Monday, November 26, 2012

Predators with Impunity (Update, December 4)

If resisting arrest is a crime, does a woman have the right to resist a sexual assault by a police officer?
Last May 5th, Magdelena Mol, a young wife and mother from Burbank, Illinois, went to a nearby village called Justice to visit a friend. Shortly after midnight, Mrs. Mol called a taxi and went to a street corner to wait for her ride. A few minutes later, a police officer named Carmen Scardine drove by, then stopped in the middle of the street and ordered Mol to get into his car.
Although Scardine demanded identification from Mol and called the dispatcher to run her name, he never explained why he had taken her into custody. When the taxi arrived a few minutes later, the officer ordered the driver to leave. He then drove the terrified young woman to a secluded area and sexually assaulted her.
On the following day, Mrs. Mol filed an official complaint, which was upheld by the Justice Police Department. She has filed a lawsuit against the department and the Village of Justice – but there is no record that Scardine has been charged with a crime, or even subjected to official discipline.
“As far as I know, he’s still on the force,” stated a dispatcher for the Village of Justice Police Department (which is no stranger to corruption) when asked about Carmen Scardine’s status on November 21.
The facts asserted by Mrs. Mol in her lawsuit aren’t in dispute. Why wasn’t her assailant prosecuted for sexual assault? If Scardine had been charged with that crime, he may have been able to claim that the victim had consented to the act – because she didn’t resist. Of course, if she had resisted, she most likely would have been prosecuted for resisting arrest or even aggravated assault on a police officer – assuming that the victim survived the officer’s attempts to “subdue” her.
 Pittsburgh resident Sarah Smith had an experience very similar to that of Magdelena Mol. One morning several years ago, Smith was in a minor traffic accident with a man on a motorcycle. Smith had let her liability insurance lapse, and she was driving on an expired license, so she was probably already in a state of panic when Pittsburgh Police Officer Adam Skweres arrived. Smith’s unease catalyzed into terror when the officer pulled her aside and offered to let her traffic violations slide as part of a carnal transaction.

Officer Skweres told Smith that "he could make it look like [the accident] was my fault or he could give the driver a ticket for failure to obey signs," she recalled in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The price of a favorable assessment would take the form of unspecified sexual favors, and Skweres quite generously promised that what he would demand of Smith would not be "as bad as what would happen to me in jail." Such a deal!

On the other hand, if Smith put up a fight, Skweres warned, she would be arrested for resisting arrest, handcuffed, and then raped in the back seat of the police car. Before the officer could make good on his threat, the situation changed, and he agreed to let the terrified young woman go -- but only after gesturing to his gun and warning her that "If you say anything about this I'll make sure you never walk, talk, or breathe again."

Smith reported the incident to the Pittsburgh Police Bureau. Complaints were filed by two other women endured nearly identical threats from Skweres (one of whom, a woman embroiled in a child custody dispute, was told that she could purchase a favorable recommendation to the child welfare bureaucracy in exchange for oral sex). The uniformed predator was allowed to continue patrolling the streets -- and to collect his $57,000 annual salary – until last February 17, when he was arrested for sexually assaulting a young woman in her home six days earlier.

The victim in the February 11 assault was a woman whose boyfriend was in jail. After asking the victim if she was wearing a wire, and turning on the kitchen faucet to conceal any potentially incriminating noises, Skweres explained the nature of the transaction: He would "help" her boyfriend in exchange for sex. After forcing the traumatized woman to service him, the cop cleaned himself up with a paper towel and left.

Skweres was as predictable as he was persistent. Last December, he had paid a similar visit to Melissa Watkins, whose boyfriend was also in jail. She was alone with her young daughter when the cop materialized to proposition her. 

"He locked my front door and everything, he said, `so no one could bother us,'" Watkins told the Post-Gazette. Unzipping his uniform trousers, Skweres offered the same arrangement: He would "help" Watkins' boyfriend in consideration of sexual services. Watkins -- despite being utterly terrified -- refused. 

"There's a man with a badge and a gun in front of you, trying to proposition you," she recalled. "You don't know which way it's going to go." 

