Cop Not Indicted
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
They have a human and legal right to hold and express their opinion in a moral lawful manner. I fully support and always will fully support their right to lawfully protest.
What we've been seeing; however, is the opposite of that which lends credence to their political opponents who argue that they themselves, not the police, are the root problem as they create criminals from their midst who engage in criminal activity to start with and then when "one of their own" dies being arrested (whether justly or unjustly) demonstrate they are the problem by rioting and hurting, robbing, and even murdering innocent people and innocent store owners.
Though it's not popular to state it, the sociological studies do support this position and I've shared them in this thread.
Personally, I believe there's fault on both sides of the issue. More than half of this society needs to look in the mirror and see how extreme has been their fall from godliness and His normative morality on the one hand while on the other police procedure and policy needs to be reviewed.
Also beneficial would be a decriminalization of the pettiness that was criminalized in the crime waves of the 70s and 80s. And though it's highly controversial, I argue that establishing and actually implementing a strict policy of capital punishment for first degree murder would be very beneficial too.
What we've been seeing; however, is the opposite of that which lends credence to their political opponents who argue that they themselves, not the police, are the root problem as they create criminals from their midst who engage in criminal activity to start with and then when "one of their own" dies being arrested (whether justly or unjustly) demonstrate they are the problem by rioting and hurting, robbing, and even murdering innocent people and innocent store owners.
Though it's not popular to state it, the sociological studies do support this position and I've shared them in this thread.
Personally, I believe there's fault on both sides of the issue. More than half of this society needs to look in the mirror and see how extreme has been their fall from godliness and His normative morality on the one hand while on the other police procedure and policy needs to be reviewed.
Also beneficial would be a decriminalization of the pettiness that was criminalized in the crime waves of the 70s and 80s. And though it's highly controversial, I argue that establishing and actually implementing a strict policy of capital punishment for first degree murder would be very beneficial too.
A
A man was killed for being non-compliant to his arrest for selling "loosies" (e.g. individual tobacco cigarettes) on a sidewalk. That's unacceptable.
Goodness sakes, in the world I grew up in people smoked in every restaurant in the nation and at their desks at work. Now we kill them on the street for selling a cigarette if they have poor health and are non-compliant in the process of being arrested for that.
The same liberals screaming and rioting need to look in the mirror. They're the ones who voted in the liberal politicians that passed those laws creating the present situation.
It wasn't me. I could care less if a person chooses to smoke tobacco or not smoke tobacco. As far as I'm concerned, they should have the liberty to choose. But then, I'm not a "liberal."
Goodness sakes, in the world I grew up in people smoked in every restaurant in the nation and at their desks at work. Now we kill them on the street for selling a cigarette if they have poor health and are non-compliant in the process of being arrested for that.
The same liberals screaming and rioting need to look in the mirror. They're the ones who voted in the liberal politicians that passed those laws creating the present situation.
It wasn't me. I could care less if a person chooses to smoke tobacco or not smoke tobacco. As far as I'm concerned, they should have the liberty to choose. But then, I'm not a "liberal."
K
I just watched this video, and I can say it is not the true exegesis of the death penalty by the bible.
The first error Gleason made, that has been refuted by many biblical scholars is using the OT covenant ordinances to support his opinion. That and he spends pretty much 45 minutes of the video with this errant argument.
Then in the video he does what must do in their error to say the NT supports the death penalty is mention Romans 13 which talks about subjecting ourselves to the governing authorities. The problem is those authorities are only under control cause God lets them be, this does not mean they all are of God.
Like I said before if we are to subject ourselves to every law the government makes, when the antichrist comes and establishes his government. Take his mark and see if you still end up in heaven, or the lake of fire with him.
The subjecting ourselves to the governing authorities only is in affect if the laws they make obey the Lord's new covenant standards we are under. The laws in the mosaic covenant were contrary to us.
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;
We are told in the new testament that we can not even support laws that are contrary to the Lord or we share in that sin, so to go with this and to go with another issue brought up in this video. Abortion being legalized, subject yourself to the government's laws as you say Romans 13 says. Then that would make you a partaker of that sin to accept abortion.
I mean let's get real here, we can not subject and obey everything our government does. For that would make us enmity to God in some points by making some sins acceptable now. Lord our God does not make sins acceptable.
Then Gleason does the other failure on this topic, and uses division of church and state. In that debate it made man's law the right to override God's, which we all know can not.
