Cop Not Indicted

GodIsSalvation · Dec 2, 2014

Heh all the modern spying stuff has been out for a long time, just merely most people do not realize it or elsewise are in a state of denial. 1984 came and went. No worries though, one day very soon all this technology will be utterly destroyed.

In terms of if putting cameras on criminals would stop them commiting crime; of course it wouldn't. After all if they are hardened criminals they all ready do not care. You can go ahead and try though.

PennEd · Dec 2, 2014

If this radical racist gets his way, many more innocent blacks will be victims, and as Charles Barkley said, without the police being able to do their jobs in the crime ridden neighborhoods it will be like the wild wild west.
Holder To Announce His Plan To “End Racial Profiling”… | Weasel Zippers

GodIsSalvation · Dec 2, 2014

PennEd said:

If Holder plans on ending racial profiling; how does that make him a radical racist? Even in this article I see no such indicator.

Granted, I think this is pretty much lip service and little more than a Public Relations campaign that will not actually end racial profiling. Heh, I saw part of Holder's speech earlier this morning on the news. I don't think the protestors there were buying it. We shall see though.

Brainfreeze · Dec 2, 2014

p_rehbein said:

Careful what you ask for.... If cops and criminals are the target now, who do you think is next ? .....

Brain Scans Can Predict Crime Before It Happens : News : Nature World News

kennethcadwell · Dec 2, 2014

p_rehbein said:

I believe in forgiving all just like our Lord told us to.
The thing is that even the Lord said that we need to be held accountable for our actions. He is not against punishment for correction, but He is against punishment by death. That is to be left up to Him.
If you don't believe me just compare what the punishment was for adultery in the OT, to what the Lord said in the NT.
Also look at what the punishment was for working on the Sabbath in the OT, compared to what He said in the NT.

He who is without sin cast the first stone, nobody is without sin so nobody has the right to make that punishment decision on another.

Brainfreeze · Dec 2, 2014

Brainfreeze said:

Again, I think this protest has a double meaning as a lot of " today's stories " do. They start with a good cause and play on people's feelings but the underlining solutions are always worse then where we started. Controlled chaos, problems and solutions.. Nothing new under the sun, same old scenarios ... Just squeeze tight control, all brought from fear... As Pastac said he fears for his son will be shot because he's black. They play off fear, it's their favorite button...

PennEd · Dec 2, 2014

A brave young man who didn't buy the "hands up" lie:[video=youtube;gc0bINh22Wc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc0bINh22Wc[/video]

PennEd · Dec 2, 2014

GodIsSalvation said:

Bear in mind he is the highest law enforcement official in the country. Here is one story from his racist radical past:

As college student, Eric Holder participated in 'armed' takeover of former Columbia University ROTC office | The Daily Caller

kennethcadwell · Dec 2, 2014

PennEd said:

Sorry, but you are using a video that was from a recent event.
And the teenager who stood up was not a witness to the shooting, so it was just his opinion and not fact.

PennEd · Dec 2, 2014

kennethcadwell said:

What are you talking about? Some witnesses corroborated the officers account. Others lied because they hate whites and police. The official autopsy DOESN'T lie:

Autopsy shows Michael Brown shot at close range, did not have hands up: report - Washington Times

AgeofKnowledge · Dec 2, 2014

I'm back. I had to step out finish a small project and have to leave again to finish another shortly which means that I'll be in and out frequently over the next few days and so unable to grind into the dust the false assertions of deceived liberals and neocons as is my habit lololol j/k.

Nice post PennEd. Obama is just as radical though perhaps not as overtly racist as Holder imo. Here's another one: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/obama-sundial.pdf

In 1983, Obama called the Reagan era defense buildup a “distorted priority” and “dead end track" (despite it being a victorious strategy which brought an end to that Cold War in his lifetime) while intentionally and completely ignoring both what America actually stood for in that Cold War and the totalitarian atheistic state threatening it, threatening the West, and whom were severely oppressing a large percentage of the world's population [emphasis added].

