https://youtu.be/9PzlPjyMk5g?t=1m14s
What in the world makes this cop think he can demand that someone who makes him uncomfortable leave a public sidewalk? If he’s such a sissy that a guy with his hand in his pocket makes him so scared, he should leave the area. Who is he to boss another human being around?
If officer safety or fear is a valid reason to search people, they can just claim fear anytime they want and do whatever they want to anyone.
If these people comply with the law and don’t infringe people’s rights, they won’t have to pay out on lawsuits. This shows the warped thinking of the Marxists teaching thousands of school kids.
Take your kids out of public school!
In case you don’t remember, Eric Garner was choked to death when he was resisting arrest. He had the audacity to buy cigarettes wholesale and sell them retail. This type of lawless free-market capitalism that tries to go without submitting to the proper government permitting, laws and taxation cannot be allowed.
Mr. Garner didn’t submit to his arrest by the fine, upstanding law men of the NYPD and they had no choice but to choke him to death.
Jerry Seinfeld, the famous comedian similarly tried to help his children run their lemonade stand. Like Garner, Seinfeld didn’t seek the proper permits and licenses. Personally, I’m shocked that Seinfeld didn’t have his larynx crushed until he was lifeless like Garner. Comrades, we must crush unfettered capitalism!
I say all the previous sarcastically. It almost makes me cry to see Garner choked to death. He was murdered. The cops who murdered him should be executed. He should have the right to sell loose cigarettes. And Seinfeld should be able to set up a lemonade stand without government harassment. What we have in this country is outright fascism.
I’m not insinuating that Seinfeld wasn’t choked to death because he’s famous or white. I’m sure he did exactly as the officers said to do. If you do exactly what they say, their egos are stroked; their power trip is a comfortable one, and they will certainly let you live. But the only one Christians are supposed to obey unquestioningly is Christ. We don’t always get the luxury of living a peaceful life.
Garner would still be alive if he had done what the officers said to do. But his attempted arrest was unjust and evil. He will stand before God having not sinned in selling loose cigarettes or resisting his attempted kidnapping. I’m not saying it was wise, and maybe there was some bad luck that he died (though I don’t believe in luck), but the police were enforcing unjust laws, because that’s what cops do.
What makes these cops think they can abuse and harass people like this? Maybe it’s the chief of police standing there watching and approving of what they’re doing.
In the second scenario, according to God’s Law, the activist is guilty of murder.
Here’s why, copied from this article that you ought to read in its entirety.
The Difference Between Murder and Homicide
“Now, some say today, “murder” is a strong word. Let’s say they were “homicides,” may be as a result of the use of excessive force, but not necessarily driven by malice or criminal intent. This claim is based on lack of understanding of the Biblical Law. But does the Biblical Law actually speak of the difference between murder and homicide?’
“Yes, it does. A special section in the Law speaks about that difference: Numbers 35:15-28. The first part, vv. 15-21, explains the case for murder:’
These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien and for the sojourner among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there. But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. If he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which he will die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Or if he struck him with a wooden object in the hand, by which he might die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. The blood avenger himself shall put the murderer to death; he shall put him to death when he meets him. If he pushed him of hatred, or threw something at him lying in wait and as a result he died, or if he struck him down with his hand in enmity, and as a result he died, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
“The second part explains the case for unintentional homicide:”
But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or threw something at him without lying in wait, or with any deadly object of stone, and without seeing it dropped on him so that he died, while he was not his enemy nor seeking his injury, then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the blood avenger according to these ordinances. The congregation shall deliver the manslayer from the hand of the blood avenger, and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge to which he fled; and he shall live in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.
“Obviously, the distinction between homicide and murder is in the intention of the killer. But how can we read the mind of a person to know the intention? Since we can’t read minds, the Law gives the solution: Look at what’s in the hand of the killer, and how it is used. If it’s a weapon specifically designed to kill (an iron object), the killer must be clearly tried for murder – I say “must be tried,” because there is still a special case of lawful use of weapons which will be examined below. If the weapon was not specifically designed to kill (stone or wood object), but the movements of the killer’s hand showed intention to strike, then he must be tried for murder, again, allowing for the special case of lawful use of weapons. It’s that simple.”
So, in the second scenario in the video, the activist was guilty of murder under God’s law. If a cop did such a thing, and many have, (many examples having been posted on Youtube) , they take a few paid days off while it is investigated, and are almost always found to be justified and put back on duty. The guy will go the rest of his life thinking he was justified, while in God’s sight, he’s guilty of murder.
Now, the question of whether that takes him to hell can never be answered specifically by us. It’s a case by case basis. Even a murderer commits many other sins that are adequate to take him to hell. And if the murderer cop is not a Christian and never becomes a Christian, you could always say that he should have sought Christ for the forgiveness of his lying, even if he didn’t think he was guilty of murder.
But how can adding such a serious sin to his account help the guy? I don’t think the Bible gets too specific on the punishment for specific sins, but I shudder to think the harm that having unbiblical laws in this country is having on the souls of men.
For the Christian cop who commits murder and gets away with it civilly, his past, present, and future sins are forgiven. His intentional sins are forgiven, and the sins he commits out of ignorance are forgiven. Because Jesus’ blood is of infinite value, and He took all the sins of the elect on the cross. But Christians need to start thinking more clearly on this. This is a big deal.
