the speed and thoroughness of the investigation seem not to respect the magnitude of the alleged crime. Or, put another way, anyone who was not a cop who did what Darren Wilson did, even if they ultimately prevailed on a self defense argument, would have been arrested a long time ago. People do react angrily towards double standards.
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 08/21/2014 - 9:38pm
You'd have every cop arrested with just an allegation?
How safe you think your neighborhoods will remain, when people would no longer decide to serve as police officers; knowing, they could get arrested on every allegation of breaking the law, Guilty until proven innocent?
You personally might run into one or two miscreants daily in your life and never have an altercation; but an officer runs into many more than just miscreants. Felons don't wear signs identifying themselves as such. An officer knows Felons smile too but could kill them. It is the nature of the job; but take away the immunity from the officer, why would anyone choose to engage in police work; engaging hundreds of people, if your chances of arrest increases the more engaged you are in policing ?
by Resistance on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 12:09am
Militias?
Maybe this is a good reason to go back to the old ways of militias, defending the communities from criminals, rather than a professional police force?
by Resistance on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 7:44am
You know, ordinary people are arrested over mere allegations all of the time.
by Michael Maiello on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 2:45pm
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean suspects shouldn't be arrested. We have at least two witnesses who say Brown was murdered, and the six bullets in Brown's body make this "struggling for the gun" story unacceptable. As people have said, if this guy wasn't a cop, he would have been arrested, and if he were black, he might already be dead.
by Aaron Carine on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 7:15pm
Now the police say that the cop who shot Brown was taken to the hospital. I doubt it. It took them an awful long time to release this information. If it was true, I think they would have released it immediately.
by Aaron Carine on Thu, 08/21/2014 - 9:39pm
First, HIPPA?
Second: Now I suppose those who have already convicted the officer in their minds, believe the hospital or the clinic staff are all in on the conspiracy, to exonerate the officer?
"Everyone; other than those who have already convicted the officer, are liars and racists?"
Give the protestors, the verdict they want or all hell will break lose.
by Resistance on Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:50pm
HIPPA's protections, if they applied here, would have no termination date. HIPPA obligates health care personnel to preserve protected information; not sure how it would apply to the police, particularly if they were aware of his hospitalization from sources independent of covered health care personnel.
As to giving the protesters what they want, I have written before and fully agree that we can't just give a verdict away, but we can consider the merits of a special prosecutor in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. There has to be at least one prosecutor in the Show Me State who could fit the bill.
Government requires the consent of the governed, and we do not have that here.
by Bruce Levine on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 12:44am
"Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course they are many in number; "………………………….
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).
by Resistance on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 8:08am
Did the hospital say he was there? The way I heard it, it was just the police who said it.
by Aaron Carine on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 3:30am
Res, do you notice how many of your arguments in this matter rely upon the introduction of hypotheticals?
"Perhaps" the cop was rushed, "perhaps" the store clerk was intimidated, etc.
If we confine ourselves to the known facts about which neither side raises any significant dispute we have an unarmed victim, who was neither alleged to be fleeing from, nor in the act of committing, any discernible crime as the predicate for the interaction between the cop and himself when it began, and who is now dead following the discharge of multiple rounds from some distance.
That alone, in most jurisdictions, is sufficient to strip the cop of the presumption of justification for the homicide. What appropriately follows would be an exercise in determining to what extent, if any, culpability ought to be mitigated by any additional specific circumstances or affirmative defenses.
That exercise is usually conducted before a pettit jury, where the cop would enjoy the benefit of the presumption (rebuttable by proof beyond a reasonabe doubt) of innocence.
That presumption operates as a legal shield ONLY vis-a-vis the prosecutor's burden of proof and the availibilty of bail. I does not operate to trammel the inferences that we may draw as thinking members of the public, nor does it operate to confer a presumption of validity on any cockamamie (a legal term of art....) theories you might wish to propose so as to explain away the known facts of the case.
by jollyroger on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 8:03am
This incident, very much reminds me of the defense of Captain Preston, by John Adams
Undisputable fact: 5 colonists dead
"The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”
Captain Preston and six of his men were acquitted
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/john-adams-and-boston-massacre
by Resistance on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 8:25am
5 armed colonists dead (There, fixed it for you...)
by jollyroger on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 9:14am
So there was a trial, correct?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 9:35am
Here is a portrait of how the Superior Authorities of Ferguson and two nearby cities target poor Black citizens for minor charges bringing over $2.5 million dollars into Ferguson's annual coffers.