Besides the common misuse of Romans 13, Gleason did not give one new testament scripture to support his argument. Because there is none, and the one or two that have been mentioned previously in other post's I showed how they were misused.
Then at the end of the video Gleason talked about David, and he said that David was a hard topic because he was guilty of murder and adultery yet was not put to death. Gleason said the only thing he could figure why he was not put to death was because he was a king.
Another caller called in and pointed out to him how in 2 Samuel it says it is because David immediately repented. Gleason's response to that was, " I don't accept that. "
K
Then the other thing Gleason did was the error of saying some sins are worse then others.
The bible says that all sins are enmity to God, and even if some just tells lies all their life and never repent of them.
The will face the second judgment, and spiritual death. Just like an unrepented murderer.
The bible says that all sins are enmity to God, and even if some just tells lies all their life and never repent of them.
The will face the second judgment, and spiritual death. Just like an unrepented murderer.
A
No Kenneth, you're misrepresenting what Dr. Gleason said and making false assertions again as is your habit. Of course you misinterpret and so misrepresent scripture so it's no surprise that you misrepresent what Dr. Gleason, myself, and pretty much everyone that doesn't agree with you says as well.
But I'm working on creation science issues right now (the first part of which readers can view here if they have an interest http://christianchat.com/suggestions/103751-science-religion-thread.html#post1795061) and can't take the time to keep correcting your constant and manifold misrepresentations and false assertions kenneth.
Everyone else watch the video carefully for yourself (and read the book if you have a serious interest). You'll find it edifying. Peace, I have to go.
But I'm working on creation science issues right now (the first part of which readers can view here if they have an interest http://christianchat.com/suggestions/103751-science-religion-thread.html#post1795061) and can't take the time to keep correcting your constant and manifold misrepresentations and false assertions kenneth.
Everyone else watch the video carefully for yourself (and read the book if you have a serious interest). You'll find it edifying. Peace, I have to go.
How does an officer know that a man twice his size who resists being taken into custody is not a threat?
That's exactly what resisting being taken into custody shows, that you are a danger and threat to inflicting harm on those required to bring you in.
How would an officer who must take down a man twice his size know that the man saying he cannot breathe is not just a ploy to get released so he can use the advantage of his size and weight to get away from being taken into custody as the law requires?
Keep in mind that the officer's job is to take the man into custody regardless of the man's danger and threat to the officer,
and also to get home to his wife and kids that night, so he can put his life on the line again the next day.
If you know you have a heart and asthma problem, and are breaking the law, why would you not raise your hands as soon as the officer approached so there would be no force necessary to enforce the law?
The man's resistance is solely responsible for what happened to him in a dangerous and threatening situation to the officer.
That's exactly what resisting being taken into custody shows, that you are a danger and threat to inflicting harm on those required to bring you in.
How would an officer who must take down a man twice his size know that the man saying he cannot breathe is not just a ploy to get released so he can use the advantage of his size and weight to get away from being taken into custody as the law requires?
Keep in mind that the officer's job is to take the man into custody regardless of the man's danger and threat to the officer,
and also to get home to his wife and kids that night, so he can put his life on the line again the next day.
If you know you have a heart and asthma problem, and are breaking the law, why would you not raise your hands as soon as the officer approached so there would be no force necessary to enforce the law?
The man's resistance is solely responsible for what happened to him in a dangerous and threatening situation to the officer.
K
Did you even watch the video ???
There were more than one officer, and once he was taken down to the ground the choke hold should have been released and the other officer who was let off completely who had the mans face pushed into the ground should neither have kept the hold on the man. The coroner already said the result of the mans death was do to the choke hold, and being smothered. Then the paramedic's that showed up on the seen were all suspended do to not properly doing their job.
As for resisting all the man did was stand there and ask the officer what he was being harassed for, and that he was tired of them constantly harassing him. Then the officer questioned him about selling cigarettes, he denied it and asked who he was selling them to, and the officer could not point them out. He said, and other by-standards said as you can hear in the video he just got done breaking up a fight. Not selling cigarettes.
Then the other cop came up behind him and put his hands on the man, and he just said don't touch me. That is when the other officer jumped on his back, and put him in the choke hold. He was not trying to run away or nothing, he just wanted to know why they were bothering him and by what evidence do they have to arrest him.
These are logical questions. Nobody by the way I see it should be arrested unless there is evidence to arrest them on.
