I saw this yesterday all over social media, and have seen other similar posts as well.
"May we be a people that seeks God's justice."
On the surface, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't agree with this sentiment, I certainly do. I rely on the surety of God's justice for any number of reasons.
I do think that there is a problem with agreeing with the principle above however.
What if a commitment to seek God's Justice, requires that we sacrifice the idol of our ideas about Justice ?
What if we stopped putting our faith in humans and human institutions to dispense God's Justice?
What if we see God's Justice, but don't like it?
What if God's Justice is less about specific legal outcomes, and more about bringing Glory to Him?
What if God's Justice includes some level or eternal punishment?
I am 100% for seeking God's Justice. I wholeheartedly believe that even when I earnestly seek God's Justice, that I will fall short. I also believe that if I'm not willing to sacrifice my own beliefs, prejudices, preconceptions, and assumptions about God's justice, then it's likely that I will make an idol from them and become angry when my idolatry doesn't bring me peace and comfort.
94 comments:
We've pretty much been all over the subject of God's justice, haven't we? The meme clearly means different things to different people depending on their own notions of both justice as well as of the character of God.
Of course it does. To some it means that if people don’t get immediately convicted of the most severe crime possible, that they’ll riot/loot/burn in neighborhoods where they’ll do the most possible harm to the most vulnerable.
Clearly that’s God’s Justice.
Some literalists you all are.
The problem remains that you have this hunch that God has played a fast one and redefined Justice to mean something that ISN'T justice as we understand it. It is, indeed, a travesty of justice, this hunch you have about God's Justice.
What if a commitment to God's justice means that we take justice to mean just justice, as we understand it, and God isn't playing some kind of cosmic joke?
Or, on the other hand, what if God means by "Love," some atrocious brain-raping oppression and beating definition of Love, are you cool with that theory? If not, why not?
Dan,
I’ll note one more instance of your choosing to ignore questions, while twisting what others have said to suit your own agenda, Then to add insult, you demand answers to your own questions.
The response to your first question is, justice as who understands it? The kind of justice that comes from threats of violence? The kind of justice that demands predetermined outcomes regardless of the facts, evidence, or process? How about you actually define justice instead of binding behind this anonymous “we”?
What theory?
Words have meanings. The word, Justice means something. The word God means something. The word Grace means something.
If we start to say that by "God," we mean an egomaniacal and angry god who creates things designed to be destroyed, then that might be different than a Good and Loving God that Christians typically think of. If we start to say "justice" to mean something that is NOT just as we understand it, but horribly unjust and unfair and irrational, then it isn't Justice as we mean in the English (or Hebrew or Greek) languages.
Do you have a theory (it appears you do) that God means something different, even contrary, to the normal English understanding of Justice? If so, define this new concept.
Got it. You’re going to simply avoid questions and make shit up.
It’s been clear for months that you’re simply too cowardly to do things like answer questions. Just like it’s been clear that you’re just in this to throw out unproven hunches and assertions, rather than even pretend to have a dialogue.
If you can’t provide an objective definition of God’s Justice, or answer the questions asked, then just shut the hell up.
Craig...
"The response to your first question is, justice as who understands it?"
Justice is a word, a concept we have shared in our society and cultures past. It means something. One thing it means is a basic fairness. To say that someone who has committed, let's say, 1000 "small sins/crimes..." behaviors that hurt and cause some damage, but not irreparable damage. Not murder or rape or cheating your employees out of paychecks, but lies and gossip and the normal sins we all encounter and engage in at times... if someone has committed 1000 of those small crimes, sure, there should be some accounting for it for justice to be done... BUT, to punish someone for an eternity of torture is so far beyond the pale as to not only NOT be justice (as it is commonly understood), but to be UNjust. That sort of punishment would, itself, be a crime against injustice, and an atrocious one.
As justice is typically understood.
Do you disagree?
"The kind of justice that comes from threats of violence?"
I'm talking about the kind of justice I just described, one that is reasonable and fair and not draconian and too insanely harsh in its punishment.
"The kind of justice that demands predetermined outcomes regardless of the facts, evidence, or process?"
No, not what I'm talking about.
"How about you actually define justice instead of binding behind this anonymous “we”?
I've done it before, glad to do it again.
Justice: MW: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
MERITED punishment would be punishment that is commiserate with the crime. To say, "She lied to her father about eating a cookie, therefore, we will cut off her hands!" That would not be a just punishment, as justice is typically understood.
In the Bible, the word Justice tends to mean "To do good or right." And again, to punish a person with an overly harsh punishment is NOT doing right, not as reasonable people think of it.
https://characterofgod.org/justice-verses/
DO you think that it would be right for your loved one to be tortured for an eternity for one sin?
Really?
How is that right or good? How is that not an insane amount of overkill?
How does Jesus "sum up the law?" To do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Would you have someone torture someone you love - for an eternity! - for one sin?
Really?
Do you not see the problem with this vision of "god" and "justice," which aren't Godly or Just?
"If you can't provide an objective definition of God's justice..."
We can't. None of us can. You can't. I can't.
Do you think you can?
"Biblical references to the word “justice” mean “to make right.” Justice is, first and foremost, a relational term — people living in right relationship with God, one another, and the natural creation. From a scriptural point of view, justice means loving our neighbor as we love ourselves and is rooted in the character and nature of God. As God is just and loving, so we are called to do justice and live in love."
Punishing someone for an eternity for one sin is not "making right." It's kind of the opposite, you know?
You’re quite certain that “God’s Justice” is impossible to define, yet you’re equally certain that you know what “God’s Justice” absolutions isn’t,
If you can’t define what something is, you can’t define what it isn’t.
If it’s impossible for us to know, then how can you be so certain that you know what it’s not.
What gives you the right or ability to decide what punishment is merited?
FYI, I get that you’re simply trying (again) to avoid answering the questions in to post, and to force your narrative on the thread.
Coward.
I don't know what you're failing to understand.
HUMANS understand Justice to mean fair, reasonable, good, the treatment of good and bad people according to their deeds, with some REASONABLE punishment going to bad deeds and reasonable rewards going to good deeds. That is how Justice is understood. Now, and in the Bible.
Now, if YOU have some alternative meaning, where it is reasonable and good to punish someone with an eternity of torture for one lie, please provide it.
Or just admit that you don't.
Of course, we know that you don't.
About a month ago, I suggested that you check out a podcast that addresses the concept of Biblical Justice, unfortunately you were too busy to do so,
They do a much better job than you.
For all you’re certainty that the term is impossible to define, you’re certainly trying to define it in the way that best suits the narrative you’re trying to impose.
By all means, give us your "concept of Biblical justice" and do so in a way that doesn't make your god sound like an insane monster.
Two more comments, two more attempts to move the narrative, two more attempts to hide from questions, two more examples of a double standard.
Coward.
But excellent job speaking for all humans.
"That is how Justice is understood. Now, and in the Bible."
This is quite a claim of fact, please prove the second part.
Of course, this is where the obfuscation lives as well. The topic of the post ISN"T about humans fallible and incomplete hunches about what justice is, it's about opening the door to the possibility that our hunches about justice might get in the way of our willingness to accept the reality of God's justice.
It's clear that your more interested in bringing smoke than fire to this post. as with virtually all of your recent drive by commenting, it's more about sniping, obfuscation, and trying to drive the narrative towards your hunch (without actual proof).
Let's try this.
The obvious context of the social posts I'm referencing is the Taylor case. Given that, how about you try to do the following in some detail.
Explain exactly what "God's Justice" looks like in the Taylor case, and exactly how God's Justice will be achieved.
Explain exactly what "Human Justice" looks like in the Taylor case, and exactly how it will be achieved.
Finally, explain how the cause of justice is helped by harming innocent people.
Given your recent history of hiding from questions and explanations, you're on a short leash here.
"Explain what God's justice looks like in the Brionna Taylor case..."
Well, God has not told me how God would respond specifically in the Taylor case. But I can tell you that time after time after time after time, God promises to be on the side of the oppressed, the poor, those abused by the rich and Powerful, those abused by nations that oppress minority groups. Therefore, if one supposes that the Bible is accurately reflecting God's concern for the poor and oppressed, we could assume that God would be on the side of Taylor and her family. That God would see the oppressors punished and the oppressed lifted it up.
Do you doubt that?
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that God is more interested in the results of the Taylor case, than in the fairness of the process and the Truth of what happened?
If that’s what you’re suggesting then who specifically are the “oppressors”, and what is the appropriate punishment for “oppressing” her?
I doubt that you’re correct about that.
When someone consistently tells me that it’s impossible to know virtually anything about God to a certainty, and who’s stock response is usually something like “No one can know that.”, then I’m going to doubt anything they say.
Craig... "When someone consistently tells me that it’s impossible to know virtually anything about God to a certainty..."
As always, I'm just stating what is objectively true. That we cannot objectively prove our opinions about what God thinks. There's a distinct difference between that and saying can't reasonably know what is and isn't moral. Just that we can't objectively prove what God thinks. Which you can't. I can't. No one can if you can, you do it. You never have because you cannot anymore than I can. Just to be clear.
I think Dan likes to choose definitions from dictionaries that helps his "argument" (which is really no more than petulant tantrums about whatever is said that he doesn't like). I think most people would say something like this definition if asked what "justice" is:
the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
That's from Dictionary.com's six definitions. It was #5. Dan's comes in at #6. Princeton's Word Net and Wicktionary say the same thing, as follows:
justice, justness(noun)
the quality of being just or fair
justice(noun)
judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments
Wikipedia's definition begins similarly:
Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve...
Folks will argue if an outcome is just based on personal opinion about the seriousness of an offense and the seriousness of the consequences that result from the offense. They confuse codified punishments with the totality of an offenders suffering. In the case of Breonna Taylor, the extent of her involvement with a known drug dealer doesn't suggest capital punishment as an appropriate level of legal justice. But her death was a result of that involvement, even if it was not intended by cops serving a warrant. The justice comes into play with the acknowledgement that had she not been involved with a criminal, she'd not have suffered the fate that befell her. That fate is justice for having lived as she chose to live.
But that's not what leads people to "protest". They want what isn't deserved by the cops who entered the apartment. They claim that finding any or all of them guilty of murder would be justice for Taylor's death. That's absurd to anyone who actually cares about law and justice. He death does not match the definition of murder in any way, shape or form. These fools dare suggest that such a verdict would be God's justice and by such prove they have no understanding of God or the Christian faith.
The same is true with regard to every idiotic demonstration that followed the death of a thug by police. The whine that they didn't "deserve" to die for whatever offense they committed ignores that their death was the result of how they responded to being held to account for the offense they committed. In other words, they compounded their situation by committing another offense...resisting arrest and suggesting they were threats in the process. In the same way, the cops involved are not guilty of wrongdoing even if a better decision in the heat of the moment might not have led to the death of the suspect. That's hindsight and it is irrelevant unless and actual crime is detected because of it. Simply the shooting of the suspect isn't in itself a crime and thus, calls for "God's justice" are nonsense and false.
As to Dan and his comments above, the most ludicrous are those suggesting a "cosmic joke" when referring to God administering justice. Dan insists that God MUST act the way Dan says he should, without any regard that what might be offensive to God might not be to humankind. Dan believes that a sin Dan considers trivial must be considered trivial by God or He is not a just God. But that's simply Dan dictating to God what God must regard as serious or trivial. Dan thinks homosexuality is just peachy and therefore so should God. Dan thinks employers paying a low wage is a horror and thus, so should God.
