> General Discussions
Forgiveness
lareli:
--- Quote from: Wanda on October 15, 2019, 06:11:00 PM ---Lareli,
I'm pretty sure Bob was going on the assumption the women did not kill the man out of a place of malice. I believe many of those in the courtroom felt the same.
As for the guy minding his own business doing drugs, hardcore drug addicts involve everyone they come in contact with. They steal from family members who love and try to help them, and at times even put them in danger. They often turn to crime to support their addiction, because they can't hold down a job. If your blessed to get an addicted family member into treatment, it seldom works because they either walk out of the treatment center, or return to the same lifestyle when they get out.
As a family member of an addict, who did all of that and more, the only thing that actually worked was my nephew going to jail for a year. After he was released he turned his life around.
I don't agree we should lock up all people who do drugs, but sometimes it's neccessary when it's the only solution in a seriously broken system. Also, many of the homeless are drug addicts, I don't think they're minding their own business.
--- End quote ---
I understand the malice part but malice or not she intentionally killed someone. Her only mistake was in believing she was justified when she was not. But she did intentionally kill a man... (not necessarily saying I think she should go to jail)
What I’m having an issue with is comparing the punishment for a violent act (killing another person) with punishing someone for a nonviolent act (using drugs). Stealing wasn’t part of the example Bob used.
Wanda:
--- Quote ---Perhaps it is done in our society to placate the relatives and prevent revenge as well as hoping to prevent other careless or accidental acts by others in society who, seeing her punishment, will be more careful to avoid consequences of careless acts.
A non related illustration might be confinement for "users" of illegal drugs after a third offense.
The result of which is to punish an addiction or illness with the hope that the individual will learn self control in prison.
--- End quote ---
What I see is a comparison of possible reasons our society punishes such cases by imprisoning people. Not that the crimes are comparable in there severity. In both scenarios Bob gave, each was imprisoned as a possible deterrent,
indianabob:
friends Lareli and Wanda,
Thank you for pointing out what I should have made clearer in my initial comment.
Lareli is correct that my illustrations were not comparable considering the lack of necessary detail.
Wanda is correct in her assessment of my intent and thanks for that. :)
I was hoping to compare the way we administer justice from the human perspective compared to what scripture says God would do...both in the Old Testament economy and the new. More on that and deterrents later if any are interested.
In my own view with only partial information available to the public, the woman police officer likely had been trained to respond in exactly the manner that she did, but with the caveat that she over-reacted out of surprise and fear for her own life rather than in a manner that we incorrectly would expect from a highly trained police officer, as portrayed in the movies.
In the mind of the public, an officer, especially one wearing a "bullet proof" [?] vest should hold back any deadly response until they are fully assured that the threat to themselves is real and deadly before themselves responding with deadly force.
e.g. only return fire after shots have been first fired at you. Not very practical if one expects to enjoy their retirement.
That expectation is to say the least unrealistic and based upon the ignorance of the average member of the public.
Consequently, IF we the public are expecting this type of event to be much less likely, then it would seem to follow that we need to change the system that sends, duty bound police officers into deadly combat with little protection for themselves.
Yes I know that she was off duty, but combat training is ingrained 24/7 or is ineffective and not useful!
If I myself walked into such a situation it is likely that I would turn and run back to a safer position OR would simply freeze and then be subject to whatever assault might come from the supposed intruder. It is my guess that the jury was made aware of several situations such as this for them to consider in their deliberations. The officer made a deadly mistake and the result was the death of an innocent person. However in judgement the public should be concerned mainly with whether there was premeditation or any other unlawful conduct on her part that would make her act reckless rather than a human error.
If the judgment is human error then correct the training and the duty assignment so that it may not happen at a future time. Punishing a person for being afraid or incompetent or just not suited for certain responsibilities is counter productive for the whole of humanity. Part of the solution is to stop expecting police officers to play god or superman and to provide them with ALL the resources we would wish for ourselves were we held to the same standards of conduct.
Isn't this really a societal problem that the police have to contend with, that has come about with our dismissal of God's law from our schools and family life?
Respectfully offered, Indiana Bob
--- Quote from: Wanda on October 16, 2019, 03:32:49 PM ---
--- Quote ---Perhaps it is done in our society to placate the relatives and prevent revenge as well as hoping to prevent other careless or accidental acts by others in society who, seeing her punishment, will be more careful to avoid consequences of careless acts.
A non related illustration might be confinement for "users" of illegal drugs after a third offense.
The result of which is to punish an addiction or illness with the hope that the individual will learn self control in prison.
--- End quote ---
What I see is a comparison of possible reasons our society punishes such cases by imprisoning people. Not that the crimes are comparable in there severity. In both scenarios Bob gave, each was imprisoned as a possible deterrent,
--- End quote ---
Dave in Tenn:
Let's not veer too far off the topic as it was started. It was started to give a "pictorial" example of how forgiveness changes hearts. I don't expect the world to adhere to the Spiritual Law. I don't even expect them to understand it. But from time to time some tiny glimmer of "example" can be seen in this twisted world that illustrates the Spiritual Law for those with eyes to see it.
Speaking only for myself, I can say with complete certainty that there has been NO change in my "behavior" that wasn't preceded by a change of heart--not by fear, or any other consequence of "deterrence". I'm going to go on record before God and everybody and state this: If the Judgments of God (Who IS the Lake of Fire) are not designed to do, intended to do (or are not capable of doing) something much greater than deterring bad behavior, then I am not interested in judging the world. I have much higher hopes for ultimate "righteousness" than that. I'm looking forward to the time when Love (and all the other fruit of the Spirit) reigns unencumbered and completely. This life (for me) is learning how that works. The Day is coming when He shall pour out His Spirit on all flesh and it will bear MUCH fruit.
seaofglass:
i am promted to reply
your heart is in the right place Dave.
i know cause all your many past responses indicate this. this is what i expect to see in those he is working with, not all who know the truths are part of the choosen! The fruit of their character will tell you who they are, by their fruit you shall know them.
its the small little character flause that sticks out most that tells you about someone. The world is a smorgashburg of confussion so this crime case is carnal world at work. Stay clear of the world and stay forcus on ourselves and we will be busy for the rest of our lives.
Be blessed
Sea of Glass
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version