Then, there is the doctrine of bloodguilt, where if murderers habitually go unpunished in a society, the ground is going to cry out for justice. And we will all suffer for the murder of babies and the murders that aren’t brought to justice because of the unjust laws of our government.
Here’s more about the doctrine of bloodguilt.
The Old Testament civil law is not unjust. According to the New Testament, it is just (Hebrews 2:2, 1 Tim. 1:8-11). But some Christians say it is unjust.
They trot out some laws they don’t like, and say they’re bad laws. I’ll admit some of the laws definitely seem foreign to us. But, rejecting them leads to some self-contradictions.
God gave the Jews the moral law, and almost all Christians believe it is sill binding on us today. The civil law, which some Christians dispute as to whether it still applies, is certainly consistent with the moral law. Bible-believing Christians can’t believe there are contradictions between the moral and civil law.
Since the moral law still applies today, you can’t say the civil law is unjust. That would mean there would be a contradiction between the moral and civil law. You have to believe that the civil law is just, even if you believe there are some range of laws that are now just. You can’t exclude the civil law from your range of just laws, or say it’s unjust, or point out laws you think are unjust.
If you think there are unjust civil laws, you’re saying there is a contradiction between the civil and moral law.
The truth is that the civil laws are the case laws of the moral law. They can’t contradict the moral law.
When you adopt an unbiblical idea, it inevitably leads to contradictions in your thinking.
Here Shepard Smith is complaining about how Christians want preference over Islam, and want special treatment.
Of course, he would argue that government should give no preference to any religion. But that just isn’t possible. Every country must have laws. Laws are based on morality and morality is based on religion. Our government is based on religion whether we acknowledge it or not.
Murder is illegal, and whatever reason you give for that, ultimately leads back to your religion. As a Christian, murder is wrong and ought to be punished by death, because that’s what the Bible says.
An atheist might say murder ought to be punished by the government, because that will minimize murder in our society and lead to more human flourishing. I agree with what is said there, but I would ask why does an atheist want humans to flourish? Desiring human flourishing is a religious belief that they believe without reason. It is their blind faith, and I’ve had that conversation with dozens of them.
A Muslim gives his Muslim answer to the question and a Buddhist gives his Buddhist answer and a nice, well-meaning person gives their religious answer. I’m not accusing any of them of desiring murder, but I’m just pointing out that everyone has a religious answer to the question.
To pretend that government is secular is to deny the obvious. Government is one of the most religious institutions ever devised.
And not only is morality religious, but so is science, logic, knowledge, truth and many other things. You can’t write a sentence without making religious presuppositions.
Therefore, it is silly to go on pretending that government can be neutral. We need to quit playing games and decide what religion the government ought to operate under. Whose morality we are going to use? Let’s just be open and honest about it. If decisions are made by a majority vote, then the people are the god of our system.
I’m a Christian, and Christianity is the only worldview that doesn’t lead to self-contradictions and absurdity. I advocate Christianity to be the basis for our government. It was the basis in the past, and it leads to truth, freedom and prosperity. At this point, this country is running on the fumes of the Christian worldview our forefathers left us. Our only hope is to return to that. It needs to be openly acknowledged in the Constitution and that is one of the errors the framers made.
Imagine the most evil U.S. Senator you can think of. I imagine Harry Reid, but there are plenty to choose from. He’s voted for some pretty sick things in his day, but he’s never actually gone out trying to enforce any of the laws he’s put in place.
Dingy Harry has probably never carried a gun, much less shot anyone. He’s never swung a night stick at anyone or thrown anyone in the back of a squad car and taken them down for booking. That’s not his thing. He needs men who carry guns on their hips, willing to do what they’re told, and willing to enforce whatever law is dreamed up, without asking questions.
The same thing goes for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She has a pretty high opinion of herself, thinking that the definition of marriage has been left to her and her peers. But nevertheless, that little old lady won’t be visiting any county clerks brandishing a weapon willing even to kill those who may resist her authority. She has never lacked for men to do whatever wicked thing they’re told to do. It seems even Christian cops do what they’re told.
The Bill of Rights was written in part to protect us from cops. The Fourth Amendment protects us from warrantless searches. Harry and Ruth don’t search people’s property. The Fifth Amendment protects us from having to talk to the cops. Harry and Ruth don’t interrogate people.
The truth is that the argument about what percentage of good cops vs bad cops is that they can only be as good as the laws they enforce. If they enforce unjust laws, they aren’t good cops. If they enforce good laws, and constrain each other to the law, they are good cops. There could be an extra good one or an extra bad one here or there, but on average, they’re only as good as the laws they enforce.
The laws in this country are the pagan laws of a nation under God’s judgment. The cops enforce unjust laws in an unbiblical and un-Constitutional way. Maybe there is a good cop whose particular job doesn’t require him to enforce an unjust law. I don’t know, and can’t think of an example, but I have to leave the possibility open.
I’ll be open to discussing whether there are any good cops when there are hundreds of examples of cops disobeying evil judges and refusing to enforce unjust laws. Until then, they are only as good as the laws they enforce.
This cop is evil for stealing money. But I suspect he may also be mildly retarded.