Dan's not concerned with "God's justice". Dan...like those "protesters"...want God's justice to follow Dan's notions of what justice should be according to the laws of man...laws which change from nation to nation and from one era to the next. God is, was and always will be and His justice is based on what offends HIM, not Dan. Dan fails to understand this, or purposely rejects it in order to further his socialist, self-centered agenda. And it's why he refuses to be pinned down with questions that should clarify his position. Doing so won't serve him well.
Craig... "Just to be clear, are you suggesting that God is more interested in the results of the Taylor case, than in the fairness of the process and the Truth of what happened?"
I'm saying that IF God is good, loving and just, as I believe God is, THEN God is going to be concerned for those who are oppressed and especially for those who have been historically oppressed, demonized and marginalized.
If, then, one more person in that group of historically oppressed people - people who have factually and demonstrably attacked, killed and harmed by police historically and by systemic racism that remains in our policing system today - if yet another is killed unjustly with NO cause when she was attacked while she was sleeping, then I think God will be VERY interested in that and want us to work for God's justice in that situation.
And God's justice - Justice, period - is opposed to systemic racism, is opposed to the killing of innocent people, by definition.
The "process" is unfair to begin with, which is why so many black people are harassed and killed by our legal systems. Are you suggesting that there's some secret Truth out there... that, for instance, Taylor was actually a paid assassin who was extremely deadly and who routinely kills babies and small puppies? What "truth" are you talking about?
The facts, as we know them, are that
1. the police invaded this home of this innocent woman in the middle of the night.
2. Most witnesses say that the police didn't identify themselves and
3. the survivor who was inside says that he was scared because he didn't know WHO was breaking in.
4. When the door was broken in (again, the door on the home of this innocent woman) - the boyfriend fired ONE shot defending his home as he is LEGALLY able to do (Castle doctrine and all that), and
5. the POLICE were the intruders, the ones in the wrong, and they
6. returned fire in a careless manner that hit and killed a woman
7. who was NOT armed or guilty of anything or shooting at them...
How is that not something that a God truly concerned about justice would care about? What Truth are you about? Do you have some data that is not publicly out there?
Craig... "If that’s what you’re suggesting then who specifically are the “oppressors”, and what is the appropriate punishment for “oppressing” her?"
The oppressor is the police system and the legal which has systematically caused undue harm to black people and other people of color for well over two centuries and which continues to today.
See the Breonna Taylor case.
Are you not familiar with all that?
Craig... "Explain exactly what "Human Justice" looks like in the Taylor case, and exactly how it will be achieved."
1. It should be transparent.
2. It should not penalize innocent people.
3. It should not attempt to demonize innocent people who may have misdeeds/mistakes in their past wholly unrelated to why she was murdered.
4. It should be prompt.
5. It should happen with the full context of our centuries long history of the oppression of black people, including at the hands of law enforcement.
6. It should begin with the clear and overwhelming acknowledgment of the mistakes made by the police department and by our policies.
7. It should include changes to fix the failures and systemic racism that this case brings out.
8. If it's not possible legally to prosecute these police officers because the laws are wrong, the laws should be changed.
9. At the very least, these officers and all those responsible for sending them to that front door that led to them killing an innocent woman should be discharged/fired.
10. If the System failed because of inherent flaws and racism, perhaps an apology should be made to the police officers fired but acknowledge that a life was unjustly taken by them and as a result, they just can't remain employed (given the very real context of the oppression of black people by the police).
The system is broken and that's not necessarily the problem of the police officers. It's unfair to them to place them in a broken system and when a murder happens because the system, they are the ones who suffer. But I guarantee they are not suffering as much as the black community.
Having said that, these police officers (or some of them, anyway) by their harsh "us vs them" language have shown that they are part of the problem, as well.
For starters.
Craig... "
Finally, explain how the cause of justice is helped by harming innocent people."
WHAT in the hell are you talking about? WHICH innocent people? The ONLY innocent people in this story are Breonna and her boyfriend.
The officers who murdered an innocent woman? They are not innocent, by definition. It's not Breonna's fault that they killed her. It's not her boyfriend's fault that he shot ONE time when his home was being broken into. THEY are the innocent ones in this scenario.
Tell me, do you really think that this boyfriend (who was not guilty of a single thing) heard the police beating on the door, identifying themselves AS the police and decided to shoot one time when they broke through his front door...? How is that rational or believable? Why would he do that?
"As always, I'm just stating what is objectively true. That we cannot objectively prove our opinions about what God thinks. There's a distinct difference between that and saying can't reasonably know what is and isn't moral. Just that we can't objectively prove what God thinks. Which you can't. I can't. No one can if you can, you do it. You never have because you cannot anymore than I can. Just to be clear."
Thank you for being clear that I should ignore everything you say on the subject, especially when you say things like, "And God's justice - Justice, period - is opposed to systemic racism, is opposed to the killing of innocent people, by definition.". You've literally just contradicted yourself.
"And God's justice - Justice, period - is opposed to systemic racism, is opposed to the killing of innocent people, by definition."
For a term you claim "We can't. None of us can. You can't. I can't." provide a definition for, you keep providing very precise definitions and are very precise about what the term cannot mean. maybe you should rethink some things.
"I'm saying that IF God is good, loving and just, as I believe God is, THEN God is going to be concerned for those who are oppressed and especially for those who have been historically oppressed, demonized and marginalized."
If God is good, then isn't he going to be concerned about all of those who bear His image?
"If, then, one more person in that group of historically oppressed people - people who have factually and demonstrably attacked, killed and harmed by police historically and by systemic racism that remains in our policing system today - if yet another is killed unjustly with NO cause when she was attacked while she was sleeping, then I think God will be VERY interested in that and want us to work for God's justice in that situation."
This is an interesting hunch. Unfortunately, it's pure conjecture and based on a subject about which you "can't" know anything, therefore worthless. Of course, you can't prove that this particular incident was specifically driven by any of the things you claim, but that's not going to stop you from making the claim, or convince you to prove this claim.
"And God's justice - Justice, period - is opposed to systemic racism, is opposed to the killing of innocent people, by definition."
Yet, your brutally clear that the above statement "can't" be known.
"The "process" is unfair to begin with, which is why so many black people are harassed and killed by our legal systems. Are you suggesting that there's some secret Truth out there... that, for instance, Taylor was actually a paid assassin who was extremely deadly and who routinely kills babies and small puppies? What "truth" are you talking about?"
Ahhhh blame "the process" while refusing to hold those responsible for "the process" accountable. Great plan. I see no reason to deal with your lunatic ravings.
"The facts, as we know them, are that"
"1. the police invaded this home of this innocent woman in the middle of the night."
As a part of an ongoing investigation, with a legally obtained warrant.
"2. Most witnesses say that the police didn't identify themselves and"
You do realize that "most" isn't all, and that witness testimony is not the most reliable form of testimony, don't you?
"3. the survivor who was inside says that he was scared because he didn't know WHO was breaking in."
Which doesn't mean that the police didn't identify themselves, and it means that he was justified in his use of force to defend himself. (Seeing you defend someone for exercising a right you believe should be curtailed or revoked is amusing)
"4. When the door was broken in (again, the door on the home of this innocent woman) - the boyfriend fired ONE shot defending his home as he is LEGALLY able to do (Castle doctrine and all that), and"
Again, your new found support of self defense and use of force is amusing. Yet, her role in the ongoing criminal enterprise hasn't been adjudicated yet, so it's more legally accurate to describe her as the subject of an ongoing investigation with links to drug dealers.
"5. the POLICE were the intruders, the ones in the wrong, and they"
As long as the warrant was obtained legally and in good faith (so far this matter is still to be adjudicated and innocent until proven guilty still applies.), the police were not "in the wrong".
"6. returned fire in a careless manner that hit and killed a woman
7. who was NOT armed or guilty of anything or shooting at them..."
Since they had been fired upon (justified IMO), and one officer had been shot (also justified IMO), the officers were totally justified in returning fire. I agree that they did so in an an undisciplined manner, but they were clearly justified in returning fire.
"How is that not something that a God truly concerned about justice would care about? What Truth are you about? Do you have some data that is not publicly out there?"
Since the reporting from the Courier Journal that I've seen, an since journalists are unbiased seekers of the truth, I'll go with them. Your problem is that you've seen bits and pieces filtered through people's biases instead of actual and complete evidence. Thank goodness we have a legal system that looks deeper than you and adjudicates matters like this. Again, you have no real standing to speak for God and you "can't" know what He thinks. So, you're free to cling to your hunch as well as your rantings.
All of that load of crap, and you didn't even try to answer the question asked up to this point.
Craig... "If that’s what you’re suggesting then who specifically are the “oppressors”, and what is the appropriate punishment for “oppressing” her?"
The oppressor is the police system and the legal which has systematically caused undue harm to black people and other people of color for well over two centuries and which continues to today.
See the Breonna Taylor case.
Are you not familiar with all that?
"WHAT in the hell are you talking about? WHICH innocent people? The ONLY innocent people in this story are Breonna and her boyfriend."
Really? The cops shot by protesters weren't innocent? Those harmed by protesters weren't innocent?
"Tell me, do you really think that this boyfriend (who was not guilty of a single thing)..."
Do you not understand how the legal system works?
"...heard the police beating on the door, identifying themselves AS the police..."
Since, as you mentioned, there is conflicting witness testimony on this matter, it seems as though your conclusion isn't supported by any actual facts. (that you've chosen to give zero credence to any witness testimony that doesn't fit your narrative just demonstrates your bias) At this point, we have multiple conflicting stories, and absolutely zero proof.
"...and decided to shoot one time when they broke through his front door...?"
I'll point out the actual, incontestable fact, that people regularly choose to shoot at police, the military, and other officials representing the civil authorities. As far as why this guy, or anyone else chooses to do so, I have absolutely no idea. Maybe because people make stupid decisions. Maybe he's rather be killed resisting arrest than serve time in prison. Maybe he was mentally ill. I have no idea.
"How is that rational or believable? Why would he do that?"
It's probably not rational, yet people resist arrest and shoot at cops frequently. So yes, i believe that news reports about suspects shooting at/attacking cops. I believe it when I see it on video. I believe it what I see the families of slain cops grieving at funerals. Are you really so blinded that you are unaware that people resist arrest with deadly weapons regularly? I wasn't there, haven't talked to any of these people, so I don't know. I speculated above.
"Just to be clear, are you suggesting that God is more interested in the results of the Taylor case, than in the fairness of the process and the Truth of what happened?"
"If that’s what you’re suggesting then who specifically are the “oppressors”, and what is the appropriate punishment for “oppressing” her?"
2 comments, billows of smoke, piles of bullshit, yet no answers to either of these questions.
Including those above, I count roughly 17 questions/requests for explanation that sit mostly unanswered or unexplained. It's not anything new, but thought I'd keep score.
While I haven't been as diligent about breaking out every specific question I'm asked (because some are stupid, and some can be answered generally), I'll point out that I've answered/addressed the majority, while the opposite clearly isn't true.
Craig... "Since they had been fired upon (justified IMO), and one officer had been shot (also justified IMO), the officers were totally justified in returning fire. I agree that they did so in an an undisciplined manner, but they were clearly justified in returning fire."
Aside from problems of racism, this points to another problem of our system of policing.
1. We're talking drug crimes. This person was FORMERLY CONNECTED to an alleged drug dealer. Why are we getting warrants to break down doors in the middle of the night with a no knock warrant for a non-violent citizen tangentially connected to a drug dealer? That's just wrong. THAT practice needs to end as a matter of reasonable justice.
