So, flesh that out. How may your theonomy work in our current democracy? Do you expect special dispensation to ego-play at "God's wrath"?
30 Days, A beginning to the end of mass shootings.
- Thread starter tieman55
- Start date
So, flesh that out. How may your theonomy work in our current democracy? Do you expect special dispensation to ego-play at "God's wrath"?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Nope.
If I had my way, we wouldn't have a democracy, or a republic, or even a constitutional republic.
We would have a constitutional monarchy.
One where moral laws are set in stone, while Real Estate Zoning and Use of Infrastructure laws are put into effect via the King's decree.
No other laws are needed.
Toying with the jerks is fun, though.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It was a goofy question about muskets and bayonets.
Our military, with certain exceptions, is constitutionally prohibited from enforcing civil law. Regarding the police: not to the point of being excessively militarized, no. There's a danger of excessive force inappropriately or indiscriminately applied with an emphasis on aggression and escalation instead of de-escalation. We aren't a police state, we shouldn't look like one.
It was an observation.
Everything can be reduced to a fallacy if you work hard enough at it.
Okay. Theonomy. That's not gonna happen.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Are you speaking as a mod?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Our founders explicitly didn't want a monarchy, our country was founded on that understanding.
It's helpful to know how much you don't want our American system of government.
The largest cause of occupation-related death in police officers is auto accidents. So the logical step would be better driver training. A long time ago, I worked as a safety consultant. A lot of police departments thought that a kind of "defensive driving" training would be right. But the data showed that most deaths came about from pursuits or other times when the officer was doing something inherently dangerous in the course of his driving. Which is sometimes unavoidable. My recommendation was to:
A. Make very sure department policies on pursuit and other such situations were clearly communicated and reinforced.
B. Provide more training specifically oriented to driving in dangerous situations.
One department found this to be both effective and well-received by the officers.
The major reason police departments are militarizing, is the availability of military equipment being retired by the Army. It's free or cheap, and tempting to buy it. I get that. It's like me with tools. I can always think of a situation where I might need it.
Problem is best expressed by Napoleon; "You can do almost anything with a bayonet, except sit on it."
So if you have a perp holed up in a house and unwilling to come out, and you have an armored personnel carrier handy...
That's not a hypothetical situation.
In some cases, the perp wasn't the homeowner. That's a problem.
Oh, and the Posse Comitatus act forbids using the Army, Navy, (or Air Force as amended) for law enforcement absent specific instructions from Congress. National Guard in their home state or a neighboring state, if invited and Coast Guard are exempt from the law.
But of officer safety is your concern, better driver's training would be the ticket.
High Speed Pursuit and Traffic Crashes: Leading Causes of On-Duty Law Officer Fatalities
Although it’s rarely reported, traffic crashes and high speed pursuit kill roughly as many law officers as firearms. According to the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, traffic-related incidents have been the leading cause of death for officers in the line of duty for most of the past two decades. These “traffic-related incidents” run the gamut, from single and multiple vehicle collisions to traffic police being accidentally struck by passing vehicles during or run-down by fleeing suspects. But in the majority of cases, a law officer is piloting the vehicle during a fatal crash.
https://www.pursuitresponse.org/high-speed-pursuit-leading-cause-law-officer-fatalities/
For the sake of our country, I hope you are right.
Last edited:
That pretty much sums it up.
Of course it was goofy!
Do you think LEOs should be able to defend themselves against criminals who have military grade weaponry? Or should they cower and flee because all they have are pistols and tasers?
Red herring.
Stay on topic.
Define "excessively militarized," please.
Should LEOs be able to do their jobs and be able to make it home safely every night?
That's true for anything, though.
Should we not give our law enforcement officers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to dealing with crime?
Once again, a straw man.
No one here is advocating for a police state.
We are advocating that the police be able to arm themselves appropriately for the warzone that is the streets of America, due to the crime epidemic we have.
An unnecessary one.
So logic can be reduced to a fallacy?
Look, Anna, if you're gonna make stupid statements like that, you should just leave TOL.
If someone interacts with me and they make logical statements, I don't call those fallacies, even if their position is wrong.
If someone comes at me with fallacious arguments, however, I'm going to call them out on it, even if their overarching position is right.
The goal is TRUTH, not opinion or blind faith.
Thank you.
Most people thought the end of the American slave trade was "not gonna happen" at one point, but all it took was people standing up for what is right to end it.
Therefore, I'm going to do right, and risk the consequences of advocating for what is right.
This is an appeal to authority.
So therefore....
Monarchy is bad?
Is that the argument you're trying to make?
It's false, by the way. They were not explicitly against a monarchy.
https://time.com/5459916/american-monarchy/
We would have had a monarchy had the prince of Prussia accepted the invitation to rule over the colonies sent by the founding fathers.
See also
I want a godly system of government, not one based on man's desires.
I hate democracy because God hates democracy, and He has expressed his dislike of it throughout the Bible.
I value freedom far more than dumb-ocracy. Or re-publicanism, for that matter.
First, I'd like to point out that if education were the be-all-end-all to problems, then thousands of licensed doctors wouldn't take smoke breaks.
