This is awesome information from a super theonomist. We as Americans have set up all these situations where it’s OK for cops or sometimes individuals to kill people. But do our laws line up with God’s law?

This is the article that was the article that was being referred to earlier in the coversation.

Here’s a couple paragraphs to whet your appetite for the beauty of God’s law.

Bojidar Marinov:

I believe that Brown was justified from the very beginning, and Biblically he would be innocent if he had killed Wilson. Wilson was the aggressor from the very beginning, and killing him was a legitimate self-defense.

When you have an aggressor with his weapon pointing at other people, killing that aggressor doesn’t incur bloodguiltiness. Not being guilty for blood when you kill someone is the same as innocent.

Skip down a few comments to the tender, beautiful, juicy meat.

Brown would have been innocent for the specific encounter with Wilson. The other case, the supposed “theft”, was not proven, and Wilson had no right to try to arrest Brown on suspicion.

The concept of “arrest on suspicion” – and the related concept of “suspect” – are anti-Biblical. There is no law in the Bible that allows any act of violence except for direct defense or self-defense (and that under severe limitations) or under court orders. By the Biblical Law, Wilson was an aggressor. His drawing his gun to shoot at a fleeing unarmed person made him an aggressor who could be killed on the spot. Brown’s charging was justified, then.

By the way, American jurisprudence – at least in theory – is much closer to the Biblical Law on this issue and – at least in theory – doesn’t allow for “executive arrest” (that is, arrest not on court’s orders), and neither does it recognize the concept of “suspect.” Both executive arrest and designating people as “suspects” is a new development, of the last 20-30 years, and is a direct violation of the very principle behind American Law. In this, modern police is fundamentally illegal, for it has appropriated prerogatives that are not given to it by law. Therefore, while not always wise, resisting cops is always legal.

Just about 50 years ago, police could arrest people only on a court warrant, or when directly involved in a crime scene. No cop could arrest anyone on suspicion only, or for “resisting arrest.” If Wilson believed Brown was the thief, he should have followed him, get his name, and then procure an arrest warrant from the court.

So, yes, Wilson had no legal right to try to arrest Brown, and Brown would have been innocent if he killed Wilson. On the other issue, stealing the cigarettes, there we should have had a trial. We never had that. So he is innocent, as far as civil courts go. Before God, it’s another matter.

And to polish off the meal with a delicious desert:

As a common usage with the police, “suspect” was a leftover from the Jim Crow period in the American South. The full term originally was “suspect race” and applied to blacks. It was not defined legally – by the American jurisprudence, there is no such thing as a “suspect”: a person is either “defendant” in court (or “perpetrator”) or “innocent” (that is, free and immune against arrest). The police in the Southern United States during the segregation period used the term “suspect race” for the same reason as it is used to day: to arrest blacks for no reason whatsoever, just to instill terror and insecurity in them and thus keep them under control. After the end of the segregation, the cops just picked up the term and continued using it anyway.

Another term that is being used in a more formal way is “person of interest.” It means the same as “suspect,” and again, it has no legal definition. It was used first against Vietnam-era war-protesters, civil rights leaders, etc. No lesser person than the Attorney General of the US John Ashcroft used the term officially and then had to apologize for it and admit that the law had no legal definition for “person of interest.” (See Hattfield vs. Ashcroft.)

In general, given that “suspect” is not a legal term, we can say that between 60 and 90% of all arrests by police in the US are illegal, and under the Biblical Law (and also under the laws of almost every state) should be classified as kidnapping. If we include every stopping of a civilian by police officers, which is not officially an arrest but practically restricts the freedom of movement of the civilian, the percentage would rise to more than 95%. We can safely say that the two major functions of modern police are extortion and kidnapping. Crime prevention is a rather insignificant side issue – and usually happens by mistake or is an unintentional result of police work.