He never mentions any of this, nor mentions the Soviet Union, nor presents an accurate analysis of the situation in any way, shape, or form. All Obama could manage to do was rant against America. Obama was on the wrong side of history.

And, of course the ARA and SAM Obama discusses were under the CPUSA umbrella which was a front organization funded by and directly connected to the Soviet KGB. Students at every university were recruited by members of the State Chapters of the CPUSA and their U.S. PEACE COUNCIL run by the CPUSA AND the World Peace Council inextricably linked to the Soviet Communist International (Comintern), which was controlled by Moscow leadership and possessed “uncontested authority” over all international parties. See: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7511

[video=youtube_share;2wCl57cL274]http://youtu.be/2wCl57cL274[/video]
Part 2: College Acquaintance: Young Obama Was Pure Marxist Socialist: 2/2 - YouTube

PennEd said:

p_rehbein · Dec 2, 2014

Brainfreeze said:

Not asking for/promoting anything........simply pointing out the double standard in all of this.........

(and we are ALL-----BEING WATCHED!, The Government has a Computer------I've seen the TV Show

)

psychomom · Dec 2, 2014

i've had a couple of discussions about all this with my (black) son-in-law,
and here's what we've concluded:

there are serious inequities in this country, and not based solely on skin color.
nationality, religion, gender, age...pretty much runs the gamut.
and it isn't this nation nor this time period...these things have existed as long as sin.
literally.

as far as the police officer who killed that young man in MO,
whether or not he'd been indicted, the same stuff would be going on...

again...sinful nature of fallen man.

Brainfreeze · Dec 2, 2014

p_rehbein said:

I should have chose my words better, I wasn't directing these statements towards you, I apologize. I read all your comments and know where most of it was coming from " sarcasm ". I just want folks to know what looks and sounds real sweet, usually has a sour taste coming from government and " the control/ world power system ".

kennethcadwell · Dec 2, 2014

PennEd said:

That is not exactly true. Most of the eyewitnesses stuck to their story that Brown was running away when Wilson was shooting at him with the first shots. Then Brown turned around with his hands up, and started to come back toward the officer. Saying they lied was a false report.

You have to understand there is a little truth to each side. Even Wilson said in his statement after Brown turned around he ordered him to stop, but Brown did not and then that is when he took the final shots, that being the kill shots. This would put him at close range. Plus the autopsy done by the coroner that was hired by the Brown family was not put before the grand jury, in that report it showed a couple of the shots were from behind.

Wilson said that one of Browns hands was down on his side, well as you can see by the autopsy picture some of the shots were in the arm. After a few seconds to a minute and blood loss that arm would be about worthless. This would explain the blood trail headed back toward Wilson, and with the continued blood loss and Brown getting weak and dizzy, Him stumbling and falling forward could have been construted as him rushing the officer.
Still at such a close range the officer could have shot the legs, but even Wilson said he did not know what part of Brown he was aiming at tell after he pulled the trigger.

And an autopsy does not prove his hands were not up, it just proves where he was shot and if it was from the front or back. One of the autopsies said some were from the back.
Second, there was two video's of the shooting, but now after all the evidence was suppose to be seen by the grand jury. There no longer is any video evidence. Where did they go ?

The evidence was not even question, nor was Wilson cross examined to see if his testimony would hold up. Not to mention that his testimony, and the eyewitnesses that came out on his behalf did not come out tell 3 or more weeks later. The only one that came out after the shooting and within those 3 weeks was somebody that Wilson told his story to.
Sorry but I don't find that to be a credible witness because they were not there to see or hear anything. I can tell 20 people the same story that I own a 6 bedroom house, but that doesn't make it true if I don't really own a 6 bedroom house.

They are looking into this at a Federal level now because of the inconsistencies, and the fact that the system needs to be changed for right now those who work hand and hand, the cops and prosecutors are determining if one should be tried or not.

AgeofKnowledge · Dec 2, 2014

Eyewitness: Before St. Louis Hammer Attack, 'Black People' Ran Up And Down Street Yelling, 'Kill The White People'

Eyewitness: Before St. Louis Hammer Attack, 'Black People' Ran Up And Down Street Yelling, 'Kill The White People'

Elin · Dec 2, 2014

kennethcadwell said:

Actually, examination of the NT shows otherwise.

