Court, what would a christian do to these people who assault others using deadly force?
Fair question, but there are some important aspects to the answer.
First, the answer needs to be personal, not a matter of law. Remember the separation of church and state, right? You can't force a personal religion moral mandate on to law. So I think your question is valid, but it is a personal choice question, not a matter of law question. As a matter of law, if the individual is performing an illegal act (like attempted assault) and represents a threat to your life you are legally allowed to employ deadly force to protect yourself. End of story.
The second important aspect to the question is if you are protecting yourself, or if you are protecting somebody else. Again, under the law in the United States, you may legally employ deadly force to protect another person if that person you are defending could have legally employed deadly force. Harder, as you might not know the whole story and the person you attack may actually have been the victim, but the law is the same.
So now that we have agreed its a matter of individual faith and morality, we can explore the question.
Personally? It would be very hard to take a human life if I was the only one at risk. Even if someone was directly attacking me. I expect I would hesitate to the degree that I would risk my own well being. I just don't know.
But to employ deadly force to protect another innocent person? I would have to be (a) incredibly sure that I understood the situation completely and (b) very confident that there were not reasonable non lethal options to resolve the situation. But I expect I would be MUCH more likely to employ deadly force to stop a rape or a murder of another person than I would to stop an assault on myself. I hope I never have to find out though.
Would I ever employ deadly force to protect myself from a potentially lethal attack? Probably. Not with any malice, and I'm sure with great regret afterwards. The criminal attacker forced me to make a choice. It is an unjust tragedy for me to kill them. But from a moral and logical standpoint, allowing a criminal and criminal act to kill and innocent person is an even greater tragedy and injustice.
So if I'm put in a position where I am innocent and have to kill a criminal to protect myself, I think it would be a moral (and logical) choice to do so.
From a biblical standpoint, I am called to love my enemies and turn the other cheek. Which I strive to do (not as often as I could or should, but I do it more often than I want too ). I actually have no problem loving them, I just sometimes struggle to turn the other cheek.
Biblically though, I think that mandate is very clear relative to interpersonal relationships and interactions. But there are other perfectly clear biblical calls to justice and defending the innocent (including yourself among innocent). And God is a God of Justice as well as a God of Mercy.
Even the Crucifixion, which is core to the Christian belief system, wasn't important because Jesus didn't fight back. It was important because he CHOOSE NOT to fight back. That's the whole point. Morally, and from a physics standpoint, he could have commanded a legion of Angels to crush any who threatened him. It was the fact that he didn't that made his sacrifice so powerful and so important.
If he was a thug that wasn't morally allowed to defend himself, which in the situation, would certainly have required deadly force, the Crucifixion means much less. It wasn't a sacrifice, Jesus would simply have been a victim of circumstance.
So morally, there are valid questions here we should each weigh and explore with our God.
But the simple answer of "Thou shall not kill" is too simple, as once someone is trying to criminally kill you, they have created a situation far outside of God's plan and forced you into it.
Seems like a good thing to pray about. Feel free to share here Gaeseti if you have any thoughts on the matter.
Luke 22:36 - Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
The quick take from Barnes' Notes...
quote:
All, therefore, that the passage justifies is:
1. That it is proper for people to provide beforehand for their wants, and for ministers and missionaries as well as any others.
2. That self-defense is lawful.
Men encompassed with danger may lawfully "defend" their lives. It does not prove that it is lawful to make "offensive" war on a nation or an individual.
Let him sell his garment - His "mantle" or his outer garment. See the notes at Matthew 5:40. The meaning is, let him procure one at any expense, even if he is obliged to sell his clothes for it intimating that the danger would be very great and pressing.
"But the simple answer of 'Thou shall not kill' is too simple..." Reepi, not starting an argument here, because I agree with you, but 'Thou shall not kill' is itself a simplification of the commandment. It is 'Thou shall not murder.'
I just read that the reason they are not arresting any looters in Ferguson is because Eric Holder's justice department has reclassified them. They are not LOOTERS anymore they are UNDOCUMENTED SHOPPERS!
I just read that the reason they are not arresting any looters in Ferguson is because Eric Holder's justice department has reclassified them. They are not LOOTERS anymore they are UNDOCUMENTED SHOPPERS!
That's some funny shit . . . . Holder is going to be remembered as the Attorney's General who provided more people with refrigerators and plasma tv's than any AG in history . . . .
Ever since he declared panthers with ball bats as "protected free speech" . . . it's been a make-your-own-rules and cover-your-own-ass judicial free for all.
>> JOKE! << Sorry I guess that I am a little thick.
The sad case as I see it is there is enough evidence to clear the officer in Ferguson.