2. A "no knock" warrant itself, is problematic. IF someone breaks in someone's house (maybe someone with a girlfriend, elderly grandmother, babies or children in the house), without knocking, you are INVITING someone to shoot back. And once the shooting starts, the police feel justified in returning fire, inviting a potential mass slaughter of all the innocents inside.
This practice should be used VERY rarely and only when lives are currently being threatened, and even then, very judiciously. It's a horrible practice and was way out of place here.
3. If police, who are trained for events such as this, supposedly, can lose their composure and, by all accounts, unload dozens of shots into unknown targets AND can get away with it without reprimand, even when innocent bystanders are slaughtered, that needs to end. AND if you can understand how police might "make that little bitty mistaken," then perhaps you can understand how a person having their down knocked down in the middle of the night can also make a mistake.
4. That you give the benefit of the doubt to the police but not the victims of their violence says a lot about you, and it's not good.
Craig... "If that’s what you’re suggesting then who specifically are the “oppressors”, and what is the appropriate punishment for “oppressing” her?"
2 comments, billows of smoke..."
Dan... "The oppressor is the police system and the legal which has systematically caused undue harm to black people and other people of color for well over two centuries and which continues to today."
I'm sorry if a clear, direct and unequivocal answer is too difficult for you to understand, but clearly I answered directly the first part of the question. Which you appear to miss.
I have not answered the second part because I have a lot of questions to you that, contrary to what you think, have not gone answered. Feel free to make this a two way conversations where you answer my questions, as well.
Regardless, can you acknowledge that it's a direct and clear false claim to say that I didn't answer your question about "Who is the oppressor?"?
As to the second part, I have answered this at least in part. I've said that IF the legal system is so messed up so that the behaviors of these police officers is not an actual crime, then they should be fired. IF it is a crime, they should be punished for that crime.
Did they lie to get the warrant? Then the whole shit show is a crime on whoever knowingly participated in that false warrant.
Beyond that, more than retaliation against the oppressors, I want to see changes in the system. The system as it is, is harming the police officers who are oppressing, as well as (though not as much as) the victims of their oppression. The system is harming society and pushing people to the point of rioting because their voices have gone unheard. And when that happens, the fault lies with those who closed their ears moreso than any of the rioters.
How many different ways do you need an answer before you start answering questions?
Is God infinite?
Is God the creator of humans?
Until these two questions are answered (yes or no only), your comments will be on hold.
?
Is God infinite?
That would be my guess. I can't prove it one way or the other, though, and God hasn't told me personally.
Agreed?
Is God the creator of humans?
Well, my father and my mother fell in love and did what humans do and they bore a child, my oldest brother, and then five other boys, including me. In that sense, my parents are my literal creators. Which is true for every human we know of.
Is God figuratively the creator of humans? I think so.
Did God create conditions in which a world such as earth could emerge and human beings could emerge? I think so.
But God has not told me how specifically this all happened and so I and you don't know the specific details.
Why do you ask these sorts of questions? They seem entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand and push off further you answering any of the questions asked of you.
Also, that our parents were our LITERAL creators is not in dispute. If you think God - poof! - created a literal man named Adam and then literally took a rib from Adam and created a woman, and that these were the first two humans and God literally created them just like that, you are free to think that. I have no reason to take that story as being a literally historical rendition of the Creation of Humanity and neither of us can prove it happened or didn't happen.
Did you think there would be some other answers to these questions than the only factual way I could answer them?
What part of yes or no is so confusing for you. Two simple questions and really not an unequivocal answer for either one.
It appears that your answers are No and No. Although with all the obfuscation, who the hell knows.
I understand your desire to avoid actually taking a stand, but this is excessive.
"Why do you ask these sorts of questions?"
I ask then to attempt to try to frame at least part of this discussion in terms we could possibly agree on. Clearly, you have very little interest in actually doing this.
"They seem entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand and push off further you answering any of the questions asked of you."
How they seem isn't really relevant. For someone who's spent this entire thread dodging questions, obfuscating, and trying to impose his own narrative, your bitching about this seems misplaced at best. Given the demonstrable reality that you've consistently engaged in this dodging of questions and obfuscating for the last 5-10 threads you've commented on, this bitching is even more absurd. Of course, since I've answered, or responded to virtually every question you've asked in this thread, your nonsensical, bullshit is really just your way of further obfuscating.
Since the last questions were too much, let's see if I can ask them in a way that will keep you to a yes or no answer.
If God and humans are on a continuum, with 1 being finite, and 100 being infinite, where would you place God on the continuum and where would you place humans?
You seem to hint that maybe it's possible that God had some sort of a hand in initial Creation, although you seem really scared to given Him enough credit or power to actually create everything from nothing.
So...
Can you acknowledge that God bears a significant portion of the credit for bringing the human race into being?
Craig, as asked, the two questions can be answered with "I don't know" and not be evasive. I'm willing to respond in the affirmative because I believe it to be true, and what I believe about God and Christianity has quite a bit of supportive evidence that an affirmative answer is reasonable. However, for those like Dan who only pretend to believe to the extent that they can eliminate those parts they don't like, to respond "I don't know" is the only way they CAN respond. That's because they don't want to know. The more certainty, the more they must accept that which is uncomfortable and inconvenient.
Craig... "What part of yes or no is so confusing for you. Two simple questions and really not an unequivocal answer for either one.
It appears that your answers are No and No. Although with all the obfuscation, who the hell knows."
No, my answers are CLEARLY "YES" and "It depends on what you mean by Creator."
What part of clear answers are you not understanding?
You asked "IS God infinite."
I answered, "THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS," which is another way of saying "It would be my guess that God is infinite," which is another way of saying YES.
You do have a problem with reading. Knowing that, I should really break down my answers to the simplest response possible, but the problem is that you often don't answer simple Yes/No questions.
IS God infinite? None of us know. We weren't there at the beginning, we can't see into the future. We can't give an authoritative YES or NO to that question. MY GUESS is that God is infinite, but I'm reasonable and intellectually honest enough to admit that I can't say with any authority.
What about that is mistaken?
Is God the creator of humans?
IF you mean, DID GOD MAKE DAN TRABUE and other humans, somehow, the literal answer is NO, Dan and every human ever came from their parents, were "created by" their parents. That is just the reality of it all.
Do you disagree with reality?
Do you think that God has told you that God secretly stepped in and magically wrote Dan into being within the contents of his parents' DNA? Okay, that's a fine and poetic guess if you want to make it. But it's conjecture. What we know as a factual certainty is that we were created by our parents' DNA combining.
What about any of these answers is factually mistaken or difficult to understand?
Speaking of inconvenient, Dan's grasp of the "facts" of the Taylor case ignores much of which he clearly finds so, as well as lies about that which he believes is true. Let's look at the facts as Dan insist "we know them":
"1. the police invaded this home of this innocent woman in the middle of the night."
While technically, a no-knock warrant might be rightly called an "invasion", the warrant makes it a legal entry and thus not an invasion in the sense most would understand the term...if most would even use it in this context.
Also, Dan has no proof that Taylor is an innocent woman with regard to the reason why her home was targeted for a search. Her relationship with Glover belies that claim, particularly with evidence suggesting she provided aid to him on several occasions in several ways.
"2. Most witnesses say that the police didn't identify themselves..."
Not true. But "most" is subjective and based on what, exactly? That neighbors acknowledge both the police knocking and announcing their identity is on record. Who again are "most witnesses"? I suspect these are people those "demanding God's justice" want to pretend are the only witnesses to whom we should be listening...very much like Dan's "black voices".
"3. the survivor who was inside says that he was scared because he didn't know WHO was breaking in."
That's what Walker said, but how can it be confirmed that what he said is true? We cannot, even if he was scared. It's his word after the fact and a reasonable thing for anyone to say after having fired a weapon at cops. But assuming he didn't hear the cops announce themselves, that doesn't make the police action wrong or "oppressive" or any of the other negative descriptions Dan would apply to it to make his race-hustling point.
"4. When the door was broken in (again, the door on the home of this innocent woman) - the boyfriend fired ONE shot defending his home as he is LEGALLY able to do (Castle doctrine and all that), and "
Dan reiterates what he doesn't know to be true, but prefers to believe without any first-hand knowledge or actual evidence to support. As I cannot prove that Walker didn't hear the cops announce themselves, I would suggest that there's no legitimate way to charge him with a crime for firing his weapon until such evidence for doing so is discovered. I doubt any will be and this dude may have gotten away with having made a conscious decision that is at best quite reckless. Why didn't he yell, "Freeze!" or some such. That would make most people hesitate and possibly give those who entered another chance to identify.
more coming now...
"I answered, "THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS," which is another way of saying "It would be my guess that God is infinite," which is another way of saying YES."
Then why not just say yes, if you meant yes? Why waste time with a bunch of obfuscatory bullshit?
"What about any of these answers is factually mistaken or difficult to understand?"
I'm sorry if my pointing out your obfuscation and bullshit confused you. I had no problem understand either your answers or your apparent attempt to avoid a clear, direct answer.
I'd love to parse your idiocy, but that simply serves your purpose.
So, I guess the rest of your comments are on hold until you answer some version of the second question.
Even though, your detailed answer to the first question, was even more convoluted than your first attempt. I'll choose to believe that "I guess" was really an unequivocal and definitive "yes".
Craig...
"let's see if I can ask them in a way that will keep you to a yes or no answer.
If God and humans are on a continuum, with 1 being finite, and 100 being infinite, where would you place God on the continuum and where would you place humans?"
Yes.
Is that what you're looking for?
Ha!
If I'm going to take a guess as to God's infinite nature, I'd guess 100.
Humans are certainly finite, so 1 would appear to be the answer, given your construct.
Again, what an odd way to ask questions wholly unrelated to your topic.
And how odd for you, who I don't believe has answered a single question from me, to complain about me "not answering," when I have. And been quite clear. It's odd that you don't see it.
Craig... "You seem to hint that maybe it's possible that God had some sort of a hand in initial Creation, although you seem really scared to given Him enough credit or power to actually create everything from nothing."
I BELIEVE God is the creator. But what that means, how God got things started and what it looks like, I don't know. I wasn't there and God hasn't told me, any more than he has told you.
I have no reason to read the early books of the Bible and assume they were written as a literal historic and scientific report, when clearly it's told in a figurative, mythic manner. I have no reason to guess that Adam was a literal human created from dirt 6,000 years ago in May, nor that Eve was a literal human created from Adam's rib. AND I have plenty of rational reasons NOT to take that as a literal scientific report about what God literally did for creation.
On the other hand, no one knows HOW "the Big Bang" started or how we get something from nothing. So, it is my estimation (along with many others) that the creation of the universe is of God, since we don't have any other rational explanation. But again, God hasn't told us what that looked like and there is no reason I see to assume that God created Adam as a special weekend project (mid-week, actually, I guess), nor that God "created Dan" or Craig.
Do YOU think God "created" you in some literal manner? In what sense? Where is the data to support that hunch?
Craig... "Can you acknowledge that God bears a significant portion of the credit for bringing the human race into being?"
Sure. Yes. 42. God has a portion of credit of 42.
Does that help?
Good Lord, in heaven.
Any time you want to start answering questions, feel free to. Otherwise, I've done enough jumping through hoops.
Say her name. Breonna Taylor.
"5. the POLICE were the intruders, the ones in the wrong, and they "
This is a willful lie. The POLICE were doing their job on a legally issued warrant to enter. They not only had a no-knock warrant, THEY FREAKIN' KNOCKED AND ANNOUNCED WHO THEY WERE!!! This means they were quite cautious in their actions, having taking these steps to justify in the minds of Taylor and anyone else inside the apartment their presence and entry.
