Doctor Cleveland's picture

    Let's Review the Michael Brown Case

    Let's review some basics from the Michael Brown case:

    • If a police office kills an unarmed person for jaywalking, that is murder. 
    • If a police officer kills an unarmed person for shoplifting five bucks' worth of cigars, that is murder. 
    • If a police officer kills an unarmed person who had smoked marijuana sometime that week, that is murder.
    • If a police officer kills an unarmed person who turns out to have wanted to be a rapper, that is murder.
    • If a police officer kills an unarmed person who has given the police officer some lip, that is murder.
    • If a police officer kills an unarmed person who is running away from him, that is murder.
    • If a police officer kills an unarmed person who tried and failed to get the officer's gun before running away, that is murder.

    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.


    Doc, you lay it out clearly and cleanly as usual.  Though one complication:

    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.

    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.

    "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.

    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.

    BTW, this seems to be a recurring Missouri problem.

    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:


    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.

    The city will pay Brown's family well into 7 figures. 

    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.  

    Can you cite a source for your 50% unemployment rate?

    We wouldn't need cops if citizens and communities behaved themselves.

    Wow. For someone who prides himself on following the teachings of Jesus, you sure like to judge.

    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.

    Great analysis


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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.

    I think that sums things up, at least as I see it as well.  

    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.

    So the police officer who gunned down an unarmed man is akin to Jesus?

    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"  

    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..."

    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?

    Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.

    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?

    I'm hearing crickets, so apparently he can't?

    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

    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?

    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  

    But the scenario that you yourself presented does not count as self-defense.

    Here's what you said:

    The two are not necessary to have occurred at the same time

    Struggle at car  

    Moments / seconds later, Suspect back pedaling as fast as he can because he realizes his attempt to get the officers gun has failed.

    The officer now getting out of the patrol car,  yelling at the felon who has distanced himself by back pedaling

    Officer yelling: STOP or he'd shoot.

    Suspect with hands in air still back pedaling didnt stop

    Officer shot suspect 

    Of course there would be no residue, if the suspect distanced himself in an attempt to resist arrest. 

    Here it is in context.

    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.

    Should the officer have let the attacker go into the neighborhood? 

    According to the law, yes.

     see below 

    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

    As I've already pointed out:

    Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."

    Note that this came after the 1980 decision.

    Probable cause existed.

    See below.

    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?

    Are you not surprised that the shooter was allowed to leave the city immediately

    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.

    but witnesses were not interviewed until several days later.

    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.

    You bare false witness

    Name one lie!

    I asked a question,  so how is that bearing false witness?  It is obvious your bias has clouded your reasoning ability.   BYE


    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.

    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. 

    So you agree that, given the circumstances, a trial is warranted. That is what the parents and community desire.

    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)

    [carrying over conversation from parallel thread]

    Probably cause existed.

    Not according to any legal precedent that I'm aware of. He was unarmed. There were numerous other means available for safely subduing him.

    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 hope pray 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. 

    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.

    There are many questions I too would like answered.

    The blood spilled cries out for justice.  

    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.

    To semi-quote an idea voiced by Orwell, the worst advertisement for Christianity is its vociferous adherents. It is no defense of Christian true-believers that all the other religions expose the same problem.

    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. 

    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?

    My interpretation of Docs article, is that he is a proponent of the idea that no one can take a life INCLUDING the Authorities.

    Re-read Doc's article and focus on the part where he explicitly says:

    Can I imagine circumstances in which a police officer might use deadly force? You bet I can.

    Can I imagine circumstances in which a police officer might use deadly force?

    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?  

    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.)

    The scenario that you yourself suggest 

    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.   

    "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?

    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.   

    For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

    Would you have no fear of the one   who is  in authority?

    Then do what is good, and you  r will receive his approval,

    Romans 13:3

    It would be wise to avoid the wrath of Caesar and the wrath of God.

    Corinthians 7:21-23

    21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

    22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

    23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.


    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?

    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 


    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. 

    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.

    From James, brother of Jesus

    James 2:17
    In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

    James 2:18
    But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

    James 2:20
    You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

    James 2:26
    As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

    from Paul

    1 Corinthians 13:13
    And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

    Your Scripture snippets will not save you.



    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.

    See below

    Thanks doc for  posting it so clearly. The first eight sentences of your blog have been running through my head all week.

    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.

    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? 


    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. 

    Very well said.

    Mike Brown was endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

    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

    3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you r will receive his approval, 4 for s he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.

    Or the service revolver 

    According to reports, Brown resisted the Superior Authority, the Creator put in place for our good . 

    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"?

    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

    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.

    I got your superior authority right here...






    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?


    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

    29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men


    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.

    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.

    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:

    Amid ongoing tense relations between the population and the soldiers, a mob formed around a British sentry, who was subjected to verbal abuse and harassment. He was eventually supported by eight additional soldiers, who were subjected to verbal threats and thrown objects. They fired into the crowd, without orders, instantly killing three people and wounding others. Two more people died later of wounds sustained in the incident.