Four alleged victims have testified against Skweres in a preliminary hearing last March. Since that time, a fifth woman has filed a criminal complaint against him. While he refuses to characterize his accusers as liars, the former police officer insists that he always carried out his duty “with integrity and honesty” and maintains that he is “absolutely” innocent of the charges against him.

Displaying the capacity for self-preoccupation typical of the tax-feeding class, Skweres protested that his arrest and prosecution have “turned my life upside down.” An Army reservist who served in Iraq, Skweres was initially rejected by the police academy when a psychologist found him unsuited to police work, but he was awarded a slot following an appeal to the civil service commission. Reports of his predatory behavior began surfacing about eighteen months after Skweres joined the force.

As of 2008, there were roughly 600,000 state and local police officers in the United States. If former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper is correct, at least 30,000 of them are active sexual predators.

On-duty sexual predation by police officers “happens far more often than people in the business are willing to admit,” Stamper warns in his memoir Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Expose of the Dark Side of American Policing. “My cautious guess is that about 5 percent of America's cops are on the prowl for women. In a department the size of Seattle's that's sixty-three police officers. In San Diego [where Stamper began his police career], 145. In New York City, 2,000. The average patrol cop makes anywhere from ten to twenty unsupervised contacts a shift. If he's on the make, chances are a predatory cop will find you. Or your wife, your partner, your daughter, your sister, your mother, your friend."

The targets of opportunity for a predatory police officer could also include your troubled teenage son – a grim fact illustrated by the case of former Idaho police officer Ruben Delgadillo. 

Shortly after Delgadillo graduated from the Idaho Police Academy, the Governor’s Task Force on Children at Risk held a conference to examine how to deal with child predators. That event included specialized training for school resource officers. Delgadillo, who was assigned to be a school resource officer in the Caldwell School District, would have attended some of those sessions and probably took detailed notes.

In 2008, Delgadillo was assigned to be a school resource officer at Vallivue High School. As a member of the school suspension board, he encountered a troubled freshman named Brennan Nicholson. After a suspension hearing, Delgadillo met with Nicholson and his mother and suggested that he could mentor the young man. This allowed him to make practical use of the instruction he had received regarding the vulnerabilities of at-risk teenagers. 

The officer lavished attention on the boy. Eventually he persuaded the youngster to spend the night at a house he shared with his supervisor, Sergeant Mike Larimer. During those sleep-overs Delgadillo repeatedly molested the teenager. Larimer was aware of the crimes and did nothing to intervene.  When the victim finally disclosed what was happening, Delgadillo initially claimed that the acts had been consensual; after all, the youngster hadn’t resisted. 

According to Nicholson’s lawsuit, the victim initially “did not report Delgadillo because was in fear he would be retaliated against if he did not allow the abuse, because Delgadillo and his roommate, Larimer, were `the police’…. Delgadillo told [Nicholson] that he had ties to gangs, intimidating Brennan into remaining silent.

Delgadillo was eventually prosecuted and was sentenced to a term of three to ten years in prison for felony injury to a child. However, District Judge Thomas Ryan retained jurisdiction over the case, which meant that Delgadillo was released on probation after serving only a year in the Canyon County Jail. This arrangement was made after Delgadillo tearfully expressed fears of what would happen to him in prison as a former police officer and convicted child molester. 

The most significant advantage wielded by uniformed predators is not their physical size or even their arsenal; it's their ability to criminalize even the most tentative act of resistance on the part of their potential victims.  As Gregory J. Babbitt, assistant prosecuting attorney for Michigan’s Ottawa County, admitted during oral argument before the state supreme court last October, under most “resisting and obstructing” statutes a police officer who sexually assaults a prisoner can press charges if the victim puts up physical resistance.

Babbitt was representing the state of Michigan in the case of People v. Moreno, which examined the question of whether a citizen has a legally protected right to resist an unlawful search or unjustified arrest by a police officer. Associate justice Michael Cavanaugh asked Babbitt if a female inmate who put up a struggle while being sexually assaulted during a body search could be charged under the state’s “resisting and obstructing” statute.

