George Floyd/Protests/Peace/Riots/Chaos

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,099
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
1,931
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
1,931
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
1,183
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
10,099
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.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,099
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 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.
Did god give you the right to murder? Did that commandment list exceptions to when murder is forbidden? That’s really all you should be asking yourself. The rest is just nonsense you continuously add in to try to confuse conversations.

my own personal morals are pretty clear.. don’t kill people. Saying this does not mean I’m saying people should be allowed to go rob and steal and loot and blah blah with no consequence. Just that the consequence isn’t vigilante murder. Not by the hands of citizens and not by the hands of cops. We have prisons for a reason.

edit: I never once expressed disagreement with laws that allow for use of deadly force against a deadly threat. If you murder my daughter you committed a capital crime. Capital crimes qualify for capital punishment. Try to twist that into something else if you want.. had I say steal my daughters snack pack we’d be having an entirely different conversation which you’d be absolutely correct to have. But I didn’t. Quite frankly it seems you want conservatives (and cops and politicians of a conservative bent) to be able to do whatever they want and cry about law and order only when it suits you.
 






Last edited:
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,931
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.
The reality is that people do not feel the current laws can maintain society in balance. If tens of thousands had their businesses destroyed and the law did nothing to protect them, there needs to be new laws so that order, justice can be maintained. People are going to want that and new laws should address that. You cant have a society where people can destroy the livelihoods of others for revenge when those people did nothing wrong and have nothing to do with some cop (probably) defending himself or the media just showing a guy overdosing on fentanyl like George and telling people it was murder
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,099
The reality is that people do not feel the current laws can maintain society in balance. If tens of thousands had their businesses destroyed and the law did nothing to protect them, there needs to be new laws so that order, justice can be maintained. People are going to want that and new laws should address that. You cant have a society where people can destroy the livelihoods of others for revenge when those people did nothing wrong and have nothing to do with some cop (probably) defending himself or the media just showing a guy overdosing on fentanyl like George and telling people it was murder
You can’t claim to have an issue with lawlessness while promoting lawlessness as a solution to it. It doesn’t work like that. Either stand by the law system we have, argue to improve it, or argue for vigilante justice.. I’m going with number 2. Number three is pretty mutually exclusive. It won’t solve anything it will just create more zimmermans.
 






Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
1,931
You can’t claim to have an issue with lawlessness while promoting lawlessness as a solution to it. It doesn’t work like that. Either stand by the law system we have, argue to improve it, or argue for vigilante justice.. I’m going with number 2. Number three is pretty mutually exclusive. It won’t solve anything it will just create more zimmermans.
Fair, but these people can’t continue to destroy and then get upset that there are consequences. Making new laws to protect people from mobs is a pretty natural and logical continuation when lawlessness is abounding.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,099
Fair, but these people can’t continue to destroy and then get upset that there are consequences. Making new laws to protect people from mobs is a pretty natural and logical continuation when lawlessness is abounding.
Making new laws maybe. Making new laws that allow a get out of jail free card for murdering someone who didn’t commit a capital crime... that’s something different. I doubt this will pass.
 






Lurking009

Star
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
1,183
Did god give you the right to murder? Did that commandment list exceptions to when murder is forbidden? That’s really all you should be asking yourself. The rest is just nonsense you continuously add in to try to confuse conversations.
1. What part of the Biblical response was nonsense, in particular Romans 13:1-5? Please explain.

2. Why are you equating killing with murdering when these are two different things? As someone who claims to work with law enforcement, how can you not know or understand this?

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Kill: cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

The commandment is 'You shall not murder'. Murder is a sin and against God's law as well as civil law. Killing in self-defense is not murder, it's not against the law, and it's not a sin. Depending on state laws, killing while defending property or during a robbery is not against the law, either. Makes sense because the victim has no idea what the intentions of the criminal are. Could be a robbery, could be murder.

It goes right back to the Bible: Obey the law and authorities - or face the consequences. That's reality. Your views about the Bible are very much wrong and confused. You were also completely wrong about the law not allowing for deadly force when protecting one's property. State laws differ, but many allow it.

my own personal morals are pretty clear.. don’t kill people. Saying this does not mean I’m saying people should be allowed to go rob and steal and loot and blah blah with no consequence.

edit: I never once expressed disagreement with laws that allow for use of deadly force against a deadly threat. If you murder my daughter you committed a capital crime. Capital crimes qualify for capital punishment. Try to twist that into something else if you want.. had I say steal my daughters snack pack we’d be having an entirely different conversation which you’d be absolutely correct to have. But I didn’t. Quite frankly it seems you want conservatives (and cops and politicians of a conservative bent) to be able to do whatever they want and cry about law and order only when it suits you.
lol... I didn't twist anything. This is also you when pushed to explain your earlier statement [#2,277]:

"Stop acting offended over people taking justice against violent criminals into their own hands while full heartedly supporting police executing death sentences over non violent summary offenses."