"6. returned fire in a careless manner that hit and killed a woman
7. who was NOT armed or guilty of anything or shooting at them..."
This is typical accuse the cops bullshit. When fired upon, cops are justified in firing until the threat is extinguished. They are not paid to die just to make sure those who threaten them aren't hurt. This isn't the movies. Cops don't fire once, hit the suspect and everything's hunky-dory. This is real life. Endanger cops and they'll respond in kind...as they should...as they have the right to do...and as they have the obligation to do when dealing with one suspected of criminal behavior. Taylor dying is the consequence of Walker having fired upon the cops...rightly OR wrongly. The cops were not their in the commission of a crime. Had they been actual intruders of the type Walker feared, THEN murder would have been an appropriate charge. This was an unfortunate chain of events, but not the result of criminal, unethical behavior or of bad law enforcement practice or policy.
Dan isn't honest enough or intelligent enough to acknowledge this reality because he's too intent on furthering race-hustling nonsense about cops oppressing minorities. It doesn't matter what happened in the Bull Connor days. The claim that blacks are disproportionately targeted by cops has been proven false by at least four studies, the most publicized of which is from Heather McDonald, and the riots and protests that follow are no more than attempts to perpetuate that falsehood to procure advantages not deserved...that is, to pervert "God's justice", not promote it. Dan's totally guilty of that lie.
Marshall... "1. the police invaded this home of this innocent woman in the middle of the night."
While technically, a no-knock warrant might be rightly called an "invasion", the warrant makes it a legal entry and thus not an invasion in the sense most would understand the term...if most would even use it in this context."
Listen and understand: For the innocent person sitting in their bed at midnight, half-asleep, to hear shouting, banging and their door being broken down, for them, the ONLY word to describe that terrifying moment would be Invasion.
Where am I wrong?
Again, this is part of the problem of such home invasions. No Knock warrants and home invasions are part and parcel of the racist systems that have oppressed black people over especially the last ~50 years.
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/05/breonna-taylor-is-one-of-a-shocking-number-of-black-people-to-see-armed-police-barge-into-their-homes/
Stop supporting racist systems and attacks against black people.
Marshall... ""2. Most witnesses say that the police didn't identify themselves..."
Not true. But "most" is subjective and based on what, exactly? That neighbors acknowledge both the police knocking and announcing their identity is on record. Who again are "most witnesses"?"
NONE of the neighbors support the police claim that they (the people who shot an innocent woman with their body cams turned off) announced themselves first.
ONE (and only one) neighbor at one point said they DID announce themselves, but later clarified that they were not sure that it happened or when it happened.
The victim of this home invasion has testified that no announcement was made. The innocent murdered victim of this home invasion can't answer that because she's dead.
The perpetrators who invaded the home with their cameras off and who shot an innocent woman and killed her, THEY are the only witnesses who are testifying that the police announced their presence.
Do you always trust the accused killers when they testify that they were behaving prior to killing an innocent person?
IF this was a black man protesting on the streets of Louisville who testified that the police fired into the crowd at him before he fired back, would you trust that testimony, if it was the only testimony?
Get on the right side of history, morality and reason, boys. It's not too late for you.
Marshall... ""3. the survivor who was inside says that he was scared because he didn't know WHO was breaking in."
That's what Walker said, but how can it be confirmed that what he said is true?"
I KNOW that you love to dismiss the word and opinion and testimony of black men and other oppressed people, but to hell with you. He is an innocent man. His girlfriend was murdered in front of his eyes. He had no reason to shoot at police if he'd know they were police, since he's a law-abiding citizen.
Trust black people and stop giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who killed an innocent woman.
Marshall... "Dan reiterates what he doesn't know to be true, but prefers to believe without any first-hand knowledge or actual evidence to support. As I cannot prove that Walker didn't hear the cops announce themselves, I would suggest that there's no legitimate way to charge him with a crime for firing his weapon until such evidence for doing so is discovered. I doubt any will be and this dude may have gotten away with having made a conscious decision that is at best quite reckless. "
What the hell is wrong with you all? What EVIDENCE is there that he would lie? He is an INNOCENT man, they weren't there for him, he's just the boyfriend of an innocent woman.
To hell with you all demonizing innocent people you don't know shit about. It's just evil, boys. Stop it.
The police released Kenneth Walker and dismissed all charges against him because he'd done nothing wrong. He and Ms Taylor were the victims of a racist and broken system. Walker's charges were dismissed and the city paid Taylor's family a $12 million settlement, in effect admitting the wrong, even if it turns to out be barely legal.
Marshall led with the baseless and inane suggestion that I don't know the facts of this case playing out in my hometown and then proceeded to demonstrate that he is the one unfamiliar with the case and prejudiced against innocent people in favor of their killers/assailants.
"It's NOT obfuscation. It's being PRECISE. For me to say, "YES, God is infinite" begs questions and demands proof that I can't objectively answer. Nor can you. It's an imprecise answer designed to give comfort to the person who wants to hear a Yes, but is otherwise meaningless."
Then why not just say, "Yes, and here's why I think so."? The problem with this new pile of bullshit, is that you just insisted that "I guess" really, unequivocally meant "yes.". What'd Jesus say about "Let your yes be yes"?
"You really need to learn to understand words. Begin with Obfuscation and Bullshit vs Precise and Exacting and Clear."
The problem isn't with understanding your words, it's with your obsession to avoid a simple clear, direct answer whenever possible.
Of course, this is simply your way of obfuscating the fact that I've asked you two questions, and you've finally admitted that answer 1 is yes but haven't clearly and unambiguously answered 2 yet.
Your next comment needs to be a simple, clear, direct, unequivocal answer to the second question I asked. If there are any more of these bullshit arguments over whatever nits your picking, I'll delete them. Otherwise everything else stays in purgatory.
FYI, I've already answered/responded to 85% of your moderated comments, as soon as you do one simple thing, (as long as I'm at this computer) you'll get what you want.
Art,
I've been approving your comments without reading them up to this point, and dealing with the piles of bullshit here and in moderation. When I have time, I'll check them out.
Marshall vomits all sorts of nonsense and support of racists and attacks on black people and other "thugs," as he appears to view them. One more...
"This is typical accuse the cops bullshit. When fired upon, cops are justified in firing until the threat is extinguished."
No. No. A cop can't just shoot blindly until everyone in the vicinity is dead and on the floor. One of the first things that shooting instructors is BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S BEYOND IT.
https://www.nssf.org/safety/rules-firearms-safety/
If you get all scared after busting into someone's home and start shooting blindly, you are not qualified to be a cop.
And I'm calling Bullshit if you would keep defending cops if it was YOUR loved one who was in their crossfire. Bullshit. Go ahead and say you'd defend the cops who slaughtered your innocent daughter. Say it... I'll wait...
BULLSHIT. You would not.
You would know instinctively that they were wrong. ESPECIALLY if it was in her OWN HOME in the middle of the night and she was innocent of any crimes. Hell, EVEN IF she had dated a drug dealer five years ago, you would STILL know that the cops were wrong.
You're so full of shit and rage and defense of racism that your head is constipated.
Repent, boys, you're on the wrong side of justice.
Does Dan really insist that WE (or you) don't respond to "yes or no" questions? I know I, and then provide explanations as Craig described Dan could have.
But things aren’t that simple. Dan's "yes or no" questions are loaded to the hilt and are rarely honest attempts to elicit an honest opinion. Ours only seek clarification, yet Dan rarely provides that with a yes/no response. Sure, ours have follow-up questions waiting in the wings, but it seems crystal clear to me that Dan is afraid we're playing the same games he plays when we ask "yes or no" questions. He's truly an artful dodger.
Dan,
I gave you a revised version of the second question, if you choose to pretend otherwise I can’t help you with what seem to be mental health issues.
I’ll clarify. At this point, the best that scientists have to offer is that everything that was created was created in a singular event. What’s called the Big Bang.
Did God exist prior to this event?
Did God cause, to any degree, that event? If so, to what degree?
Yes or no answers, and give your best guess as to what degree.
Good lord, you’re either dense or scared of something in the questions in the initial post.
Did God exist prior to bb?
Yes, I THINK SO. I have no way of proof of that, nor do you, but yes, I think so.
Did God cause, to any degree, that event?
Yes, I THINK SO. We can't prove it, but yes, I think so.
If so, to what degree?
90 degrees.
Now answer some of my questions. Go.
Good lord, it took long enough to finally pull reasonably direct answers from you.
It appears that you are saying that you can unequivocally agree that God had some significant role (or at least more significant that any or all humans) in creation of everything that is.
It also appears that you are saying that God is significantly more infinite than humanity.
While I personally think that your answers are lacking, you've limited your equivocation enough for me to make my point. (FYI, since my goal was to get to this point, my views on this subject aren't germane, and I see no reason to enable you dragging things further off into the weeds, I deleted some of your responses as they are now moot)
Since you agree that God is significantly more infinite than humans, and since you agree that God has some role in the creation of all that exists, then can you agree that our grasp of something like God's justice is more finite than His? Can you agree that as someone who had a significant role in creating everything that exists, God's perspective is more all encompassing than that of humans? Can you agree that because of God's significantly more infinite and encompassing knowledge, that humans might not fully grasp God's views on Justice?
"Now answer some of my questions. Go."
I'll point out the obvious here. The fact that you still haven't answered the questions from the INITIAL POST, and that you've been dodging questions over the last month or so, makes you seem even more like a whiny, petulant child who isn't getting it's way.
So, here go a lengthy series of comments answering every question you asked me from yesterday. Virtually all of the text of your comments from yesterday is accounted for, so I'll leave the originals in moderation to minimize the confusion.
Beginning-
“I'm sorry if a clear, direct and unequivocal answer is too difficult for you to understand, but clearly I answered directly the first part of the question.”
I understand, because you answered PART of one question, you think you’ve answered enough. Got it.
"The oppressor is the police system and the legal which has systematically caused undue harm to black people and other people of color for well over two centuries and which continues to today."
It would seem than, that your concept of proportional justice, is to place all of the responsibility for “centuries of undue harm”, completely on the shoulders of three cops. Are you suggesting that they should be convicted of serious crimes based on the actions of those who have gone before them? Are you suggesting that the city government of Louisville bears no responsibility? That the mayor and council are not responsible? Are you really suggesting that those at the lowest level of government service bear the criminal responsibility, while others don’t?
“I've said that IF the legal system is so messed up so that the behaviors of these police officers is not an actual crime, then they should be fired.”
Really, your idea of proportionate, fair justice, is that these cops should be punished for engaging in acts that aren’t illegal and that were sanctioned by the appropriate authorities? That they should be punished while others receive no punishment?
“IF it is a crime, they should be punished for that crime. Did they lie to get the warrant? Then the whole shit show is a crime on whoever knowingly participated in that false warrant.”
This goes without saying, which is why you felt compelled to state the obvious.
“Beyond that, more than retaliation against the oppressors, I want to see changes in the system. The system as it is, is harming the police officers who are oppressing, as well as (though not as much as) the victims of their oppression. The system is harming society and pushing people to the point of rioting because their voices have gone unheard. And when that happens, the fault lies with those who closed their ears more so than any of the rioters. How many different ways do you need an answer before you start answering questions?”