This is a red herring.
Notice that I didn't specify officers dying, just that they could return home safely. That includes injuries also.
:blabla:
So then what's the problem?
Is it that now the police can better handle crime?
Which, again, has nothing to do with the topic, which is law enforcement, not military.
See what I said at the beginning of this post.
:blabla:
This is a red herring.
Notice that I didn't specify officers dying, just that they could return home safely. That includes injuries also.
:blabla:
So then what's the problem?
Is it that now the police can better handle crime?
Which, again, has nothing to do with the topic, which is law enforcement, not military.
See what I said at the beginning of this post.
:blabla:
Rusha, why would theonomy be a bad thing?
Because having a desire for a just form of government is such a bad thing. :mock:
Depends on the depth and depravity of the desire. :idunno:
Because laws based on religion would eradicate the freedom of religion ... as well as the freedom to reject religion.
My views of right VS wrong didn’t change after becoming a Christian.
Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not kidnap.
...
Do liberals think through these things at all?
I know a lot of doctors. None of them smokes. Where did that come from?
(concern expressed for police safety)
(Barbarian notes traffic accidents are the biggest cause of police deaths over the last 35 years)
Not if you actually care about police safety.
It's the biggest cause of injuries as well.
(Barbarian describes how relatively easy changes made police safer)
As I said, "if you actually care about police safety."
The major reason police departments are militarizing, is the availability of military equipment being retired by the Army. It's free or cheap, and tempting to buy it. I get that. It's like me with tools. I can always think of a situation where I might need it.
They tend to use the equipment as a replacement for good police work. See below.
Problem is best expressed by Napoleon; "You can do almost anything with a bayonet, except sit on it."
So if you have a perp holed up in a house and unwilling to come out, and you have an armored personnel carrier handy...
That's not a hypothetical situation.
Wrecking a citizen's home to get a perp out of it, doesn't sound like very competent police work to me. And it's true, most of the time, they don't do stupid things like that. But as you see, it happens.
And you just figured out the problem. The more you militarize the police, the less they will be like police and more like the guy on duty in Afghanistan. Which changes the way police look at the rest of us, and the way the rest of us look at the police.
You expressed concern for police safety. I showed you the best way to do that. You find the major source of death and injury and do something about that.
High Speed Pursuit and Traffic Crashes: Leading Causes of On-Duty Law Officer Fatalities
Although it’s rarely reported, traffic crashes and high speed pursuit kill roughly as many law officers as firearms. According to the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, traffic-related incidents have been the leading cause of death for officers in the line of duty for most of the past two decades. These “traffic-related incidents” run the gamut, from single and multiple vehicle collisions to traffic police being accidentally struck by passing vehicles during or run-down by fleeing suspects. But in the majority of cases, a law officer is piloting the vehicle during a fatal crash.
https://www.pursuitresponse.org/high...er-fatalities/
As I said,"if you actually care about police safety."
No one here is advocating religious laws.
Again, "theonomy" comes from a greek word that means "God's Law." God's Law, which for Israel included religious laws, is not exclusively religious laws.
God's Law includes "do not murder," "do not steal," "do not commit adultery," "do not bear false witness."
Not one of those is religious in nature, but rather moral.
Saying it would do so is one thing. Proving it is quite another, and I can give you a rough draft of a criminal code that uses those four laws, and yet does not infringe on anyone's religious freedom, which eliminates your claimed problem altogether.
Would you like to see it?
View attachment 26880
Have you even considered what God's views of right VS wrong are?
Or have you dismissed them without even finding out?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Then why ask me why I didn't answer it? :chuckle:
This question isn't much better, since no one said LEOs "cower and flee," did they?
How many criminals have "military-grade" weaponry? Better yet, how many domestic terrorists in the last ten years used military-grade weaponry. You can't legally buy it, but they could have modified it. (I don't know the answer to that question, by the way.)
False fallacy flag. You yourself mentioned the military, and I bolded your words in my response.
Don't tell me how to post.
It looks like this:
And gets results like this:
Concerns about the militarization of police have been raised by both ends of the political spectrum in the United States, with both the right-of-center/libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union voicing criticisms of the practice. The Fraternal Order of Police has spoken out in favor of equipping law enforcement officers with military equipment, on the grounds that it increases the officers' safety and enables them to protect members of the public and other first responders (e.g., firefighters and emergency medical services personnel). However, a 2017 study showed that police forces which received military equipment were more likely to have violent encounters with the public, regardless of local crime rates.[15]
It's a matter of life or death for people who've been killed by police who could've deescalated and didn't.
Not necessarily. There are enough bad apples to make one wary, why would you blindly trust them when they have the capability to lie about your resisting arrest, plant evidence on you, execute a search warrant at the wrong house, and shoot someone in the back? There was a CHP officer convicted years ago in my city for murdering a young woman while on he was on duty. In uniform, in a marked vehicle, after he ordered her to pull over.
^Fearmongering to justify the use of greater than necessary force to police the populace.
I'm saying you can reduce it to absurdity.
:chuckle: Oh, that's rich.
If that's the best you can offer, I'm not even going to finish this post to you. Not worth my time.