“Technically, you could do that,” Babbitt admitted, hastily insisting that “as a prosecutor, I wouldn’t do that.” Rather than putting up physical resistance and thereby risking criminal prosecution, he continued, the victim should simply endure the assault and then file a civil complaint after the fact. 
 If a woman being sexually assaulted by a police officer could be prosecuted for resisting, “what is left of the Fourth Amendment?” Cavanaugh asked Babbitt.
 With an indifferent shrug, Babbitt replied, “Well, life isn’t perfect.” From his perspective it is simply unacceptable for a mere Mundane to “make the determination as to whether the police officers [are] acting properly or not.”
Like most members of the state’s punitive caste, Babbitt maintains that there is never a situation in which a citizen can physically resist a police officer. “We can’t have individuals ... making that decision in the heat of the moment,” he insisted, even if that means leaving women like Magdelena Mol -- and terrified teenage boys like Brennan Nicholson -- at the mercy of sociopathic predators in government-issued costumes. 

UPDATE: It never stops....

Orlando Police Officer Roderick Johnson allegedly did exactly the same thing Justice PD Officer Carmen Scardine was confirmed to have done: He is accused of taking a woman into custody and forcing himself on her sexually. Johnson has been arrested and charged with sexual battery by a law enforcement officer, a felony. Scardine remains at large and in uniform.  

The M.O. of Philip Emanuele, a former detective with the Eatontown, New Jersey Police Department,combined elements of Scardine's approach and that of Adam Sweres, the uniformed sexual predator from Pittsburgh. Emanuele has confessed to forcing a 24-year-old detainee to perform oral sex on him, using the threat of prison on a drug charge to extract that favor -- and to browbeat her into becoming an informant.

Rather than being charged with aggravated sexual assault, Emanuele was convicted of criminal coercion and tampering with evidence, for which he will serve five years of probation. He will not become a registered sex offender.

Emanuele's 24-year-old victim pleaded with the court to impose a more severe sentence, describing her assailant as "a sex offender who singles out unfortunate and vulnerable women with no remorse and [he] must be labeled as such." She pointed out that Emanuele's defense attorney, Patrick Toscano, had treated the assault as a trivial matter, dismissing it in public comments as a "10-minute lapse in judgment" and insinuating that the woman was a willing participant.

Assistant Prosecutor Gregory Schweers allowed that Toscano's comments were "ill-advised" but he insisted that the leniency granted to the former police officer was "fair in the interest of justice."

As he pronounced the sentence, Judge Thomas F. Scully did his best to depict the ridiculously light punishment as an onerous burden to disgraced predator, who was now deprived of his "childhood dream" of being part of the State's coercive apparatus. At the time he was cashiered from the police department, the 33-year-old Emanuele was being paid $114, 712 a year to "protect and serve" a town of 12,000 people with a crime rate well below the national average -- and a median annual household income of roughly $50,000.

Obiter dicta  
I have started a Facebook group entitled "Restore the right to resist unlawful arrest." Everybody's welcome to join!

Dum spiro, pugno!


Kent McManigal said...

Resisting arrest is not wrong, no matter how desperately the reavers try to pretend it is. Which is just part of the reason I hate cops.

InalienableWrights said...

Almost everything they do is predation.

When are people going to wake up recognize that all cops have a mental disorder?

Specifically they are megalomaniac psychopaths that think that justice involves the kidnapping and locking in a cage, people that have never harmed anyone else.

Anonymous said...

Just like the American State, the cops can do anything.

No limitations whatsoever.

And most people will take it good and hard without lubrication because....well...they're Americans.

- H.L. Mencken III

Chris Mallory said...

“We can’t have individuals ... making that decision in the heat of the moment,”

Yet the thugs with costume jewelry make these decisions in the "heat of the moment" every day. We are constantly told that Citizens should not "Monday morning quarterback" these costumed criminals. After all, they just want to go home at end of shift. But are they going home to the teenage boy they are raping every night?

Anonymous said...

I wanted to let People know about this new anti-snitch book and I really tried hard to think of a way to connect it with something in this article but I couldn't.

"... a woman being sexually assaulted by a police officer could be prosecuted for resisting..."

We live in one weird sick and twisted world, that's for sure. I don't know what to say except, wow.

Anyway, here's the book, I thought some of you might find it useful:

This FREE ebook could help keep you out of prison.

willb said...

Abuse of executive power(police power) goes all the way up to the
President(top cop) who has claimed the right to kill and disappear
citizens(or anyone else) without due process.

