George Floyd/Protests/Peace/Riots/Chaos

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,055
:rolleyes:
When I hear of violent career criminals being killed by the police or ordinary citizens I say "yippee!" because the world is a better place without the useless dregs..:)

"Ungodly...These men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed.." (Bible: 2 Peter 2:12)

How very WWJD of you :rolleyes:
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,544
How very WWJD of you :rolleyes:


If that means 'What Would Jesus Do', here's what he calls everybody who rejects him-
"dogs, pigs. " (Matt 7:6)
"weeds" (Matt 13:38 )


and elsewhere the bible puts the boot in too-
"heathens" (Jeremiah 10:2)
"fools" (Psalm 94:8 )
"liars" (1 John 2:22/23)
"defiled" (Titus 1:15)

"filthy" (Revelation 22:11)

Gettit? Jesus and God are not mushbrained lefty atheist social workers..:)

 






Last edited:

Lurking009

Star
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
1,260
So your fine with extra judicial death penalties for non capital crimes? Point one of what you agree with..: that’s what it boils down to.

I’m sorry... this is pretty unacceptable. This is bringing us back to the Wild West. The Wild West was the definition of lawlessness.
This was you, post #2,231:

"If you murdered my daughter you wouldn’t have got a chance to see prison bars."

You made it very clear that if someone murdered one of yours, you would seek vigilante justice AFTER the crime was committed and after the courts had decided. That is straight up murder and lawlessness - the wild west, as you called it. Once a criminal is caught, judgment and punishment should be left up to courts. That's the law.

DURING a home, business, or car invasion, people have the right to protect themselves WHILE they or their property are being attacked. That is also the law.

Bottom line, which you just don't seem to get - or you get it but disagree with it: Criminals CHOOSE to commit crimes. No one forces them to do this. If they want to avoid consequences such as jail or being killed while attacking others, they can easily avoid it by not committing crimes. Pretty simple concept for most people.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,055
If that means 'What Would Jesus Do', here's what he calls everybody who rejects him-
"dogs, pigs. " (Matt 7:6)
"weeds" (Matt 13:38 )


and elsewhere the bible puts the boot in too-
"heathens" (Jeremiah 10:2)
"fools" (Psalm 94:8 )
"liars" (1 John 2:22/23)
"defiled" (Titus 1:15)

"filthy" (Revelation 22:11)

Gettit? Jesus and God are not mushbrained lefty atheist social workers..:)

God didn’t give the power of life and death to YOU. The restrictions against murder are one of the commandments last time I checked.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,055
This was you, post #2,231:

"If you murdered my daughter you wouldn’t have got a chance to see prison bars."

You made it very clear that if someone murdered one of yours, you would seek vigilante justice AFTER the crime was committed and after the courts had decided. That is straight up murder and lawlessness - the wild west, as you called it. Once a criminal is caught, judgment and punishment should be left up to courts. That's the law.

DURING a home, business, or car invasion, people have the right to protect themselves WHILE they or their property are being attacked. That is also the law.

Bottom line, which you just don't seem to get - or you get it but disagree with it: Criminals CHOOSE to commit crimes. No one forces them to do this. If they want to avoid consequences such as jail or being killed while attacking others, they can easily avoid it by not committing crimes. Pretty simple concept for most people.
Murder. Murder is a capital crime. Rioting, looting, stealing... are not. Do you not see the difference? And if I recall you acted very pearl clutchy about me making that statement. And no, I did not say after they were arrested and put in jail. “You wouldn’t have a chance” should have made that clear.

the law has never allowed for deadly force against anything other than capital crime or the fear and proven threat of the commission of a capital crime. You are in agreement with a law that would dramatically expand this to include someone stealing a skittle from you. That is lawlessness and quite frankly I can’t see how you reconcile that with your holy book or professed disgust of lawlessness.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,544
Murder. Murder is a capital crime. Rioting, looting, stealing... are not. Do you not see the difference?..

By looting, rioting stealing etc, criminals are showing they don't deserve to live among decent law-abiding people, so if they get plugged they can plead their case to Jesus when they meet him..:)

 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,544
..the law has never allowed for deadly force against anything other than capital crime or the fear and proven threat of the commission of a capital crime. You are in agreement with a law that would dramatically expand this to include someone stealing a skittle from you..