Are you really suggesting that the answer to changing the entire system is to punish three cops who are at the lowest level of authority? Are you really suggesting that allowing those in Louisville who have ultimate power and control and authority shouldn’t bear the consequences? Are you suggesting that those who have
CONTD
held power in the mayor’s office since 1969 and the council since 2003 (with the exception of 1 year) bear no responsibility and that three cops should be punished for their actions (or lack of actions)?
“Aside from problems of racism, this points to another problem of our system of policing.”
This is quite an claim to make without any actual proof. Are you really suggesting that “racism’ can be proven at every level of the city government from the mayor on down to the newest cop? That your idea of justice involves broad brushing individuals for something that may or may not be true? That these three cops deserve to be criminally liable for “racism” without regard to their individual views and behaviors?
“1. We're talking drug crimes. This person was FORMERLY CONNECTED to an alleged drug dealer. Why are we getting warrants to break down doors in the middle of the night with a no knock warrant for a non-violent citizen tangentially connected to a drug dealer? That's just wrong. THAT practice needs to end as a matter of reasonable justice. “
This is something that’s worthy of discussion. But the three cops didn’t make the drug laws they were enforcing, they didn’t conceive of a “no-knock” warrant as one tool for police, those decisions are made by the elected officials of the city. What manner of justice punishes people for the actions of others?
“2. A "no knock" warrant itself, is problematic. IF someone breaks in someone's house (maybe someone with a girlfriend, elderly grandmother, babies or children in the house), without knocking, you are INVITING someone to shoot back. And once the shooting starts, the police feel justified in returning fire, inviting a potential mass slaughter of all the innocents inside. This practice should be used VERY rarely and only when lives are currently being threatened, and even then, very judiciously. It's a horrible practice and was way out of place here. “
Again, your argument isn’t with the cops, it’s with the city government that allowed the practice in the first place. I’d suggest that, like virtually any LE technique, that there are places and times where this is an appropriate tool. Because, it’s always much more effective to knock call in advance, and knock politely, and wait patiently for the suspects to answer the door. As you are wont to do, you are assuming facts not in evidence, and letting your biases drive you to express your hunches as if they were facts.
“3. If police, who are trained for events such as this, supposedly, can lose their composure and, by all accounts, unload dozens of shots into unknown targets AND can get away with it without reprimand, even when innocent bystanders are slaughtered, that needs to end. AND if you can understand how police might "make that little bitty mistaken," then perhaps you can understand
CONTD
how a person having their down knocked down in the middle of the night can also make a mistake.”
A) I’d suggest that trying to hold any human to an unreasonable standard of perfection, isn’t a good way to live.
B) I agree that the police responded improperly and that there should be some sort of punishment for that failure. But you’re nitpicking just a bit here. You seem to agree that the police were correct to return fire, yet I’m guessing that you would be unable to articulate what amount of return fire is appropriate.
C) Absolutely nowhere have I suggested that the police “get away with it without reprimand”, nor have I seen anyone else do so. I’d suggest that criminal charges, potential civil damages, and potential employment consequences are hardly getting away with it.
D) Your multiple mischaracterizations of things “bystanders”, "make that little bitty mistaken,", etc really exemplify how much of this is personal anger and how little is rational and fact based.
E) I’ve been clear that I believe that both sides were justified in shooting.
F) I’ve never been in that situation where stress, environmental conditions, confusion, and other factors force people to make really difficult decisions with serious consequences in split seconds. Therefore, I’m unlikely to try to try to minimize the difficulty inherent in making those decisions, and try to Monday morning quarterback those who have.
G) As someone who’s spent some time studying the best practices for home defense, I’ve not found many instructors who would encourage moving toward the intruders. Most would encourage setting oneself up in a defensible position with cover and concealment and waiting until the intruders make confrontation inevitable. However, I can see why someone might choose to do otherwise.
“4. That you give the benefit of the doubt to the police but not the victims of their violence says a lot about you, and it's not good.”
If you mean believe that “innocent until proven guilty” applies to everyone, I guess you’ve got me. If you mean that I’m choosing to wait until we see as much evidence as we possibly can before I reach a final conclusion, you’ve got me there too. But in reality, you’ve just made this up out of whole cloth because it’s easier to resort to a false accusation than to provide the facts to back up yoru bullshit.
Craig... "yes, i believe that news reports about suspects shooting at/attacking cops."
Yes, as a general rule, when I see news reports of suspects shooting cops/attacking cops with bats/attacking cops with knives, especially when accompanied by video, I believe them.
CONTD
When you take things like this out of context and try to jam it into a different context, it’s simply a waste of time.
“What SUSPECT?”
Do you know what the term “suspect” means?
“He was an innocent man who,”
Was suspected of being involved in the drug trade. Like the officers (who you seem to have already convicted) he’s innocent until proven guilty. I guess we should wait until trial before we reach these sorts of conclusions. Or are your suggesting that justice is best served by ignoring evidence and testimony?
“…according to him and his neighbors, had his door broken down in the middle of the night by unknown people.”
The veracity of who we have no way to know at this point.
“He fired ONE shot then realized it was the police and then stopped. The question is, WHY would you not believe this innocent man who has done no wrong whose door was broken down in the middle of the night by people unknown to him... why would an innocent man shoot at cops if he KNEW they were cops?”
Good question. Maybe he wasn’t as innocent as you’d like to believe? Maybe he goofed? Maybe he shot Taylor first? I have absolutely no idea what makes people shoot at or attack cops. You can ask, but since I’m not clairvoyant or disposed to attacking cops, you’ll just get guesses of varying degrees of seriousness. This is the “Don’t act like these stupid questions are serious”part of the thread.
“Why wouldn't he open the door, since he was innocent?”
See above, I’m not clairvoyant.
“Your willingness to believe killers over victims is part of the problem.”
One more claim that you keep making, but can’t prove. It’s more ad hom over evidence.
“I've answered your questions. Your inability to understand that they HAVE been answered is part of the problem.”
Your idiotic insistence that you didn’t start this thread by ignoring the questions asked in the original post, just points out your choice to turn to falsehood over truth.
“That, and your continued defense of systemic racism and the murder of an innocent woman.”
If you’re going to make these claims than be a freaking man and prove them. If you’re to much of a coward to acknowledge your falsehoods, then stop pretending to have a moral code.
Craig... "Really? The cops shot by protesters weren't innocent? Those harmed by protesters weren't innocent?" “
“You asked me to comment on the TAYLOR case. The cops shot weren't part of that case, so far as I know.”
So the riots were 100% unrelated to the Taylor case? Really that’s the pile of shit you’re hiding behind?
“And sorry, but no. The police in our system of policing are all implicated as part of the problem and are not fully innocent.”
You are seriously suggesting that your notion of justice endorses innocent people being harmed. Talk about a monstrous miscarriage of justice. Subjecting them to harm because of the actions of others. Talk about mentally sick.
“No. Where are the "good police" who are outraged and speaking out against Taylor's murder? “
You mean the ones trying to protect harm to innocent people because of those who’s idea of justice involves harming others? How the hell do you know what people are doing or not doing? Maybe, they’re silent because they don’t like being threatened with harm?
“They are silent. The "blue line" and all that. Being a willing part of a broken system implicates you in it.”
Are you suggesting that your notion of justice consists of condemning people solely because they’ve chosen to pursue a particular career without regard to their actual actions or attitudes? Why do you not demand the same sort of justice for those who designed, control, and actually have the power to fix the system? Why should the retributive justice be focused on those on the lowest levels of the system?
“But the man who shot the police officers was wrong to do so, to be clear. But the instigator was not the man, it was the system.”
Are you suggesting that your version of justice would absolve those who cause others harm, because it’s not their fault?
“But to answer your question, I'm answer YOUR question about the Taylor case. SHE was the innocent one killed by police in a broken system that is systemically unjust for black people.”
Really, you are suggesting that justice regards the cops who was trying to their job as guilty and deserving of being harmed? If “she was killed by a broken system”, then why should the individual officers be blamed? If the rioters aren’t responsible for their actions because of “the system”, why would justice insist on a different scale for others?
“Just ask black people, they'll tell you if you listen. Craig... "
Enough with this idiotic racist trope. I’ve listened to plenty of black people who tell me that you’re full of crap. I’ve seen black people citing the research that calls your claims into question.
“Do you not understand how the legal system works?”
Then why would you not allow the legal system to work, instead of condemning people based on incomplete evidence and prejudice?
I’m so glad to see that you agree that it is people’s constitutional right to arm themselves and defend themselves in their homes. That you are fully in support of the castle doctrine.
“The way the police are supposed to enter a house during such a raid is by announcing themselves SO LOUDLY that there can be no mistake.”
So now, you are both an expert in police procedures, and an eyewitness to this event. Excellent? Since you know this beyond a shadow of a doubt, I’m amazed that there is still any confusion on this matter. FYI, the fact remains that the police ARE witnesses. Their testimony DOES have value, and to assume that the police are lying and that the neighbors are telling the truth (or the reverse) is simply bias speaking not evidence.
“There was a mistake. “
Make up your mind. Was it a mistake, or was it the racist system trying to slaughter innocent black folk?
“If they "announced" themselves by whispering so softly that no one heard, that is the same as not announcing themselves at all. “
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, the ridiculous speculation gambit. Enhanced by speculating about an extreme behavior.
“What are you talking about? Spend time in prison? For what? BEING BLACK AND IN HIS OWN HOME? THIS, Craig, THIS assumption by white people that the black people are guilty IS THE SYSTEMIC and PERSISTENT racism that continues to oppress black people today.”
This is an excellent example of how you choose to take other’s words out of context and use them as a pretext to accuse them of something vile, without any actual proof.
1. I accused no one of anything. For you to suggest that I did is simply a lie.
2. You asked me why people behaved a certain way. As I’m not clairvoyant, nor have I extensively researched the issue, I offered you some possible reasons why people might engage in those behaviors.
It’s not my problem when you choose to follow the path of lies and slander, rather than grace.
Craig... "then can you agree that our grasp of something like God's justice is more finite than His?"
Yes. Certainly yours appears to be!
"Can you agree that as someone who had a significant role in creating everything that exists, God's perspective is more all encompassing than that of humans?"
Yes, I guess. I don't know what you mean by God's perspective is more all encompassing than ours. But an almighty God's perspective is going to be more complete on any thing than a finite human's.
"Can you agree that because of God's significantly more infinite and encompassing knowledge, that humans might not fully grasp God's views on Justice?"
Sure.
Now, can YOU agree that if by Justice, a god meant something that was horribly unjust as humans understand it, that they aren't really talking about Justice, as humans understand it... that god is talking about something different?
For instance, if there were a god who talked about cars and wanted everyone on earth to own a car, in that god's infinite will... BUT, by "car," that god meant "banana," well, that is just confusing. Why wouldn't that god say "banana" instead of "car" so the point would be clear?
Do you believe in a trickster god who makes concepts like morality and justice so bizarre and incomprehensible so as to confuse all of humanity about those concepts?
Dan,
Indicate which of these you've voted for and which you've supported without voting for.
Jerry Abrahamson
Greg Fischer
David Armstrong
Harvey Sloan
bob herderson
Cindi Fowler
Marianne Butler
Kevin Triplett
Dan Johnson
Nicole George
Vitalia Lanshire
David James
David yates
Daivd Tandy
Jim King
Tom Owen
Rick Blackwell
Pat Mulvhill
Rick Blakwell
Mark Fox
Attica Scott
Jessica Green
Barbara Shankin
Mary Woolridge
Kiesha Dorsey
Barbara Sexton
Cheri Hamilton
Donna Purvis
Paula McCraney
Tom Owen
Brandon Coat
Steve Magre
"Now, can YOU agree that if by Justice, a god meant something that was horribly unjust as humans understand it, that they aren't really talking about Justice, as humans understand it... that god is talking about something different?"