Our supreme primate has claimed the power to use secret evidence,
unwarranted search and seizure, and the terror of torture to protect
the kinderland.

In effect, the Bill of Rights is now a discretionary power of
the executive, not a God given inalienable concept.

What Grigg points out is the operative result: An arrest made by an
omnipotent executive(police) is not an affront but an act of mercy.
How could it ever be lawful for you to resist?

Next time you are detained by a cop, thank him for your freedom,
then "tell it to the judge."

MoT said...

Well, it all flows downhill. From the Predator-in-thief "drone" at 1600 Penn on down, we're all reaping what they've sown: death and destruction.

Anonymous said...

The solution to this problem is laughably simple. If your wife/girlfriend/daughter/mother/neice, whatever, is sexually assaulted by a police officer, you can be sure justice will not be served through the corrupt judicial system. It then becomes your responsibilty to make sure justice is served. When predatory animals realize they will no longer be protected from the consequences of their actions, their behavior will change.

liberranter said...

The solution to this problem is laughably simple. If your wife/girlfriend/daughter/mother/neice, whatever, is sexually assaulted by a police officer, you can be sure justice will not be served through the corrupt judicial system. It then becomes your responsibilty to make sure justice is served.

And you can be damned sure that it will be served in any such cases in the future. Once a few porcine predators are brought to "Citizen's Justice" for sexual assault (justice that, one hopes,, will include castration [without the benefit of anesthetic], at a minimum), I predict that such crimes will quickly become a thing of the past.

PaulTheCabDriver said...

Lberanter & MoT, you guys have been watching too many action adventure movies. This is real life. And the fact is if you even attempted "Citizen's Justice" These crimes would not become a thing of the past, but the "wielder of Citizen's Justice" certainly would. My strongest recommendation is to leave the country as fast as you can if able. Go somewhere where the government is small, and broke (and knows it) because it is going to get ugly here in the USA and with the gear that the bad guys have now, the odds are highly stacked against liberty lovers.

Anonymous said...

John Ross wrote about this in his wonderful work Unintended Consequences.

Larken Rose said...

Wow. At least the fascist was honest, in stating that he thinks that you should allow state mercenaries to do absolutely anything they want to you, and then later you can whine to some other "authority" to make amends. Talk about slave mentality. And people wonder why I wrote the article, "When Should You Shoot a Cop?" This is why. If a cop tries to sexually assault my wife or daughter, "internal affairs" won't need to review the case. But the coroner might.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you just post this? Interesting how some of the links are now down. How I despise Leviathan and His minions. Jesus Christ is the righteous judge and He WILL judge all things and grant justice to the oppressed.

CR106 said...

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, Christians don't have permission from God to execute vengeful justice on the people who have committed crimes against us or our loved ones. The Bible is very clear: "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, declares the Lord..." Paul writes this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Romans 12:19, referencing Deuteronomy 32:35.

Defense in the heat of the moment is one thing, but revenge after the fact is forbidden.

willb said...

I grew up watching Westerns on TV.
Westerns are about self reliance.
The generation that grew up watching these shows questioned
all authority and rose in defiance to the Vietnam war.

Westerns were then replaced with Cop shows.
Cop shows are about submission.
The generation that grew up watching these shows believes that
might makes right, does not question authority and accepts the
the U.S. as the policeman of the world.

Cop shows have been replaced with zombie shows and video games.
Zombie shows are about the mass slaughter of people.
Video games are about the mass slaughter of people.
The generation that has been raised watching these shows and playing
these games believes the ends justify the means and do not bat an eye
when a drone bombs a wedding party of hundreds.

Is pornography our only hope?

liberranter said...

CR106, you serve as a perfect example of why I now refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with institutional "Christianity" as it is practiced in Amerika today. Contrary to your assertions, the Bible does NOT command us to be compliant sheep to be led to slaughter in the face of injustice and unrighteousness. You might want to consider reading both Laurence Vance's and Chuck Baldwin's takedowns of the prevailing misinterpretations of Romans 13, which appears to be the dominant source of the "Der Staat Ueber Die Kirche" mentality that is infecting the Great National Religion today.

liberranter said...