Yup..:)
If somebody points a gun at us and says "Gimme your bag of popcorn" we can legally shoot him because he's got a gun..:)
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,055
By looting, rioting stealing etc, criminals are showing they don't deserve to live among decent law-abiding people, so if they get plugged they can plead their case to Jesus when they meet him..:)

So you pick and choose which commandments are worth following?
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,544
God didn’t give the power of life and death to YOU. The restrictions against murder are one of the commandments last time I checked.

Yes, cold-blooded murder is a no-no, but if somebody came at your daughter with a knife or gun I'm sure you'd be justified in blowing his head off..:)
Some cults like the JW's sit out every war, but if everybody thought like them the nazis would be running half the world by now, and the japs the other half.




 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,544
So you pick and choose which commandments are worth following?

No offence sweetheart, but if you're happy to let characters like these break into your house and mess with your daughter without defending her by gunning them down, some people might accuse you of bad parenting..;)

"Hey guys I'm bored, I hear there's a little lady lives down the road, let's pay her a little visit"..
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,221
Murder. Murder is a capital crime. Rioting, looting, stealing... are not. Do you not see the difference? And if I recall you acted very pearl clutchy about me making that statement. And no, I did not say after they were arrested and put in jail. “You wouldn’t have a chance” should have made that clear.

the law has never allowed for deadly force against anything other than capital crime or the fear and proven threat of the commission of a capital crime. You are in agreement with a law that would dramatically expand this to include someone stealing a skittle from you. That is lawlessness and quite frankly I can’t see how you reconcile that with your holy book or professed disgust of lawlessness.
Why should people have the right to loot stores without being shot? Literally a one step process to not be shot, don’t loot stores.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,055
Why should people have the right to loot stores without being shot? Literally a one step process to not be shot, don’t loot stores.
Read the actual language of the bill.

so you believe in capital punishment and vigilante justice for non capital crimes? I don’t really think that’s what you want to say, but that is exactly what your saying.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,055
Yup..:)
If somebody points a gun at us and says "Gimme your bag of popcorn" we can legally shoot him because he's got a gun..:)
Pointing a gun at you is different then what this bill says. It always has been. Pointing a gun at you poses a credible risk to your life - you have always been allowed to use deadly force against a credible risk to your life.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,221
So they’re not letting protestors block the roads anymore, and drivers probably need protection against then situations where the protestors are trying to swarm their cars, open the doors, pull them out and beat them to half to death as we’ve seen provably a dozen times in this thread, they need protection to be able to hit those people with their car if they’re trying to get away. Also I’m pretty sure in Florida you are already able to shoot people for breaking into your store no? Regardless, there needs to be new laws, now that any time the rumour of a police officer shooting someone, true or not, justified or not, sets communities to start looting and burning stores en masse, yeah business owners need protection against that.
blocking roads to protest and destroying random peoples stores to protest are criminal, I’m sure people can find new ways to protest if those are gone
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,055
So they’re not letting protestors block the roads anymore, and drivers probably need protection against then situations where the protestors are trying to swarm their cars, open the doors, pull them out and beat them to half to death as we’ve seen provably a dozen times in this thread, they need protection to be able to hit those people with their car if they’re trying to get away. Also I’m pretty sure in Florida you are already able to shoot people for breaking into your store no? Regardless, there needs to be new laws, now that any time the rumour of a police officer shooting someone, true or not, justified or not, sets communities to start looting and burning stores en masse, yeah business owners need protection against that.
blocking roads to protest and destroying random peoples stores to protest are criminal, I’m sure people can find new ways to protest if those are gone
So... picture this. Your crossing the street within 500ft of a riot or protest that you aren’t involved in and someone commits vehicular homicide by running you down as you make your way across. That is now justified. Someone steals a pack of gum from a store, store owner shoots them dead. Now justified. Store owner suspects person stole a pack of gum from the store when they actually didn’t, store owner shoots them dead.. now justified.