You literally just contradicted what you just agreed to. You were (for you) quite clear that our view of God's justice is significantly more limited than His, then decide that the significantly more limited creation, gets to pass judgement on the significantly less limited creator.
"For instance, if there were a god who talked about cars and wanted everyone on earth to own a car, in that god's infinite will... BUT, by "car," that god meant "banana," well, that is just confusing. Why wouldn't that god say "banana" instead of "car" so the point would be clear?"
This is a stupid hypothetical. What if, in your stupid hypothetical, the humans were wrong about the meanings of both car and banana?
"Do you believe in a trickster god who makes concepts like morality and justice so bizarre and incomprehensible so as to confuse all of humanity about those concepts?"
Nope.
You've got a lot of work to do.
But you are guessing, are you not, that God's definition of justice is different than ours in some ways? If so, please provide what your guess is about God's definition of justice.
If we don't know what words were using, we'll have a hard time communicating.
For instance, in your guess about what God's definition of justice, it is okay to punish someone in an unfair and overly harsh manner as compared to the crime, is that right? For instance, in your vision of Justice, if somebody commits just one sin, just one! ...for instance let's say, they lied to their mother and said they couldn't come over to visit her when they could have. That one sin, that one lie is righteously and justly punished by an eternity of torture, is that what you're saying?
Please define your definitions if they're not going to be standard definitions.
"There’s no proof that former Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin was motivated by George Floyd’s black race. There’s no proof the three Louisville police officers were motivated by Breonna Taylor’s black race. The evidence points to the Louisville cops being motivated by gunfire that struck a police officer with a lawful warrant."
Jason Whitlock
So, given the choice between black Whitlock and white Trabue, I should (according to Dan) believe Whitlock because he's black and Trabue is white.
Maybe the better answer is to not automatically believe either one of them, because believing someone based on their skin color is an incredibly stupid idea.
"But you are guessing, are you not, that God's definition of justice is different than ours in some ways?"
Not so much "guessing" as making the obvious logical conclusion. You've literally agreed to the underlying premise, yet try to avoid the logical, consistent outcome.
"If so, please provide what your guess is about God's definition of justice."
Unlike you, I'm not trying to define justice for God. I wouldn't dream of trying to impose my finite, limited, guesses about justice on God.
"If we don't know what words were using, we'll have a hard time communicating."
Really? Perhaps had you answered the questions in the initial post...
"For instance, in your guess about what God's definition of justice, it is okay to punish someone in an unfair and overly harsh manner as compared to the crime, is that right?"
In my guess about the justice of God who's breadth of wisdom, knowledge, power, and virtually everything else is infinitely greater than mine, I'd be hard pressed to try to impose my idea of fair on Him. Honestly, my hope is that God isn't fair. I hope for mercy.
"For instance, in your vision of Justice, if somebody commits just one sin, just one! ...for instance let's say, they lied to their mother and said they couldn't come over to visit her when they could have. That one sin, that one lie is righteously and justly punished by an eternity of torture, is that what you're saying?"
This has nothing to do with my view of justice, it has to do with my view of realty. The notion that any human has ever just committed one sin is patently absurd. Further, your notion that some sins are more acceptable to God, is something you've never defined or proven. So, no that's not what I'm saying.
Are you saying that if some person only commits one sin, and that the sin is brutally raping a 8 year old girl to the point of the child's death, that that one sin isn't worth eternal punishment?
Of course, your loaded hypothetical and misrepresenting of others views completely ignores that fact that God freely offers forgiveness and salvation.
In your absurd hypothetical, for the liar to have ended up with eternal punishment, he'd have had to choose not to repent.
"Please define your definitions if they're not going to be standard definitions."
Another case of you expecting something you rarely expect of yourself.
FYI, if you're not going to listen to the podcast that does an excellent job of digging onto this topic (and it's two black guys so they have instant cred), I'm not going to take this foolishness too seriously. Especially since the questions in the initial post remain unanswered.
Craig... "It would seem than, that your concept of proportional justice, is to place all of the responsibility for “centuries of undue harm”, completely on the shoulders of three cops."
Well of course, I have not said that and I'm not suggesting that and don't think that. It only seems that way to you because you have a fevered imagination and not because of anything that I've said. Do you seriously think this is a possible conclusion that I have? Answer that question please. Show that you're not insanely irrational.
"Are you suggesting that they should be convicted of serious crimes based on the actions of those who have gone before them?"
No. Of course not. You can tell by the way I never said anything at all like that anywhere remotely in any of our discussions. No. No.
Don't be obtuse. No.
Do you really think there is a chance that that is what I was thinking? Do you truly have that much difficulty understanding other people? Good Lord, no.
"Are you suggesting that the city government of Louisville bears no responsibility?"
No.
"That the mayor and council are not responsible?"
No.
"Are you really suggesting that those at the lowest level of government service bear the criminal responsibility, while others don’t?"
No.
Seriously, try reading for understanding and not for attacks. I'm not saying that, black lives matter is not saying that, no one is saying any of that. Mostly what we're wanting to see is change more so than punishment. We need to change the systems of racism that end up with the Brianna Taylor's being executed by please while she sleeps in her own God damned home. What about that is hard to wrap your tiny little brain around? Will y'all stop blaming black people and start listening to them.
"Do you seriously think this is a possible conclusion that I have?"
Since you've only mentioned the cops, and absolutely no one else, yes. Which is bizarre since the cop on the street has virtually zero responsibility for the "system".
"Do you really think there is a chance that that is what I was thinking?"
When your remarks are regarding punishing three individual cops based on their participation in a "system" that spans "hundreds" of years, then yes it's a reasonable question to ask in an attempt to gain clarity.
"Seriously, try reading for understanding and not for attacks."
It's from a desire to understand that I ask questions. I'm sorry that my attempt to gain specificity, clarity, and understanding, has you so upset. Perhaps you should welcome questions as a way to clarify things you've been silent on.
"I'm not saying that, black lives matter is not saying that, no one is saying any of that."
And now you get the point. When you're vocal about punishing the individual cops, but silent ("not saying that" is silence), on the rest of the system then it's reasonable to ask questions as a way to gain clarity and understanding. You can't seriously suggest that I am able to perfectly understand what you are not saying, can you?
"Mostly what we're wanting to see is change more so than punishment."
Yet, you've remained silent when I've spoken about change and silent about anything except punishment for the rank and file cops. Again all I can focus on is what you do say, I have to ask about what you don't say, because you don't say it.
"We need to change the systems of racism that end up with the Brianna Taylor's being executed by please while she sleeps in her own God damned home."
What proof do you have that Taylor's killing was specifically motivated directly by specific racism? What incontrovertible proof can you offer to support your claim. You do realize that the evidence seems to show that Taylor was not asleep when she was shot. If this goes to trial (criminal or civil) we will see the actual science based evidence that will prove Taylor's location when shot. FYI, many criminal suspects are shot in their own homes. Unfortunately, sometimes people suspected of criminal activity are apprehended in their homes, and sometimes things go wrong.
"What about that is hard to wrap your tiny little brain around? Will y'all stop blaming black people and start listening to them."
!. IF (and that's a big IF) I'm blaming anyone, I'm absolutely NOT blaming people because if their skin color. If you are going to make these sorts of false and inflammatory claims, you'll need to start offering proof. That's the difference between us, you focus on groups and their differences in skin color, I focus on individuals and their individual actions.
2. The literal, indisputable evidence is that I DO listen to black people. Again, if your going to make these idiotic claims, prove them.
3. The point of asking questions is to learn about the things you've been silent on, and to clarify what you've said.
Is it really more important to bitch about my attempts to gain information and understanding, than it is to facilitate more understanding?
Dan,
As you are looking for proof of your claims, I'll note that the mere presence of disproportional outcomes for different racial groups, does NOT constitute proof of "racism".
Craig... "Since you've only mentioned the cops, and absolutely no one else, yes."
Then you have a reading comprehension problem. For one thing, I said police and the legal system. That's larger than just the police. Including politicians, attorneys in the courthouse, judges, school systems. Also, of course I would not say that because I'm irrational and rational people don't say things like You're suggesting. You're reading for attacks and not comprehension. Begin with the assumption that black people, liberals, Democrats, that all of us are at least somewhat reasonable just as conservatives are, and that we're not advocating for insane notions.
Craig... "What proof do you have that Taylor's killing was specifically motivated directly by specific racism?"
Here's a perfect example. Read for comprehension. I'm talking about systemic racism. That's not the same as saying these three cops were racist. Do you understand the difference at all? If not, begin by reading about systemic racism.
Craig... "You do realize that the evidence seems to show that Taylor was not asleep when she was shot. If this goes to trial (criminal or civil) we will see the actual science based evidence that will prove Taylor's location when shot."
Let me know is that the Survivor of the assault on the house of these innocent people says that they were in the bedroom when they heard noise. They went out to investigate and we're standing in their hallway shouting who is it and not knowing who it was. He reports being scared that his house was being broken into and then they burst in at which point the boyfriend had a right to shoot under the castle doctrine. He shot points and then saw that they were police. I didn't say they were asleep. They were in bed and nearly asleep when the assault on their house occurred according to the survivor of the assault. I'm not sure what your point is there, just to clarify.
"Then you have a reading comprehension problem."
Yes, you did mention the legal system in passing, yet the vast majority of what you've spewed has been focused directly on the three cops. Pardon me or looking at the entirety of what you've vomited, not just looking at 2 words and making assumptions about what you meant.
"Here's a perfect example. Read for comprehension."
You are correct, you do have a reading comprehension problem.
"I'm talking about systemic racism."
Yes, you've made that quite clear and I'm asking you for the direct link between the unsupported claims you're making about "systemic racism' and Taylor's death?
"That's not the same as saying these three cops were racist. Do you understand the difference at all?"
I've never claimed that you said the three cops were racist. You're reading comprehension has failed you.
"If not, begin by reading about systemic racism."
So, you won't prove it's existence and instead you'll simply brush by that based on your prejudiced assumptions. It's not exactly proving that your claims are true...
"Let me know is that the Survivor of the assault on the house of these innocent people says that they were in the bedroom when they heard noise. They went out to investigate and we're standing in their hallway shouting who is it and not knowing who it was. He reports being scared that his house was being broken into and then they burst in at which point the boyfriend had a right to shoot under the castle doctrine. He shot points and then saw that they were police. I didn't say they were asleep. They were in bed and nearly asleep when the assault on their house occurred according to the survivor of the assault. I'm not sure what your point is there, just to clarify."
My point is that you falsely characterized the circumstances in an attempt to make the circumstances seem more egregious. Now, you've accommodated your earlier twisted version to get closer to what's known and your trying to act like my pointing out the problems with your claims is a problem.
"Brianna Taylor's being executed by please while she sleeps in her own God damned home."
Not that this'll matter, but let's look at what you actually said, as opposed to what you claim you said.
1. Despite your claim that "I didn't say they were asleep", you quite clearly said she was shot while "she sleeps in...". Are you really suggesting that the word "sleeps" somehow means something other than "sleeps"?
2. I failed to point this out earlier, but your claim was that Taylor was "executed". Please provide the proof to demonstrate that this claim is even remotely factual.