You are all for vigilante vengeance when it comes to your own.
 






justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
10,099
1. What part of the Biblical response was nonsense, in particular Romans 13:1-5? Please explain.

2. Why are you equating killing with murdering when these are two different things? As someone who claims to work with law enforcement, how can you not know or understand this?

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Kill: cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

The commandment is 'You shall not murder'. Murder is a sin and against God's law as well as civil law. Killing in self-defense is not murder, it's not against the law, and it's not a sin. Depending on state laws, killing while defending property or during a robbery is not against the law, either. Makes sense because the victim has no idea what the intentions of the criminal are. Could be a robbery, could be murder.

It goes right back to the Bible: Obey the law and authorities - or face the consequences. That's reality. Your views about the Bible are very much wrong and confused. You were also completely wrong about the law not allowing for deadly force when protecting one's property. State laws differ, but many allow it.



lol... I didn't twist anything. This is also you when pushed to explain your earlier statement [#2,277]:

"Stop acting offended over people taking justice against violent criminals into their own hands while full heartedly supporting police executing death sentences over non violent summary offenses."

You are all for vigilante vengeance when it comes to your own.
Your entire response was nonsense. Thou shalt not kill. Not thou shalt not kill unless xyz. I read the Bible. God didn’t give us that power. There are plenty of religious ant capital punishment activists because of this.

Clearly Florida’s law didn’t allow it. If it did we wouldn’t be having this discussion because there would be no reason to write a new law. I don’t agree with laws that allow for killing to protect property. Just like I don’t agree that land votes or corporations are people. You conservatives believe a whole lot of things which require way too many mental gymnastics for me.

I absolutely did not say I’d kill someone if they stole from me. I specifically said if they killed my kid. You clutched you’re pearls about it... yet your okay with me killing someone for stealing my shoes? Gtfoh and grow a moral backbone and some consistency.

are you keeping files on posters now? Seems very chassidy like of you. Seems very manipulative, calculating, and premeditated as well. Excuse me while I go back to skipping over your posts, you aren’t worth the time.

in conclusion for anyone else reading: yes I’d kill someone if they hurt my kids. I am not ashamed to say that. No I don’t think anyone should steal, I also don’t think the punishment for doing so should be death - whether the death sentence is handed out by a cop, a court, or a vigilante citizen. Life > stuff.
 






Lurking009

Star
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
1,183
Your entire response was nonsense. Thou shalt not kill. Not thou shalt not kill unless xyz. I read the Bible. God didn’t give us that power. There are plenty of religious ant capital punishment activists because of this.
You claim my response was nonsense but you won't address the scripture posted, either. You decided to make the initial argument that God has a sliding scale when it comes to crime. So again, where is that in Romans 13:1-5? Where is that in the 10 commandments?

Clearly Florida’s law didn’t allow it. If it did we wouldn’t be having this discussion because there would be no reason to write a new law. I don’t agree with laws that allow for killing to protect property. Just like I don’t agree that land votes or corporations are people. You conservatives believe a whole lot of things which require way too many mental gymnastics for me.

I absolutely did not say I’d kill someone if they stole from me. I specifically said if they killed my kid. You clutched you’re pearls about it... yet your okay with me killing someone for stealing my shoes? Gtfoh and grow a moral backbone and some consistency.
I never said you would kill for stealing. What you did say is that you would take 'justice' into your own hands in the case of someone murdering your own - murder for murder. That is completely different from someone killing due to self-defense.

are you keeping files on posters now? Seems very chassidy like of you. Seems very manipulative, calculating, and premeditated as well. Excuse me while I go back to skipping over your posts, you aren’t worth the time.
There's nothing wrong with bringing up past posts which are relevant to a discussion, especially when they're in the same thread. If you can't handle or support your own statements, whether past or present, then once again, forums are probably not for you.

Your predictable pattern is to accuse people of being someone else and threaten to report them when the discussion doesn't go your way. How many times have we seen this now? No, it doesn't help your argument, and no, it's not going to distract or derail me.
 






Top