What ever happened to innocent tell proving guilty ??? That's right it doesn't exist no more, another right of the people taken away.
Innocence and guilt are determined by the courts after the arrest, not by the cops before the arrest.
Did the officer see him selling cigarettes?
If so, the man's denial told the officer all he needed to know about having to take the man into custody.
And until the cuffs are locked around his wrists, officers would be mistaken to reduce their force.
Did the officer see him selling cigarettes?
If so, the man's denial told the officer all he needed to know about having to take the man into custody.
And until the cuffs are locked around his wrists, officers would be mistaken to reduce their force.
Last edited:
K
No I am not misinterpret anything. I told you exactly what he said, and still it goes to fact that besides Romans 13 he could and did not show one bit of evidence in that video from the NT to support his argument.
Romans 13 has been misused in this situation.
If I am wrong, why is there been a big Christian uprising for the past 20 years to abolish the death penalty. Seems to me that most Christians are coming around to see how it is unethical both by bible and world standards now days. How many people get put to death by the death penalty to later be found out were innocent. Because a corrupt system, and slow advancement in forensic science.
I see an example of this at least once or twice a year any more.
And when the person at the end of the video pointed out 2 Samuel where David repented of his sins which is why he was not put to death for adultery and murder, Gleason said he could not accept that as an answer. Sorry Gleason its in the bible.
This still also does not explain how I showed two scriptures saying, God does not show favoritism.
So why would our Lord show favoritism to some sins and wave capital punishment, and not to others ???
He wouldn't !!!
I know another person on here tried to say it is because the mosaic system failed in judging her.
This is not true either, for she had a crowd of accusers, and by the mosaic law you only needed two or three witnesses.
Jesus instead of letting her be stoned to death, told them he who is without sin cast the first stone. Making a statement to them, and for an example to us that none of us are worthy to make that call on another, for we are all guilty of sin and deserving of death in God's eyes.
He was a citizen of the U.S.A. .. He was treated and handled like he had a knife or gun in his possession " not a loosie ". A single cigarette sold with no tax or license is or was this mans charge... You ask what could've been done better.. First, ASSESS the situation, second, TRUST or take into CONSIDERATION what this man was saying, HE COULDN'T BREATHE, third, CALM down, when a man is under pressure it's best to remain calm, you can think better... Anyway, I hear this isn't the first time this cop has had problems abiding by constitutional rights .. Some people just aren't meant to be cops others over time and good training, there are good officers out there, seasoned veteran cops know how to do what I listed above, it comes natural, they care about people, they carry the power, but the power is not who they our..they are real servants to the public.. They keep the peace, what I call A REAL OFFICER..
K
It is not about knowing more than the grand jury.
The fact of the matter is that we are not to take things at face value. Even the bible says to test, and question all things.
If I just sit back and accept their decision, and not question the fact of the two missing video's in the Brown case that all of a sudden disappeared in all the evidence put before the grand jury to where they didn't see it. And even the prosecuting attorney McCulloch said there was no video. So where did they go ? They spent two months talking about them then they just disappear.
Second, in the case of the man in NYC they released the video and released what the coroner said.
Now I can let the Brown incident slide a little, but the NYC man was teamed up on by more than one cop and the coroner even called it homicide, meaning was killed by another. The reason for his death the coroner stated was do to the choke hold and suffocation by force. Yet the officer was still let off.
Unless you have been in the system, or did ministering to those who are to where you are around the system a lot. You will not know like we they have been around it, just how corrupt it really is. From my time ministering I have seen good cops, but I also have seen a very well share of bad cops, lawyers, judges, and so on....
The corruption goes from the bottom all the way to the top, and unless we stand up and speak for this miss justice going on it will never stop. Or at least controlled somewhat so it isn't a major issue like it is.
K
The officer said he did, but could not find or point out exactly who he sold them to.
Plus if that was the case, why did they not take the guy who bought them into custody to, that's right there was nobody. The officer assumed he was selling cigarettes. The man and a bunch of witnesses said no he was breaking up a fight, not selling cigarettes. So he had no cause. People are not be put in jail unless they are guilty of something, if so they can sue the system for unlawful incarceration. Which does happen a lot, the public doesn't hear about that though.
The officers have no right to use any kind of force on a subject, unless they are being forceful back. They even stated how the officer was put on suspension. It was the prosecutor who spouted the heart and asthma conditions, but that is not what the coroner stated was the cause of death.