Posted on 10/28/2015 9:28:37 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
I hate to say it. But ... she was born guilty to these idiots. They make us all look bad.
She had the audacity to stand up for her rights and not surrender her cell phone to ZERO TOLERANCE BS!!! She didn’t do anything wrong in the first place. But, the teacher decided to get tough.
What about the other kid who got ARRESTED? For WHAT???
This school is out of control, the cop is a documented bully psycho, and anyone who defends these police state tactics against teenage girls is no conservative.
I will believe what I saw, which was over the top unreasonable use of force not commensurate with what the situation demanded. You believe whatever you want to...
There has always been a species of conservative (or at least a species of persons who call themselves conservative) who cannot conceive of questioning any use of force by LEO if that force is applied to someone else. They know that they should distrust the state, but their devotion to "law and order" is almost without limit. Interestingly, many of them would criticize a parent for treating a child like this, but it's cool if the force emanates from the state.
You're right. That's not conservative.
It's not my job to handle the Yute who acted up.
Hardly deflecting and certainly forthright.
“The officer had many more options at his disposal other than over the top physical force against a girl”.
........................................
Mark Furhman said yesterday the cop showed restraint and used the minimum of force to quell the situation. I believe Furhman, not the grandstanding sheriff trying to keep his job.
********************************************************************************
Fuhrman is quite grounded and uses common-sense. I also believe Fuhrman but, unfortunately, there are those on the FReeper boards who are also “grandstanders”. I’ve asked several of these grandstanders how they would have SPECIFICALLY handled the situation and they have clearly been at a total loss.
Please stop posting to me, thank you very much.
Please stop posting to me, thank you very much.
************************************************************
Sure, I’ll do that since you’re clearly incapable of providing any input besides “grandstanding”.
No, most don't have that much discipline.
Anyway, I would like to see what happened before the beginning of this edited video clip.
Nice clipping of Scripture out of context.
You do realize that the Lord said of Paul and the first century Christians, “Well done, My good and faithful servant.”
while the State said “You wicked and unfaithful servant, bow down to me and serve me or die.”
In other words, Paul and the Christians honored *God’s* commands above the State’s commands to the point that the State had them killed.
Were they in violation of Romans 13? According to your logic, they didn’t obey the state hard enough. The State would cheerfully point to Paul and say, “See? You didn’t obey me hard enough, and therefore, you opposed your own God” even though Paul knew that wasn’t accurate.
It’s State worship. If the State commits an act of violence, it’s okay. If they didn’t worship the State, they would feel zero need to defend the State on such matters.
No different than the ancient Greeks who believed, “Well, if Zeus does it, it’s okay-—but if you do it, the gods will punish you.”
“Were they in violation of Romans 13? According to your logic, they didn t obey the state hard enough.”
I took nothing out of context. The argument was made that police should obey the Golden Rule. I pointed out the police are entrusted with more power in order to protect others.
The tax collectors and soldiers of Christ’s day were also given more power than anyone else. They too, were under God’s law and were not to abuse their power. They were not to extort others or abuse them or claim more taxes than they were authorized to collect.
And you did take the passage out of context. You clipped out the sections that talk about honoring the State’s law, while ignoring the context of the rest of the book of Romans *and* the history of the Roman church of the first century.
Greater power does NOT mean “less responsibility” or “waived of the expectation to Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul and might and love your neighbor as yourself.” Christ would remind us that the officer’s neighbor is the teenage girl who sat in a chair.
I notice that you ignored the fact that the State *hated* the first Century Christians because of their love for the Lord and their honorable service towards Him, while you argue that the 21st century believer should be *beloved* of the State for obedience.
You’re absolutely right. There are some people who believe that only the state can save them from the “chaos” of the rabble. The state can do no wrong.
“And you did take the passage out of context. You clipped out the sections that talk about honoring the State’s law, while ignoring the context of the rest of the book of Romans *and* the history of the Roman church of the first century.”
What!? You mean in a single, 3-4 sentence post I didn’t cover the history of Rome, the church and the entire book of Romans? Oh golly...
My point was completely accurate. Cops are NOT expected to treat everyone the way they want to be treated because they are dealing with CRIMINALS, and because God expects a government to enforce laws. In this case, the law did not require the girl to reject God. It merely required her to leave the classroom when the teacher and principal told her to do so.
“Christ would remind us that the officer’s neighbor is the teenage girl who sat in a chair.”
She also REFUSED to leave the chair, and refused a lawful order to get up and leave the room under her own power. It had ZERO to do with “the State *hated* the first Century Christians because of their love for the Lord and their honorable service towards Him”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.