Paul supports the authority of the state to take the life of the guilty in Ro 13:1-6, where he states
that the authorities which exist have been established by God,
that whoever rebels against authority rebels against what God has instituted
and will bring judgment on himself,
that the governing authority does not bear the sword in vain (with no God-given authority to take the life of the guilty),
that the governing authority is an agent of God's wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Likewise, when Peter drew his sword and cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant, Jesus told him to sheath his sword or he would suffer the death penalty if he killed ("he who lives by the sword will die by the sword").

But Jesus made no prescription there regarding the punishment of adultery.
The woman brought to him could not be stoned, because the Mosaic legal grounds for doing so failed on three points.

However, examination of the account shows that Jesus gave examples showing that they were not violating the Sabbath by plucking grain,
that the Sabbath was made for man (for his rest), not man for the Sabbath (to suffer hunger by).
Jesus made no proscription there of the Law's punishment for working on the Sabbath.

The Jews brought the woman to him to expose her sin, hoping to trap Jesus between a rock and a hard place.

Instead, Jesus turned the tables on them, saying that whoever had never sinned should cast the first stone, and then started writing in the sand (which I suspect was writing each man's sin in the sand, which is why they left one by one).
At any rate, no one remained to stone her.

But he was not abrogating the law of stoning in certain cases of adultery,
he was simply turning the tables on them and exposing their sin as they had hoped to trap him by exposing her sin.

The NT does not condemn capital punishment, rather it supports it.

kennethcadwell · Dec 2, 2014

Elin said:

The thing you must understand though is that the NT testament is all about following the laws of the land as long as they don't contradict His.
He did away with the punishments from the OT mosaic laws, by taking the punishment for us.
Him saying the one without sin cast the first stone was stating that we have no right to offer out punishment for anothers sin. It was not because the mosaic law failed in that point, it is because the Lord was bringing a better way of love and forgiveness. For if you make that judgment call on somebody, you will be judged in the same manner He says.

Even in the OT anybody caught working on the Sabbath was to be put to death, as in the man caught picking up sticks. In the NT however Jesus healed a man and told him to pick up his bed and carry it and go sin no more. The Pharisees saw this man carrying his bed, and yelled at him for doing so for it was not lawful. Jesus rebuked them for this as well.

Jesus says we are to forgive, and minister to them to try and bring them to repentance, but to leave the vengeance up to Him.

The written ordinances of the mosaic law was done away with, God's moral laws is what still applies.

Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Elin · Dec 2, 2014

kennethcadwell said:

I'm not familiar with any Scripture where Jesus or the apostles forbid capital punishment.

He did away with the punishment due on those who believe in him, he did not do away with all punishment for law breaking.

So what do you think about the NT examples of Jesus and Paul exhorting obedience to the specific law of capital punishment?

kennethcadwell · Dec 2, 2014

Elin said:

All it takes is understanding in scripture.
There is no forgiveness, no love, and no ministering being done by those who believe one should still be put to death.
Then on top of that you put the judgment call on another one's life in your hands, instead of leaving that up to Christ.
Jesus says vengeance is His, not ours.

Wrong, He did do away with the sacrifice and punishment from the mosaic law, by becoming that sacrifice and punishment for us. He also did away with all the other written ordinances of the mosaic law. It is only the moral laws of God that remains.

Jesus was speaking to other Jews who follow the mosaic law, and not Him as the Messiah. And He tells them the one without sin cast the first stone, then also like I said the punishment for working on the Sabbath was death to. But He rebuked or I should say changed that.

What scriptures are you talking about that sides with capital punishment ?

Jesus says forgive, minister to them, give them more chances, but never says put them to death...

Cop Not Indicted

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

kennethcadwell

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

kennethcadwell

Guest

Senior Member

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

Senior Member

psychomom

Guest

Banned

kennethcadwell

Guest

AgeofKnowledge

Guest

Banned

kennethcadwell

Guest

Banned

kennethcadwell

Guest