Let's consult the dictionary, shall we?
verb (used with object), ex·e·cut·ed, ex·e·cut·ing.
to carry out; accomplish: to execute a plan or order.
to inflict capital punishment on; put to death according to law.
to murder; assassinate.
By using the term "executed" you suggest one of the following, which one and what's your evidence?
1. That the officers planned or were ordered to kill Taylor.
2. That the officers inflicted capitol punishment according to the law.
3. That the officers intended to kill her. (Murder or assassination require intent)
So, as your own words demonstrate, my reading comprehension is fine.
7 comments chocked full of answers to your questions, observations, and all sorts of goodies, and they've been ignored in favor of more bullshit.
Craig... Then you have a reading comprehension problem."
Yes, you did mention the legal system in passing, yet the vast majority of what you've spewed has been focused directly on the three cops..."
I have not looked back to check on my writing, but I would tell him to you right now to look at my actual words and I'd be willing to bet that you cannot find any single place where I've EVER referred to these three cops.
You might have missed what I just did to your claim that you never said Taylor was shot while she was sleeping. Let's see how well this works.
"That God would see the oppressors punished and the oppressed lifted it up."
Doesn't explicitly mention the three cops, but who else in the Taylor case would be punished? Probably not enough, but a reasonable hunch.
"the police invaded this home"
"the police didn't identify themselves"
"the POLICE were the intruders, the ones in the wrong, and they
6. returned fire in a careless manner"
You are either suggesting that the entire Louisville police department is guilty or referring to the police who engaged in the actions you mention.
"The officers who murdered an innocent woman?"
Unless you were talking about some other officers, it's the three you claimed you didn't mention.
"They are not innocent, by definition."
Actually, until they're convicted, they are innocent.
"The police claim that they (the people who shot an innocent woman"
"The perpetrators who invaded the home with their cameras off"
"the accused killers"
So, we have a situation where you didn't use the words/phrase "the three cops", yet you did use language that cannot be referring to anyone but "the three cops".
If I get bored, and you keep up this idiocy, I'll harvest the rest of your comments. I only needed one to prove you wrong again.
But more minutia to avoid substance.
Apparently as I waded through multiple comments trying to answer questions, I missed this. It appears to be the most direct, least bullshit, answer given so far and it deserves to be responded to.
"1. It should be transparent.
2. It should not penalize innocent people."
I completely agree. I'd add that it shouldn't be conducted under threats of violence if the "proper" outcome isn't achieved.
"3. It should not attempt to demonize innocent people who may have misdeeds/mistakes in their past wholly unrelated to why she was murdered."
It sounds like you are suggesting that evidence be suppressed that might be 100% accurate ant truthful and have a material bearing on the central issue in the case (the granting of the warrant). I can't imagine that you would intentionally deprive the defendants of their ability to defend themselves to the fullest legal measure, would you?
"4. It should be prompt."
I agree, although I'd add that it's more important to be thorough than to focus on promptness. It'd be a shame if speed caused cutting corners that led to an acquittal, wouldn't it?
"5. It should happen with the full context of our centuries long history of the oppression of black people, including at the hands of law enforcement."
Are you suggesting that "evidence" should be introduced against the accused of prior actions that were engaged in by other people? That the accused should be held liable for conduct other than their own? If anything this sort of evidence would be considered exculpatory for the accused. Maybe this is something you should elaborate on. Of course, it's also in the context of "If you don't return the verdict we want, regardless of law or evidence, we'll burn the city down.", which seems anything but conducive to a fair trial, doesn't it?
"6. It should begin with the clear and overwhelming acknowledgment of the mistakes made by the police department and by our policies."
Are you suggesting that the accused be denied their 5th amendment rights? Or that they must be pressured into pleading guilty and forgoing the trial all together? Again, perhaps elaboration and detail would be helpful here.
CONTD
"7. It should include changes to fix the failures and systemic racism that this case brings out."
You do realize that the criminal court system don't actually exist to make or change the law don't you? This sort of change on the law is the responsibility of the legislative and executive branches of the city, not the judicial branch, don't you know? It seems that the same folks have been in control for plenty long enough to have corrected this problem years ago, why haven't they, and why aren't you after them with the same vitriol?
"8. If it's not possible legally to prosecute these police officers because the laws are wrong, the laws should be changed."
See my comment above. Are you suggesting that the accused be prosecuted under the new laws?
"9. At the very least, these officers and all those responsible for sending them to that front door that led to them killing an innocent woman should be discharged/fired."
Are you suggesting that the union contracts under which this would have to take place be ignored or voided? That the civil service regulations be set aside?
"10. If the System failed because of inherent flaws and racism, perhaps an apology should be made to the police officers fired but acknowledge that a life was unjustly taken by them and as a result, they just can't remain employed (given the very real context of the oppression of black people by the police)."
Oh, how generous. The system that made, continued, and failed to change the rules should apologize to the scapegoats as they kick them to the curb, and go along with things as normal. Excellent example of justice.
"The system is broken and that's not necessarily the problem of the police officers. It's unfair to them to place them in a broken system and when a murder happens because the system, they are the ones who suffer. But I guarantee they are not suffering as much as the black community."
So, is your solution to ignore their suffering, exacerbate their suffering, and add more suffering on top of that which exists?
"Having said that, these police officers (or some of them, anyway) by their harsh "us vs them" language have shown that they are part of the problem, as well."
What an excellent example of judging others. Your prejudiced assumptions reveal much about you.
I'll note that other than passing mentions of some sort of general "system", that your idea of "justice" focused almost entirely against punitive action against those directly involved (the three cops and others). Yet absolutely zero mention of those who perpetrate the "system" and how justice should be served on them. Zero mention of dethroning those who rule over this allegedly 'racist" system.
I'm guessing you voted for plenty of them and you'll keep voting for them or other like them.
So, while this was an admirable effort. By far the lest full of bullshit of any other comment, which is praiseworthy. Perhaps a little more detail, and a little less reliance on catchphrases and generalizations would be helpful.
Craig... "You are either suggesting that the entire Louisville police department..."
I've been abundantly clear but I will say it one more time. I'm talking about oppressive systems. Racist systems. Broken systems. From the courthouse to the politicians who make the laws, to the police Chiefs who prioritize operations, to the police officers who are overtly racist to the police officers who are not intentionally racist but you are part of a racist, oppressive, broken system.
Let me say it again.
I'm talking about the systems that are in place.
And if you read that and understand me to say I'm talking about three police officers, stop.
Read it again.
I'm talking about systems. Systems. Systems.
I hope that helps you understand, but I'm dubious.
I realize that this will deeply offend you and your ego. But perhaps if you mean "systems" than you should say "systems". When you use other words that don't mean "systems" in place of "systems" then your own words sow confusion.
Of course, the problem with this retroactive switch (to be fair, you might well have THOUGHT that the word "police" really means 'systems", and that other people could read your mind.), is that if doesn't work in terms of the actual words your wrote.
"the "systems' didn't identify themselves", is an absolutely nonsensical statement. The statement only makes sense if you are referring to the three cops who you claim didn't ID themselves.
It's a valiant attempt to save face, but unsuccessful.
If you are going to keep referring to these "systems" as being "racist", I'm going to keep asking, in vain, for some objective proof.
But thank you for demonstrating the correctness of my point. You're so obsessed with trying to prove that you didn't say what you said that you're ignoring everything you bitch about wanting earlier. As well as hiding from the original questions in the original post.
I suspect that you're laying the groundwork for one of your usual dismounts before you get around to anything but picking this nit.
Good lord, just admit that you expressed yourself poorly, apologize, and move on.
I was looking at your other comments as was struck by this vindictive notion that even if the three cops committed no crime, that they should be punished. That you have no room for even entertaining the notion of the presumption of good faith in their actions. That you ascribe motives to their actions that you can't prove. That you are so devoid of grace for these guys, it's almost shocking.
Craig... "Of course, the problem with this retroactive switch (to be fair, you might well have THOUGHT that the word "police" really means 'systems", and that other people could read your mind.),.."
In one of my first comments after you brought up Breonna Taylor, I said...
"The oppressor is the police SYSTEM AND THE LEGAL which has systematically caused undue harm to black people and other people of color for well over two centuries and which continues to today."
As you can see if you read my words, I've been talking about systems all along. I did has Kelly leave off the system after legal, but I think it's clear. I'm sorry if you we're confused by that. But I've been talking about systems of Injustice all along.
NOW, do you understand?
Craig... "I was looking at your other comments as was struck by this vindictive notion that even if the three cops committed no crime, that they should be punished."
An innocent woman has been killed when her home was invaded by the police and they shot and killed her. That IS a crime. It may or may not be illegal that remains to be seen) but it IS a crime against humanity.
Innocent people should not be killed in their homes by the police. Slavery was once upon a time not a crime legally, but it was a crime against humanity. Do you agree?
Do you agree that what happened to the innocent Ms Taylor was a crime?
Do you recognize the tone deafness of dismissing her killing as not a crime?
I know Craig has moved on and begun another thread, I still want to address Dan's responses to my comments:
"Listen and understand: For the innocent person sitting in their bed at midnight, half-asleep, to hear shouting, banging and their door being broken down, for them, the ONLY word to describe that terrifying moment would be Invasion.
Where am I wrong?"
The assumption of innocence only goes one way in your mind apparently. In this case, those being served a warrant are suspects...a term that doesn't indicate either guilt or innocence because an investigation to determine such is ongoing. As to the term "invasion", it is not incumbent upon the perception of the suspects being served a warrant. It's a matter of objectively describing the situation as an outside observer. It is NOT an "invasion". It's a lawful entry. I don't discount the possible perception of the suspect. I don't consider the perception of the suspect. That's because WE are discussing the situation and as such we are obliged to be honest in our assessments and not inject personal emotion-fueled opinions in doing so.
"Again, this is part of the problem of such home invasions. No Knock warrants and home invasions are part and parcel of the racist systems that have oppressed black people over especially the last ~50 years."
WHAT "racist system"??? Be specific. Police serving a warrant of any kind, and acting on it, is NOT a "home invasion". It's a lawful police entry. Using terms like "home invasion" is a sinful distortion of reality, otherwise known as a purposeful lie.
Also, the lie that blacks are somehow more greatly victimized is just a perpetuation of the myth of the BLM morons. You have no stats or data to prove that white suspects aren't targets of such warrants and raids. Blacks are not "oppressed" because they're experiencing the consequences of their illegal activities and bad choices. And if they're doing so in disproportionate numbers, they are naturally targeted for police action in corresponding numbers.
"NONE of the neighbors support the police claim that they (the people who shot an innocent woman with their body cams turned off) announced themselves first."
Even if this is true, and neighbors are not simply lying to harm the cops (not saying they are) it still doesn't mean the cops didn't announce. Personally, if I was asleep and the cops were next door banging and shouting, I very easily could sleep through the whole thing and then would've testified truthfully that I didn't hear anything. Two months later, the single witness changed his story and said the cops announced. Why witnesses do or do not come forward has nothing to do with what they did or did not hear or see. Thus, to insist that because "most" said they heard nothing, that is not conclusive evidence that the cops didn't announce.
"The victim of this home invasion has testified that no announcement was made. The innocent murdered victim of this home invasion can't answer that because she's dead."
1. Not hearing doesn't guarantee no announcement.
2. No one was "murdered". Using that word is a lie...a willful, intentional lie.
3. It was not a "home invasion". It was a lawful entry in service of a legal warrant to enter and search. Using that term is a lie...a willful, intentional lie.
"Do you always trust the accused killers when they testify that they were behaving prior to killing an innocent person?"