Paul, I'm not going ANYWHERE. This is MY country and I'm going to fight to reclaim it! Even if I lose the war, I'll leave this life a free man with a clean conscience!

Anonymous said...

CR106, your personal interpretation of the scriptures is your right but not all people agree. With all of the marginal translations, as well as the outright exclusions at the Council of Nicea, placing all of one's faith in one particular interpretation of Christian principles is a bit of a crap shoot at best. Your opinnion is indeed the prevailing position of most institutionalized Christian sects but you make the assumption that any action taken against a violent sexual predator would be prompted by a desire for vengeance. What of the need to prevent further predations against others? Is the need to protect the helpless in our society not reason enough to take action? Is protecting the weak and helpless not a founding principle of true Christianity? Are not the scriptures replete with examples of people being admonished by the Lord take up the sword in their own defense? Evil is as evil does. There is no evil in acting to protect self or another from a known violent criminal.

CR106 said...

liberranter - The post wasn't for you. You are not a Christian (per your statement "you serve as a perfect example of why I now refuse to have anything whatsoever to do with institutional "Christianity"") And the reference was Romans 12:19, not Romans 13, which I agree has been misconstrued.

At the end of the day, I can't follow anyone else's interpretation of Romans 12:19 anyway. I have to go with what I see is the plain understanding of the verse I quoted. And that is no vengeful retribution.

But thanks for proving my point that no Christian can get around this verse. I'm sorry if that seems weak to you, but the Bible appears weak to the world in a lot of things. Judas and some of the other disciples were expecting a "strong warrior" who would release them from the clutches of Rome. You want a Rambo Jesus and since you don't find him in the scriptures, you scoff at Christianity. That's fine. Go your own way. I have to answer to God.

I posted because I know other Christians frequent this site and I wondered what their reading of Rom. 12:19 would be. And they'd have to work pretty hard to change my mind on the verse, but I'm open to corollaries that could be persuasive. Just not from non-Christians like yourself. It's not a put-down. It's just the simple truth that you can't see with your spiritually blinded eyes and thus you don't have anything wise to add to the discussion.

You've got a lot of anger in your post. Where are your Bible references to back up your claims? I've met Laurence Vance. I've corresponded with him through email. I've purchased and read his books. I agree with him. But I haven't read anything from him on Romans 12:19. I've come across Chuck Baldwin's book, but haven't read it yet.

Anonymous said...

Here is my understanding of Liberranter's position on Christianity:
I have never read anything from Liberranter that stated he was not a Christian. What he has continually stated is that he is not an "institutionalized" Christian. His core values are not subject to the dictates and interpretations of any one Christian organization. Most organized Christian sects operate with misplaced adoration of the State and preach obediance to the State almost as vociferously as they do obediance to the Lord. In my opinnion, one cannot serve two masters. The State, as it now exists, is diametrically opposed to the will of God and the teachings of Christ. Therefore, any Christian sect that preaches obediance the the State cannot be alligned with the teachings of Christ. I believe Liberranter has very clearly stated his position on this in the past. Just my .02 worth.
As for myself, I adhere to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as fully as I can comprehend it. Not necessarily as preached by the hand of men.

Patrick Henry said...

There are so many contradictions all the way through the current Bible as presented today, that it isn't funny. It starts right from Genesis Ch 1. It has so obviously been altered to fit some some groups whims in the past it's easily rebuttable or at the very least seriously questionable in any reliability. Ok, "strive not with a man whom has caused you no harm." Not defending the life given to you by God is in fact self murder and is a crime. "Love your neighbor as yourself." A so called police officer arbitrarily attacking you without stating and real cause for it is a criminal in fact and having been falsely arrested 3x now. There will not be a 4th time, having studied American law for 6 years now and knowing what a fraud the so called honorable courts are there is no justice only Just-us. I'm with Larken Rose let anyone hurt one of my loved ones without cause and not be held responsible and I will get justice for them period as is my right. I will not initiate violence or fraud but I will absolutely reject it against myself and mine with whatever force is necessary. Go live in North Korea or Red China if you don't like being an American, with liberty and justice for all. If the courts and police will not provide then We the people can. Pretty simple solution and they will run out of guys a long time before we will.

liberranter said...