    This is why I view his Scripture quotes as word salad. He does not consider the context of the words.

    Which are you for, "law and order" over all, or allowing citizens to protect themselves against superior authorities


    Because police officers by a vast majority everywhere in this country want to see arms licensed in order to keep that law and order, 


    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.

    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

    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?

    It's awesome that you think you understand the Will of God more than Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Is awesome the same as astonished? It is not what I think but what I have heard and read  


    Are you recognizing what the people in Jesus' day thought about some of the apostles? 

    Acts 4:13

    13 e Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

    Fishermen, unlettered, common men, who had walked in the footsteps of Jesus and they had not the title of Doctor. 

    This has nothing to do with VA's statement. It again is Scriptural word salad.

    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.

    For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    26 For consider your calling, brothers: mnot many of you were wise according to worldly standards,1 not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But nGod chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; oGod chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, evenpthings that are not, to qbring to nothing things that are, 29 so rthat no human being2 might boast in the presence of God.

    1 Corinthians 1:25-29

    It's good to see you speak of your expertise. I'm glad I don't have to worry about you being too humble.

    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.

    You don't understand because the Spirit does not actuate your mind.   

    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

    Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

    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.

    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?

    And there was Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter From a Birmingham jail.

    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, 

    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.

    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. 

    If God doesn't want us to overturn justices, we're better off without God.

    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. 

    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.

    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.  

    That was Martin Luther King's work. 

    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? 

    Name some of those you consider real Christians.

    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. 

    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

    Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    NEVER  I accept the fact that cruel men will do to me, as they did Jesus.

    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. 


    Do not ever compare yourself to Jesus.. Trickster. 


    There, fixed it for you,

    Better to be a sniveler and receive life 

    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

    You would let innocent children starve. 

    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

    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.


    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.

    Stop spoiling the story you smarty pants!

    I get my material straight from Cecil. B.

    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

    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?

    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

    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 





    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 the way, tell us more about your mentality of convicting people for protesting a murdered, unarmed kid - who was not even shoplifting, as it turns out, the video shows he paid for the cigars - before they're held to trial.

    You're in a deep, deep hole.  Please keep digging.
    by Austin Train on Tue, 08/19/2014 - 2:44pm

    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.

    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.

    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  ?

    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.



    video below 




    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.

    well, shut my mouth...I confess to just taking ring of fire's word for it...


    The only thing the mob is interested in; is a vigorous l prosecution and not a vigorous investigation.

    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. 



    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.

    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 ?    



    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? 

    You know, ordinary people are arrested over mere allegations all of the time.

    "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.

    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.

    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. 

    First HIPPA?

    ​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.


    Government requires the consent of the governed, and we do not have that here.

    "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 BurkeReflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

    Did the hospital say he was there? The way I heard it, it was just the police who said it.

    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.

    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

    5 armed colonists dead (There, fixed it for you...)

    So there was a trial, correct?

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    God calls on his Christian children to be the arms and legs of his body on Earth.

    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. 

    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.



    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.

    I am secure in my faith, I do the little I can to help my neighbors. It is at the heart of Christianity.

    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 .

    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

    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. wink

    My badlaugh

    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.

    True Christianity. Free from the leaven of False religious teachings.

    Time to move on,

    A religion of one.

    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. 

    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, 

    24 f“ A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant1 above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. g If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign 2 those of his household.

    Matthew 10:24-25

    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? 


    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:

    “As Christians, we are a part of the heritage of the Inquisition, the Crusades, Apartheid

    and slavery. Many of those who committed crimes against humanity during these periods were


    NO NO NO .  True Christians don’t have that heritage.  CINO’s do

    “Steigmann-Gall points out that many Lutheran state bishops saw in Nazism a fulfillment of

    Protestant social vision

    “Lutheran clergy were often avid supporters of the Nazis”.

    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

    Allegedly Bonhoeffer, associated with the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler

    (Thank you for the earlier scriptural reference you used here it is again)

    Matthew 5:43-45

    Love Your Enemies

    43 f “You have heard that it was said, g ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, i Love your enemies andjpray for those who persecute you, 45 k so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and  l sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

    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

    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.

    The sacrifice was not just for Christians, but the entire world.

    I believe you are confused and have drawn the wrong conclusion from these verses; but I have other things to attend to.  

    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.

    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.

    It was a peaceful protest. The musicians clapped.

    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.  

    You are welcome to your personal opinion.

    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? 

    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.

    "Michael Brown's blood found on Officer Darren Wilson's gun, car door"

    Report: Brown's blood in Mo. cop's car

    The suspect’s family claimed publicly that Myers did not have a gun.

    Vonderrit Myers, Jr. showed off his guns before shooting ...

    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?

    Here is Lawrence O'Donnell's take on the NYT story. There is nothing new

    Latest Comments