Do you always assume the police are lying when they provide their side of the story?
"IF this was a black man protesting on the streets of Louisville who testified that the police fired into the crowd at him before he fired back, would you trust that testimony, if it was the only testimony?"
Is this supposed to be an honest attempt to justify your attack on these cops? If so, it's typical of your dishonesty. I'm only concerned with this case and what we've been told by the authorities after the investigation. Just like the race-hustling agitators, you completely reject the rule of law and the legal process because you prefer to believe a willful injustice was perpetrated. Don't ever talk about embracing grace again, you vile hypocrite!
"Get on the right side of history, morality and reason, boys."
You'd have to know what the right side of those things are before daring to suggest we're not already on it.
"I KNOW that you love to dismiss the word and opinion and testimony of black men and other oppressed people"...
You "know" very little, but you do love to project what you need to believe about those who won't toe the race-hustling line as you do. Here, you demand I do more than focus on the facts that can be proven, because you like to pretend you're down with the cause and a champion of the oppressed. You're a fraud.
"He is an innocent man."
I haven't accused him of anything other than making some bad choices in how he responded to the events that were unfolding. I don't even blame him for his choices, but simply acknowledge they were bad ones. His dead girlfriend is proof of that.
"His girlfriend was murdered in front of his eyes."
She was NOT murdered, and you're a liar for continually saying she was.
"He had no reason to shoot at police if he'd know they were police, since he's a law-abiding citizen."
Is he? How do you know? Do you know the guy? In the meantime, I haven't accused him of being a criminal. I also don't insist anything about his actions being illegal or intentionally criminal. So you can cram that crap back where you got it. I'm dealing only in facts here, not speculation unless specifically stated. You're doing the exact opposite...because you're a race-hustling liar.
"Trust black people and stop giving the benefit of the doubt to the people who killed an innocent woman."
It's not a matter of trust or of giving one side or the other the benefit of the doubt. I believe the entire matter was one of unfortunate circumstances for which I put no particular negative intent on either side. I've been really clear on that and you insist on pretending I'm taking sides. If focusing on the facts means I'm taking sides, then it means I'm on the side of facts and reason, whereas you're on the side of idiocy and race-hustling, and thus, lies.
"What the hell is wrong with you all? What EVIDENCE is there that he would lie?"
Are you really this stupid? (Rhetorical question that really doesn't go far enough in describing just how stupid you are.) It is because there's no evidence that I do not accuse Walker of wrongdoing. That doesn't mean his actions were particularly bright, but they were not on the surface particularly criminal. On the contrary, they were seemingly reasonable intended if not reasonably applied.
"To hell with you all demonizing innocent people you don't know shit about."
I'm not demonizing anyone, you asshat. That's what YOU'RE doing. You're demonizing me for focusing on the facts and rejecting your intentional race-hustling, and you're demonizing the cops who were there in performance of their legal action. I don't have to know anything about any of the characters of this situation, because I'm only dealing with the facts as they've been presented. The only person making unreasonable, irrational and unjust assumptions about others is YOU!
"The police released Kenneth Walker and dismissed all charges against him because he'd done nothing wrong."
He did nothing illegal. That's not the same as doing something wrong. His decision to fire upon whomever was coming through the door is what led to the death of his girlfriend. Thus, he was guilty of doing something wrong. However, I don't hold it against him given the immediacy of the situation. Like cops who are all too often in high stress situations were split seconds count, he made a decision that another might not have made. That decision turned out to be the wrong decision based on the outcome, not based on the intention. Based on his testimony, he felt he was protecting Taylor. He said he thought it might be Glover coming through the door. Why that would be a threat is not something that was questioned. Thus, I'm willing to simply leave it at the situation being the result of an unfortunate choice on his part.
"He and Ms Taylor were the victims of a racist and broken system."
Bullshit. That's just the typical assumption of an asshole who likes to perpetuate that myth. That's the typical assumption of a fake Christian for whom truth is not a requirement.
"Walker's charges were dismissed and the city paid Taylor's family a $12 million settlement, in effect admitting the wrong, even if it turns to out be barely legal."
Now this is something I will insist is unjust. How is the family of Taylor deserving of such a sum over what is no more than an accidental death? There was no intent to kill...certainly none to murder...and cops returning fire which claims a life of someone listed on a legal warrant does not amount to anything more. If Taylor had kids or family members whose lives depended upon her, I can see a big settlement being justified. But how do these particular family members suffer financially by her passing, other than expenses attached as with any other accidental death? To put it another way, at some point, some family members are no more suffering loss than would any friend. I'm not trying to minimize the anguish of family members, but if they're not dependent upon her living and providing for them, how are they entitled to what is YOUR money?
And here's another point...if the city shelled out that kind of scratch to whomever is considered her family, thus, as YOU say, admitting they were liable, how then is any outcry by race-hustlers rioting at all justified?
And also by the way, were you out on the street attempting to effect your non-violent crisis intervention?
"Marshall led with the baseless and inane suggestion that I don't know the facts of this case playing out in my hometown and then proceeded to demonstrate that he is the one unfamiliar with the case and prejudiced against innocent people in favor of their killers/assailants."
You're not dealing in facts. You're dealing in emotions and the perpetuation of race-hustling myths about the police. What's more, you're prejudiced against the cops, calling them assailants, killers and murderers. And you dare call yourself a Christian! Shameful!
"Marshall vomits all sorts of nonsense and support of racists and attacks on black people and other "thugs," as he appears to view them."
My gosh, you're such an inveterate, willful liar! I support no racists, nor do I support attacks on anyone of any race who is not deserving of being attacked. You're not among those people given your penchant for lying, race-hustling and disdain for law enforcement. What's more, those I referred to as "thugs" are actually thugs. I have never included Taylor among that group. The Floyds, Garners, Martins, Browns, Blakes, etc....these are all thugs because they have the rap sheets to prove it. I also refer to as thugs all those assholes who are rioting at the drop of a hat. They are actually worse than thugs because they exploit the deaths of thugs...brought about by their own actions when confronted by cops...to rob and destroy.
"A cop can't just shoot blindly until everyone in the vicinity is dead and on the floor."
Where did I ever suggest shooting blindly? Is there any point at which honesty has any value to you? I said return fire until the threat is eliminated. Where does "shoot blindly" come into play here?
"If you get all scared after busting into someone's home and start shooting blindly, you are not qualified to be a cop."
I love how assholes who have never been under fire can pretend how those who are must have no fear. What a dick!
"And I'm calling Bullshit if you would keep defending cops if it was YOUR loved one who was in their crossfire. Bullshit. Go ahead and say you'd defend the cops who slaughtered your innocent daughter. Say it... I'll wait..."
First of all, my daughters would not have associated with a criminal and thus would not be in the position Taylor found herself.
Secondly, unlike assholes like you, I would account for the facts before suggesting the cops acted improperly. I would assume nothing given the seriousness of the situation and would insist upon the facts more so than I am now BECAUSE it was a loved one killed. So call it bullshit if you like...as surely you do given your incredible level of dishonesty and hatefulness...it doesn't matter to me. I'm an adult. You're an asshat pushing a race-hustling narrative, which is extremely harmful to the black community.
"You would know instinctively that they were wrong."
What is suspected and what is known are two different things. I put aside suspicion and focus on facts. Also, wrong and mistaken are two different things. If my daughter died in a raid, there are two possibilities: she got herself involved (knowingly or otherwise) with the wrong people, or the cops made a mistake in showing up at her place. But if they showed up at her place, there'd be no reason for them to open fire as my daughter wouldn't give them any, nor would anyone with whom she associates.
"You're so full of shit and rage and defense of racism that your head is constipated."
Projection. Clear and obvious projection. Where's my rage? In insisting on facts? Really? That's "rage" to you? You're the racist because you insist on accusing me or the cops of racism anytime a black person is killed by a cop. You insist on accusing people of racism for rejecting the bullshit excuses given by certain black people for illegal and/or immoral behaviors. You're the racist because you enable that which has festered among too many black communities and excused that which could be resolved if only they'd do what is done by those who never encounter that to which they attribute racism. You're so sad and pathetic, but you're not compassionate, honest, and certainly not Christian. Repent.
Finally, as I go through Dan's other ridiculous and ignorant comments regarding how cops go about their jobs, it is clear that Dan continues to ignore the real problems that lead to incidents like the death of Taylor.
No-knock warrants serve a specific purpose. To ban the practice is idiotic. As idiotic as banning profiling. Cops need to use that which helps them do their job in enforcing the law and arresting the bad guys. Only idiots seek to eliminate useful tools cops use for that purpose. If a policy is poorly practiced, that doesn't make the policy bad, evil or worthy of elimination. Better training, or ongoing training and evaluation is essential...if departments aren't getting defunded by idiots like Dan.
But just as important...indeed, far more important than how cops do their jobs...is how people live their lives. No one can use their low income, their lack of both parents, the lack of jobs...none of these types of things...to rationalize bad behaviors. When those in the black community begin from a position that cops are going to be racist, the war is lost for the law abiding. Thugs will continue to thug and the innocent trying to live their lives as best they can will be under constant threat, and the struggling will be under constant temptation to give up the ghost and throw in with the thugs under the delusion that there's no other way.
This constant bullshit that "black voices aren't being heard" and so they riot and protest is just that...bullshit. Cut the crap and live right. Study, graduate, find a job, marry, THEN have children. Stop making excuses for how hard life is, as if life isn't hard for the vast majority of people of all races. I'm so sick of pasty white faux-Christian lefties enabling bad behavior under the pretense of oppression and marginalization. Such people don't really care. The only care about appearing to care.
"As you can see if you read my words, I've been talking about systems all along."
As you can see by reading the words I quoted, you've talked about the three cops quite a lot. I realize that acknowledging the reality I demonstrated will require some humility and acknowledgement that you communicated poorly, but humility is supposed to be good for you.
"An innocent woman has been killed when her home was invaded by the police and they shot and killed her. That IS a crime. It may or may not be illegal that remains to be seen) but it IS a crime against humanity."
Since Taylor was shot. Hundreds of blacks have been shot and killed on a regular basis, yet you are silent about that. I do love your semantic games though. If Dan says it's a crime, then it's a crime.
"Innocent people should not be killed in their homes by the police. Slavery was once upon a time not a crime legally, but it was a crime against humanity. Do you agree?"
Innocent people should not be killed. Slavery was legal, now it's not. This post isn't about slavery.
"Do you agree that what happened to the innocent Ms Taylor was a crime?"
If by crime, you mean something other than a violation of the law, then you're free to hold that opinion. It's just not on topic here and one more attempt at diverting things from the topic.
"Do you recognize the tone deafness of dismissing her killing as not a crime?"
Do you realize that prejudging people is wrong, and this is not on topic?
Dan,
You've managed to take a post where the topic is allowing ourselves to set aside our idols and our preconceptions where those things get in the way of what God has for us, and turn it into a referendum over you demanding that I agree with you on a semantic issue.
I'm wondering of there might be something in this exchange that can be learned, so lesson about where our focus is and what our priorities are.
"Do you agree that what happened to the innocent Ms Taylor was a crime?"
Not at all. I agree that those who do say it's a crime have no real understanding of either crime or justice. What happened to Taylor is a tragic mistake and a horrible shame, but not a crime.
"Do you recognize the tone deafness of dismissing her killing as not a crime?"
I recognize the moral corruption of someone regarding as "tone deafness" acknowledging Taylor's death was not the result of any crime on the part of the cops involved.
Clearly, it’s not a crime according to the laws of KY.
Post a Comment