I don’t see how passing laws to make us more lawless is going to solve the problem of lawlessness. Use of deadly force against a deadly threat.. makes sense. Use of deadly force against anything less then that does not.We have a process to use against people who commit property crimes. There is a reason property crimes don’t qualify for capital sentences. But I guess we can just throw all that out the window cuz we got our feelings hurt people are demanding police are held accountable to the same justice system the rest of us are??
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,221
Well i haven’t read the bill there was only two quotes in the article but I’m sure that getting shot for stealing a pack of gum will not be justified, it’s like how in Florida you are allowed to shoot people who you perceive as an immediate threat, and there are lots of people in jail for shooting someone and not being able to prove that person was a threat to them.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
2,221
You might’ve heard of this case

guy arguing with a woman in her car in a parking lot, woman’s boyfriend comes out and pushes the guy to the ground from behind. Guy turns and shoots the man from the ground one second later. But because the man had taken a step back, he couldn’t be said to be an immediate threat to further injury, the shooting was just revenge for him pushing him down,. So he got 20 years in prison
 






Lurking009

Star
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
1,260
Murder. Murder is a capital crime. Rioting, looting, stealing... are not. Do you not see the difference? And if I recall you acted very pearl clutchy about me making that statement. And no, I did not say after they were arrested and put in jail. “You wouldn’t have a chance” should have made that clear.

the law has never allowed for deadly force against anything other than capital crime or the fear and proven threat of the commission of a capital crime. You are in agreement with a law that would dramatically expand this to include someone stealing a skittle from you. That is lawlessness and quite frankly I can’t see how you reconcile that with your holy book or professed disgust of lawlessness.
So, if someone's home or business is being attacked, they should ask the criminal if they intend to kill, r*pe, kidnap, or torture them and their family members first before defending themselves. That's awesome, and I'm sure you would do the same if your home was being invaded.

Regarding laws allowing lethal defense of property - you're wrong. States vary, but it is legal in many states:

"A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against a threat of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, r*pe, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present.[1] Stand-your-ground laws cannot be invoked by someone who is the initial aggressor, or who is otherwise engaged in criminal activity.

  • 35 states are stand-your-ground states, 27 by statutes providing "that there is no duty to retreat an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present": Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,[5] Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming; Puerto Rico is also stand-your-ground.[6][7] Of these, at least ten include "may stand his or her ground" language (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.)[7] Pennsylvania limits the no-duty-to-retreat principle to situations where the defender is resisting attack with a deadly weapon.
  • The remaining 8 of the 35 stand-your-ground states[8] have case law/precedent or jury instructions so providing: California,[9][10] Colorado,[11][12] Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont,[13] Virginia,[14] and Washington; the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands also falls within this category."

Regarding the Bible: Jesus Christ Himself expects people to obey the law of whatever nation they're in, or suffer the consequences, including death. Jesus does not support lawlessness, and He doesn't consider theft 'ok' as long as it's not murder. If you want to drag the Bible into this, that's fine but at least know what it actually says. Read the following very carefully -

Rom 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

The 10 Commandments also clearly state you shall not steal right along with you shall not murder:

Ex 20:3 You shall have no other gods before me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
7 You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
12 Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13 You shall not murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Show us where in the 10 commandments theft is less than murder. I'll wait. Loving God and loving your neighbor MEANS not murdering, not stealing, not coveting, etc. Christians are to obey the 10 Commandments and the civil laws of whatever nation/country they're in.

Regarding your post #2,231 and posts after that: You're backpeddling... again. You said what you said, remember? It's all there. What you suggested was lawless murder, end of. It's pretty clear you believe yourself to be above the law while everyone else must cower in fear and not defend themselves against criminals.
 






Last edited:

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,055
Well i haven’t read the bill there was only two quotes in the article but I’m sure that getting shot for stealing a pack of gum will not be justified, it’s like how in Florida you are allowed to shoot people who you perceive as an immediate threat, and there are lots of people in jail for shooting someone and not being able to prove that person was a threat to them.
This is Florida, and your correct those protections were built into the previous law. This bill looks to take those protections out of the previous law and expand justifiable situations to include property crimes. That’s the problem. Obviously if your life and well being is in jeopardy you should be able to protect yourself.. that was already allowed by law. There is no reason to write a new law to allow for only that.
 






Top