I will not initiate violence or fraud but I will absolutely reject it against myself and mine with whatever force is necessary.

EXACTLY. The initiation of any form of aggressive violence against oneself or one's family, whether it is from an individual or "the State," is an automatic justification for invoking one's right to self-defense. This is an absolute right under the Natural Law whether or not a pseudo-legal body under the control of the very state the agent(s) of whom are committing the unprovoked act of aggressive violence concurs or not.

Anonymous said...

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on People v. Moreno and has ruled that citizens can lawfully resist an unlawful arrest.

Anonymous said...

Citizen rights, the natural right to defend oneself from unwanted "servicing" by officious cross dressing domestic "officers" in violation of their terms of employment starts with we the people, knowing the policy and procedures taught in the peace officer academy and how to firmly refuse to be ordered about. Or are you so scared you just cannot. I will speak only on the record in the presence of my counselor." Remember to remind snout hog of Miranda. Current blackshirt "tendency" is to seek to break the protestor. Let them kill me. I was going to die anyway, sometime. To quote, Russell Means, "Today is a good day"

CR106 said...

Thanks for the comments. I'm not saying that you can't defend yourself with lethal force in the moment. What I'm saying is that after the offense occurred, if you did not take the opportunity to defend yourself, you can't go back and exact revenge on the perpetrator. I'm saying that is what I see the Bible teaching. Can someone (a Christian) offer an argument against that view?

Anonymous said...

may invest in a digital camcorder?

Herb Scornwaffles said...

God made some people big and powerful, and some people small and powerless. Samuel Colt took care of that inequity.

Anonymous said...

Just cops being cops.


Anonymous said...

I just wanted to let you know i found you by listening to Dr Stan you are very good an there are mnny people listing to what you say we are out here keep up the great work

Anonymous said...

"Can someone (a Christian) offer an argument against that view?"

I already did. And quite clearly, I believe. Perhaps you did not read it. Or does your definition of a "Christian" preclude anyone who does not share your interpretation of doctrine? If so, that would suggest you are one of those "born again" types that I find to be uneducated, intollerant, and annoying. But you don't seem to be annoying or uneducated.

CR106 said...

Part 1
Thank you, Anonymous, for the reply. I missed yours in dealing with Liberranter.

"but you make the assumption that any action taken against a violent sexual predator would be prompted by a desire for vengeance. What of the need to prevent further predations against others? Is the need to protect the helpless in our society not reason enough to take action?"

Ok, but how do you judge? How do you decide? Has God spoken to you directly? Where is the dividing line? By that reasoning, we all become judge and jury. The Bible says a couple of things related to this. First, judge not, lest you be judged with the same measure you mete out. Second, Jesus told Peter that those that live by the sword, die by the sword. So, this isn't arguing that you CAN'T prevent further crimes by executing justice. But it seems that God wanted us to leave that judgment to the authorities in the society in which we live. That's assuming it's a law-abiding society and now we've moved the goalposts as it were with that assumption. If the U.S. is consistently refusing to prosecute its police force for blatant evil, can we trust it to carry out justice on behalf of its citizens? Great question. My original point was that the Bible's starting point is "don't take vengeance." These other things then need to be considered after that. You can see it is a slippery slope with what you consider evil and what someone else considers evil. And beyond that, what if our meddling gets in the way of the larger picture of what God is trying to do with that person who committed the crime or the victim's family? God sometimes does ask people to sacrifice their lives because the eternal consequences for others are more important than our lives here, or our freedom here.

A note about freedom. Christians aren't "free" anyway. We have made ourselves bondservants of Christ. We willingly gave up our rights to Christ's Lordship. We are stewards of our lives and property. It all belongs to God. I think people operate under the misconception that we are to have freedom at all costs. I don't know. What would have happened if the Christian slaves after the fall of Rome had rebelled against their new masters? Would we have had a Christian Europe? Would the gospel had advanced? From that perspective, God used the subjugation of Christians for a few hundred years (think of that!) to Christianize western Europe. We are still living in the light of that blessing today. But it was a blessing borne of sacrifice.

CR106 said...