The city champions legal abuse. Contraband is more likely to be found on Whites who are stopped, but Blacks remain the targets. The fact that local government from the Mayor, to the City Council, to the courts, to law enforcement are not trusted is no surprising.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/ferguson-s-shameful-leg...
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 11:45am
Thank you for bringing this up. Yes these towns all over the country are farming poor communities for revenue. They do it all kinds of ways. Right now in my poor community you don't dare make a legal right turn on red when you see the intersection has cameras. They have cameras that randomly go off on right turns and then a private company, that owns the cameras, sends you a ticket for $125. The private company gets a cut of it and the rest goes to the county. You have to go and protest it at the court house. Many here can't do that because they work low paying jobs so they end up paying the $125. But if you can get to the court house then they drop the ticket because the pictures always shows that you are legal. The camera is on the side of the road on a poll and people make signs with arrows pointing it out. If you see an arrow in a front yard you know the next light has a right turn camera. Many immigrants just send the money in because they are afraid to be deported. I just sit until the light turns green. You don't see cameras in the nice parts of town.
It gets dark and you stay home not because of bad people but because of police harassment. They set up seat belt check points but usually included is dogs going through your car. .It is the usual harassment of having your license and proof of insurance checked and then the dogs get to smell your groceries. People get caught up in these stops and end up in court. I am not a minority so I hate to think what it would be like if I was.
Maybe more of this abuse will start coming to light.
by trkingmomoe on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 7:18pm
It is interesting that the Saint Louis police chief tells us that the knife-wedding man was shot because he wore "too many clothes", negating the use of a taser. This is accepted by the media and the public, yet we have images from the UK calling the need to shoot into question.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/22/2014 - 7:36pm
Let's not blame the police ... they can't be arming themselves to the teeth preparing for Armageddon without someone in cityhall giving them the go ahead. I seriously doubt any local law enforcement activity is completely independent and call their own shots. They have to be responsible to a higher authority in the local government body.
So instead of focusing on the officers, set your sights on those in city hall that gave their approval for the acquisition of the materials, the combat training/tactics and the engagement protocol law enforcement was to follow. They're the one's who need to be held accountable because it was their decisions that has lead to the present day situation. While the law enforcement individuals may be guilty of excessive use of force, they did so because someone higher up the food chain authorized them to act in such a manner.
by Beetlejuice on Sat, 08/23/2014 - 2:00pm
Christians are called to come to the aid of their neighbors. We realize that the rain falls on the just and the unjust. We know that faith must be accompanied by works.
Christian have worked to get Jews out of danger in Hitler's Germany, form stations on the Underground Railroad , give comfort to children showing up at our borders and fight Jim Crow. We are proud of martyrs like Viola Luizzo who lost her life to the Devils minions while fighting Jim Crow.
A religion that stands mute while evil effects it's neighbors is merely a cult.
God calls on his Christian children to be the arms and legs of his body on Earth. Your selfish cult likely has a membership of one.
Edit to add
God does work thru Earthly means to save us.
http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html
BTW I thought the Westbooro question was rhetorical
They are no more Christian than those who claim faith but do not work to exemplify God's love. Venom is venom. Both call the same people CINO.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 11:53am
No he doesn't
John 17:16 John 18:36 John 6:15
Would you too cloak yourself with the Christian name CINO to further your agenda, including, ignoring Jesus words and actions.
I am reminded of this earthquake in California,
With world events getting more critical and the Bible warning "get out of her my people" I want to warn the people to get out, to avoid calamity , and you want to form soup lines.
by Resistance on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 3:21pm
You are lost
Mathew 25:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
EDIT TO ADD
The sacrifice was not just for Christians, but the entire world.
1 John 2:2King James Version (KJV)
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 4:05pm
I am secure in my faith, I do the little I can to help my neighbors. It is at the heart of Christianity.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 3:43pm
Yes love is at the heart of Christianity but it is also necessary to grow in maturity and put things in proper order to make sure of the more important things.
Jesus said the father knows what our needs are and he will care for you, but he needs Christians to warn of the impending doom, about to effect the entire inhabited Earth.
Priority..... warn others.
The prophets didn't get bogged down by feeding the poor, they knew their god given mission, was to warn the Nation of Israel, so that those who listened would escape the calamity .
by Resistance on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 4:52pm
You are not a prophet of any kind. You have no coherent message.