The deceased was a thug and would have been arrested for robbery, the "protesters" are also criminals as many as can be identified should be arrested and tried
sharpton, jackson, holder et-al are destroying the good work of those who have tried to better race relations, I believe that Dr King would not approve those who are causing trouble fail his content of character test. the black residents of Ferguson will suffer in the long run most likely just my 0.02$
Sorry Oldog. I thought that was beyond the believability threshold. It seems that I have to reset that threshold pretty much weekly under this administration.
I respect the opinions offered here. After a lot of reflection it appears to me that we live in a very imperfect world. Whilst Christianity presents to us a way that we strive to behave compassionately to others the reality seems that humanity is only a little closer to living as Christians than we were 100s of years ago.
Very quiet in this topic considering there's evidence come to light and shown by CNN four days ago that this kid was shot in the back whilst running away from the cop, and at sometime before and or whilst being shot he had his arms up.
Any witness claiming he was shot in the back is discredited by the physical evidence. Did he put his hands up? Quite possibly. I don't recall if the cop's statement included this or not. According to the cop, he did stop and claim he was giving up, then rushed him. Was this when he had his hands up, right before rushing the cop?
Details like how close the body fell to where the cop was shooting from (verified by location of shell casings on the ground) are likely to be very telling. I haven't seen those sorts of details yet. I've seen nothing that discredits the cops story yet, including the physical evidence released to this point. In a trial, reasonable doubt would be on the cops side given what I've seen to date. Granted that there will be piles of evidence provided on both sides that we haven't seen yet. Certainly no smoking gun that it was a bad shooting though.
And if it was a bad shooting, the Cop belongs in jail.
As determined by actual evidence, not hearsay.
Since the "news" people have shown massive bias and been flat wrong multiple times, I's going to wait for LOCAL and State Law enforcement and the Jury system to determine the truth, not the Social Justice system.
Trusting any news source is laughable at sometime or another, but not all of the time. Regardless, there are now two witnesses who claim to have seen Brown shot in the back by the officer, no matter the news source. Their account of events also appear to support Brown giving up, as witnessed (or at least told) by others. Hard to say the witness is lying when he says he saw Brown's brains come out. Not the sort of thing a witness makes up me thinks. Maybe CNN paid the witness eh?
Hey what do I know, except, for my sins I knew what the response of some here would be. Is this the American way - excuse the (seemingly) good guys until it's impossible to deny the truth. Still deny it when it's shown the good guys appear not to be so good after all.
I mean it's not like it's a repetitive pattern of police brutality and American cops playing judge jury and executioner Noooo, this could not be in the land of the free and the brave. Surely not.....
They do a nice job of showing the positions of the contractors relative to the event.
The claims should be investigated. Know that these two didn't have a great view of the situation.
I don't know how good a view the guy on audio claiming "he charged the cop" had.
I had a *really* good view of the pictures that show the guy assaulting a tiny store clerk about 10 minutes before the shooting. That's the most objective data I have.
(Message edited by reepicheep on September 16, 2014)
Autopsy report shows all entry wounds are in the front. There were NUMEROUS 3 or 4 day later reports of the shooting, not all of them match the facts. You simply cannot be facing away from a shooter (cop or otherwise) and get hit only in the front. It just doesn't happen, unless you were facing forward.
I'll just post a link if you want to actually look. This was the original autopsy report, not the 2nd, 3rd or 6th one that the upper echelon decided didn't fit their "facts" as they wanted it to.
>>>>...a repetitive pattern of police brutality and American cops playing judge jury and executioner
While that makes for fun internet chest pound fodder . . . the facts certainly don't even begin to support that.
It's fun to spout on the internet . . . but with 34,500 cops here in NYC . . . and if you look at the number of patrol hours worked, arrests and # of cases of police brutality . . . well, statistically it's far more like that EBR will capture the top 3 podium spots at the next WSBK round.
Facts always f88k up our fun here on the inter webs . . .
Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 07:52 am:
There was a real and serious problem with a failure to enforce the rule of law and police facilitation of violence on minorities in the United States up through the 1970's, particularly in the south.
If they persist today, they would need to be both incredibly isolated and extremely well executed.
Rioting over a thug being shot for being a thug undermines the real sacrifices and real injustices that Afro Americans in the United states faced down and bravely overcame. It also undermines resolving the remaining real problems that Blacks face in America today.
Posted on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 12:14 pm:
Dean,
A number of the shots struck his right arm. At least some of those wounds could have resulted from being shot from behind as his back was turned to the officer with his arms raised, and there is testimony to precisely that scenario.
It's not difficult to image the just badly beaten officer losing his composure and shooting a fleeing thug.