Part 2
In executing individual justice, we are taking on a responsibility we are not meant to take on. The movie Law Abiding Citizen explored this issue. Not very well because it exalts the State at all costs, but it did show some of the downside to taking the law into our own hands, even when seemingly justified.

"Is protecting the weak and helpless not a founding principle of true Christianity? Are not the scriptures replete with examples of people being admonished by the Lord take up the sword in their own defense?"

Where does it recommend this in the New Testament? Defense yes, as in Nehemiah when they were rebuilding the walls. I haven't come across any scripture where it says to seek out those who've done evil and slay them. Elijah did this at Mt. Carmel as described in 1 Kings 18. But, this was clearly with God's approval as God proved himself that day to all of those unbelievers. How do we extrapolate that to our situation dealing with people who haven't received proper justice, according to us? It's the same argument about the wars of the Old Testament. The U.S. cannot claim special revelation as if we are an extension of God's army. We aren't Israel. God isn't leading our army. So where do we get the idea that our army is doing God's will? Extrapolation doesn't work there and doesn't work when delivering individual justice. But I'm open to counter arguments.

"Evil is as evil does. There is no evil in acting to protect self or another from a known violent criminal."

At the time of the crime, yes. I will defend with all my ability, and with lethal force if necessary. After the fact? It's not so clear cut.

CR106 said...

Each man (or woman) must decide for themselves. This isn't my idea. It is God's idea. The verses in the Bible are clear cut. You may think I'm mis-interpreting them, but you'll need to provide other contextual scriptural evidence which supports your assertions.

It's not my morality. It is the morality I see in the Bible.

By your logic then, Christians should immediately murder all abortion doctors. The case that they are performing murder is clear cut, to a Christians mind. They are destroying life, which we believe begins at conception. We are not receiving justice from our current system because the majority of people don't share that morality. Should I just go bomb an abortion clinic then? Other Christians came to that conclusion, but were prosecuted by our laws.

Sorry to say, but right now, my thinking on this issue is that revenge for the abortion doctors is not mine to take.

JdL said...


You seem to have replied to my comment this morning even though my comment isn't posted yet; how did you do that?

Your example of people bombing abortion clinics is a good one, as it illustrates how societies can fall into chaos because of disagreements over what represents a mortal sin. I don't happen to believe that abortion (before the fetus becomes well developed) IS a sin. Life, after all, does not begin with conception: sperm are alive, and so are unfertilized eggs. To be sure, the blueprint for a unique human being does come into existence when a particular sperm penetrates a particular egg, but I can't get particularly excited about the termination of a few cells making up a blob of protoplasm. The fact that we disagree illustrates out how crazy things can get when individuals with differing beliefs start killing people.

One clarification: I definitely agree that killing for revenge is wrong. In my examples I tried to hypothesize a possible reason for killing someone who has not only committed terrible crimes but apparently will continue to commit terrible crimes. Of course, I realize that people who murder abortion doctors believe they're preventing deaths by causing deaths, and so are morally justified.

CR106 said...

The comment that I replied to is no longer visible.

William N. Grigg said...

CR106 -- The comment moderation feature has been acting strangely today. This is why several comments have either failed to post once I've approved them, or disappeared from the thread. I wish I knew how to fix the problem.

JdL said...

The comment moderation feature has been acting strangely today. This is why several comments have either failed to post once I've approved them, or disappeared from the thread. I wish I knew how to fix the problem.

Here's my post again from this morning:

At the time of the crime, yes. I will defend with all my ability, and with lethal force if necessary. After the fact? It's not so clear cut.

Suppose that a flipped-out neighbor or (more plausibly) government thug started lobbing mortar shells on your home and others around you. You have no opportunity to "defend" against this aggression but you do know who is responsible. It seems that your idea of "morality" leaves you no recourse other than to accept the bombardment with a smile.

Or suppose that a cop on the graveyard shift is a serial rapist, and this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the "law" won't touch him. You've never been present during his assaults, but are friends with one or more victims. Does your morality forbid you from taking the thug out if you get a chance?

Anonymous said...

Good discussion, this. CR106, you ask excellent questions as to the limitations one must consider in acting in defense of oneself or another and what timeline is acceptable in the eyes of the Lord for doing so. I dare say none of us here has the complete answer to this question but I know we have all considered it at length. It is a decision we all must make for ourselves after much prayer and consideration.

willb said...