Martin Luther King Jr was a prophet who warned the United States about misguided military efforts
Edit to add:
You can easily be dismissed as a prophet because you resort to supposition. You lay out what you "think" happened in the deaths of Jordan Davis and Michael Brown. Prophets are precise and give accurate statements that are subsequently found to come to pass. Prophets do not say, "Hey look, one of my guesses got mentioned at trial". Of course in the Jordan Davis case there was no magical disappearing rifle.
Second, you mention verbal arguments here and the persecution of Jesus Christ in the same sentence.
You are just someone with a flawed opinion.k
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 6:06pm
I hate to disagree with you, but many "prophets" have dreams that must be interpreted and are only shown to be accurate after the fact.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 8:37pm
My bad
I should have broken off long ago, but I really wanted to see how far the rabbit hole he would go.
I still can't identify the religion he is espousing.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 10:05pm
True Christianity. Free from the leaven of False religious teachings.
Time to move on,
by Resistance on Tue, 08/26/2014 - 12:01am
A religion of one.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/26/2014 - 7:04am
ONE religion, all other religions were made unclean, by the adoption of Babylon's false religious teachings
ie. immortality of the soul, .... one of the foremost lies, first spoken in the "Garden of Eden" Still being repeated by most of the worlds churches.
by Resistance on Wed, 08/27/2014 - 5:25pm
I agreed with Jolly, about implementing a just system, to help those at our border, but it doesn't matter to you, for all you care to do, at every opportunity, is to keep implying that I don't feed, clothe or shelter the stranger nor anyone. In this way you can keep maligning me, putting yourself on some pedestal, to sound your own horn.
But I am not surprised
It was no different in how the Pharisee class treated Jesus, Always trying to trap and dishonor the Messiah, even twisting his words,
by Resistance on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 4:29pm
Stop whining. I go by your flawed interpretation of Scripture
Bonhoeffer was a CINO. You would stand idle in Hitler's Germany
MLK was a CINO. You would stand idle in the Jim Crow era.
You would let children go back to face death in Latin America.
That is not the Christian message.
That message originates in another place.
That is your statement on God's desire.
Do you extend your charity to non-Christians who arrive at our border?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 4:43pm
I looked up the name Bonhoeffer and yes, in his writings he gave his Lutheran Church good advice.
But the Lutheran Church, of which he claimed membership; was complicit in providing support for the rise of Nazism. Not only the Lutherans but the Catholic Church as well.
Although Bonhoeffer did standout against Nazism, he was still a Lutheran and he taught Lutheranism.
The Church Struggle in Germany:
http://www.nglsynod.org/pdfs/essay-01.pdf
NO NO NO . True Christians don’t have that heritage. CINO’s do
Had the so called Christian churches, stayed pure and unadulterated from the influence of political aspirations staying loyal to their King Jesus ; as Jesus commanded. There might never have occurred the holocaust
or “Inquisition, the Crusades, Apartheid and slavery.”
You would now bestow sainthood upon the Lutheran Bonhoeffer?
To illustrate : An arsonist goes around his neighbor’s house with a gas can and starts a fire, the house is fully engulfed with fire and then the arsonist runs into the house, to save the occupants”
You would expect others, to honor the arsonist with a medal for bravery?,
The Lutheran Church and it's ideology Bonhoeffer supported, helped fuel the lead up to Nazism and Germany's Antisemitism.
Considering also this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
Allegedly Bonhoeffer, associated with the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler
(Thank you for the earlier scriptural reference you used here it is again)
Trying to assassinate Hitler, may have been a good idea, for those trying to remove from him from power, but it is not what TRUE Christians do; it is what CINO's do
by Resistance on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 11:25pm
A prophet would not have to have looked up Bonhoeffer. Your words are foolish, reflecting neither Christianity or anything prophetic. Bonhoeffer went against those who were weak in the church hierarchy. You would have stayed on the sidelines. In essence, their would have been no difference in anyone's life if you were in charge, if the weak church leadership were in charge, or if the Devil were in charge you would stand mute. Thank goodness you weren't there.
You would have told the slaves to have a nice day as they toiled under the last of the slave master. You would have proudly sent the runaway slave back to the Superior Authority. Thank goodness you weren't there.
You stand mute while children are sent back to death in South America. You are here and you do nothing. I do not believe that you feed the hungry , clothe the naked, aid the stranger because the Superior Authority has determined that the starving, naked and foreign deserve their fate. You have shown your true heart by staying that when strangers present, you turn them away. You are commanded to aid the stranger and you turn away. Those are your words. You stated that you were not responsible for those foreign children, your words prove that you willfully disobey Christian duty.