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The state provides us with an endless supply of enemies upon whom we can vent our wrath,
but it's a ruse.
Like everything else, it is a matter of supply and demand.
If you have it in your heart to hurt someone you will no doubt be given the opportunity.

You may say, "It was the cop who raped my wife that put that anger in my heart, and
I am just to retaliate in defense at least to protect my daughter."

True, but what is the proper defense? More violence?
When Christ commanded us to love our enemies He was not suggesting we lay down to them.
He was commanding that we not retaliate in like kind.

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth; that is the letter of the law, but violence begets
violence and the law serves only as a minister to that violence, not as a solution.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the
spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

There is only one solution:

Romans 12:21
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

I am a Libertarian with a capital "L" but I'm here to tell you that the
"just war theory" is bullshit and anyone who buys into it is not part of the
solution but is a part of the problem. The "just war theory" has only served to
further entrench the state and make it all the more intractable, the same goes for
individuals. If the situation has come down to war, then you have been asleep at
the wheel for a very long time and perhaps you should have your ass kicked.

So what of the cop that raped your wife? You want to tear his head off? Naturally.
But the problem isn't cop rapists, the problem is cops and their enablers.
And who are the enablers? . . . people who want to rip heads off, that's who.

Try thinking outside the box that is your tiny selfish little heart and you might
find peace.

MoT said...

Cabbie Paul, long time in responding as I find the blogger system to be quite limiting. I'm not into action movies per se so you must be thinking of someone else. And I do agree wholeheartedly that if you really want to be left alone you need to find some place too poor and indifferent to want to screw with you. Any place with too much time, money and incentive will always find a way to mess with people. In the States? Move to the sticks.

Now for cr106 and Christianity. I believe that one needn't go out of his way for revenge. Clearly. But we can thank legions of so-called bible believing Christians for all of the wars of opportunity and their support of the "troops" these years while we've been raped through taxation to support an empire of bases around the world. Where oh where and when for the love of god will they finally say "No" and stop suckling at the teat of Leviathan? Is it to keep their 501c3 status? How pathetic! Twains 'War Prayer' encapsulates their twisted, selfish and demented behavior. Fast forward a hundred years and it's no different today. I tell you this... if the Christian god is so small that he needs the help of this corrupt and evil people to bomb into oblivion foreigners then he must be pretty useless. How can believers on one side of their mouths exclaim that he holds your immortal soul in his hands and on the other feel he's incapable of understanding globo-political affairs and needs our help in bombing brown people?! Hypocrisy, thy name is Christian America. And I say this as one who long ago was a missionary so it comes as no joy saying this.

Anonymous said...

@ CR106,

you have a valid point, but there comes a certain point where you have to fight back. it'll be either to protect property, or life.

it's not always clear.

but i think what the hangup here is what is vengeance, and what is justice?

the two are not the same.

lastly, you are making another mistake me thinks.

this error is that only the state has, or should have, the power to right a wrong. . . .that the state, which got ALL of its power from YOU, has a monopoly on force.

i struggle with the same scripture, especially in light of the injustice i see.

however, i, and we all, have the right to defend life and property, and repeated assaults against such.

and who's to say that YOU are not the executor of God's vengeance upon someone who has disobeyed God? Did not God use the Assyrians to punish Israel and vice versa?

keep praying on it till you are at peace. i just think that some of us here have already reached that peace and know what will we do when the time comes.


Anonymous said...

The declaration of independence sums this matter for me nicely. Sometimes enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

So police are brutalizing citizens on the outside and the, once in custody, they get this?

Frightening world we live in...

Luton Ian said...

Between reading the original post and your fourth of December update, I watched some of the film "girl with the dragon tattoo"

I can't help but be reminded of Rooney Mara's (well written and well played) character trussing up the creep who had raped her, and tattooing

"I am a rapist pig"

in big letters on his torso, then later threatening to do the same on his forehead.

Fictional escapism, I know...

Anonymous said...

What gets me is that Ruben didn't have to register as a sex offender. Wtf? He was drugging and raping a minor, there can be no consensual sex in this! Fucking dirt bag piece of shit should be rotting in a jail cell for the rest of time.