People questioned how a Christian could turn their back on a child and you held fast that those children were not your problem. When you did consider giving aid, your own words said that you specifically excluded strangers.
In past posts, you have suggested that you have never seen a true Christian in need.Are we to believe that you really comfort those you call CINO and those you call strangers. Your own words tell us that you will not be on the right hand.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 11:58pm
I believe you are confused and have drawn the wrong conclusion from these verses; but I have other things to attend to.
by Resistance on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 4:39pm
I am reminded of this earthquake in California,... I want to warn the people to get out, to avoid calamity ,
And, behold, straggling behind the rest there came yet another rider, and on his banner were the letters R.E.
S.I.S.T,P.E.N.T....and he faced not towards the head of his horse, but rode astride facing to the rear, and the name of this rider was Horse's Ass.by jollyroger on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 7:21pm
Here's an elephant to consider.
The "police" ... I'm talking about all police departments nationwide ... have been having a very Merry Christmas over the years getting all sorts of combat tested toys to play with. But there's a side-effect ... they begin to think they're in a war zone.
So I have to ask this very simple question ... if a city, county or State believes they really do need those combat tested toys, why aren't they giving them to their National Guard units? Isn't it one of the National Guards main functions to support local police forces when public situations get to a point where basic policing functions aren't enough to cope with civil unrest and descent? And aren't they trained in how to use those combat tested toys as well as the proper protocols when to assert their armed authority with the public during periods of civil disharmony and unrest?
Now I know the rationale for arming police forces was the war on drugs ... but shouldn't that have fallen onto the shoulders of National Guards units instead? How does one police a war?
All police functions, nationally, have morphed into psuedo-para-military fighting units and the public is caught in their cross-fire. As I said ... if there is a need for a city, county or State for such combat tested toys, then give them to those who have the training to use them as well as the necessary protocols when force should be used and in measured approaches.
by Beetlejuice on Mon, 08/25/2014 - 8:21pm
Ferguson flash mob disrupts symphony
by Resistance on Mon, 10/06/2014 - 10:11am
It was a peaceful protest. The musicians clapped.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/06/2014 - 10:41am
Any protest, other than what might be related to the symphony or members of the musicians or assembly hall, or audience was an inappropriate venue to protest.
Whatever personal opinions on the death of Michael Brown, most people in attendance were seeking a refuge from the daily pressures of life.
Wanting to relax and find a moment of tranquility through music, attendees shouldn't have had to become a part of any protest; peaceful or violent; by a few with the intent of high jacking a non-controversial venue for their personal gratification.
Someone was heard in the background mentioning thug? Why did this venue have to become a possible site for violent confrontation or such characterizations of others?
Most people went there to enjoy the evening, not getting caught up with some protest; where luckily; shots weren't fired.
The next inappropriate venue might not be so fortunate.
by Resistance on Mon, 10/06/2014 - 5:00pm
You are welcome to your personal opinion.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/06/2014 - 5:03pm
Why thank you. Does that mean, you don't agree the peaceful theater goers had a right for a peaceful night without hassling or protests; or the thought of ducking bullets if a well intentioned protest turned ugly?
Only the good folks of Ferguson can have the right to live in peace, without being hassled?
by Resistance on Mon, 10/06/2014 - 6:26pm
There were no bullets. Protest is part and parcel of free speech in the United States. Just as people can express their religious beliefs in public. There is a free speech freedom of religion. There is no Constitutional freedom from hearing religious beliefs. Government cannot force religion on you, individuals can express their beliefs in public.
There is a push in Ferguson to increase voter turnout and create change in the local government. You could be forced to watch in public as a group with a bias for one particular political party tries to increase the number of people who will vote for their party.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/06/2014 - 6:33pm
"Michael Brown's blood found on Officer Darren Wilson's gun, car door"
Report: Brown's blood in Mo. cop's car
by Resistance on Sat, 10/18/2014 - 10:19pm
The suspect’s family claimed publicly that Myers did not have a gun.
Vonderrit Myers, Jr. showed off his guns before shooting ...
by Resistance on Sun, 10/19/2014 - 8:35pm
Nothing in the NYT article contradicts eye witness testimony of shots fired in the police car and a struggle.
Why did the officer fire the second series of shot while Brown was fleeing?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/20/2014 - 10:58pm
Here is Lawrence O'Donnell's take on the NYT story. There is nothing new
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/new-scoop-in-michael-brown-kill...
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 10/21/2014 - 8:32am