"Murder Letter" -- Further discussion

by Yadirf 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Yadirf

  This is a post I made that is burried inside another thread. I thought I would make a new topic out of it in case someone wanted to add their thoughts to the subject. This is how my post to Farkel went:

  Farkel, and all:

  Actually there's no one here, obviously, that knows any of the details. But what about this possible scenario:

  What if this "murderer", at the time he committed such deeds, had been part of a "gang" that was involved in "gang warfare" ... whereby he participated in the disrespect shown for life. Now he thinks of himself as having committed "murder" because of his participation and support for his "gang", even though it was "kill or be killed". People are killed in every war. Are the warriors of all past wars "murderers" also? If not, then which ones are and which ones aren't? Should they all be brought to justice? Are they each being "shielded" and "protected" by the authorities that be?

  Yes, gang warfare is unlawful but its a reality nonetheless ... the same as wars between the nations is not merely a figment of the imagination.

  Just throwing this out there for further consideration and discussion, that's all. What say you? Does this scenario change anything about your thinking?

  Yadirf
• 

  Farkel

  : What if this "murderer", at the time he committed such deeds, had been part of a "gang" that was involved in "gang warfare" ... whereby he participated in the disrespect shown for life. Now he thinks of himself as having committed "murder" because of his participation and support for his "gang", even though it was "kill or be killed".

  According to the letter the guy didn't confess to self-defense, Yadirf.

  Besides, that's not the point at all, and as usual you are wont to avoid it. The society didn't make any comments about whether "kill-or-be-killed" was more mitigating than cold-blooded murder and that in a killing "kill-or-be-killed" or even a killing in self-defense justified the elders protecting him. They flat-out said to hide the truth about what he did.

  Since they didn't stipulate anything about the circumstances of how the murder/killing happened one can hardly argue what you are arguing.

  Forcus on the FACTS: the society said to harbor the guy and not tell anyone about what he did: the congregation, the police, ANYONE. Period.

  Surely even you can see that is unconscionable.

  Farkel
• 

  Yadirf

  According to the letter the guy didn't confess to self-defense, Yadirf.

  But perhaps with the enlightenment that he has come by, after once having studied the Bible, he NOW sees that what he originally thought to be justifiable homicide was in fact murder because now he sees that he should have not been a part of a “gang” to begin with.

  Besides, that's not the point at all,

  How do YOU know that? Since, as you acknowledge, quote: “Since they [the letter] didn't stipulate anything about the circumstances of how the murder/killing happened….”

  and as usual you are wont to avoid it.

  
  Is it possible for you to enter a discussion without feeling the need to let loose with insulting remarks? Rick called you down numbers of times for that over on H20. As a matter of fact, you’re what got me infected with such a tendency to do the very same thing. (No, not the “debil” … but Farkel made me do it! Or maybe Farkel is the Devil?)

  Forcus on the FACTS:

  That’s just it, not all the facts can be known. That’s the reason for my opening remark: “Actually there's no one here, obviously, that knows any of the details. But what about this possible scenario:” Yet YOU, Farkel, have already reached a verdict … merely on what little has been disclosed.
• 

  Farkel

  : Yet YOU, Farkel, have already reached a verdict … merely on what little has been disclosed.

  No need to reach any verdict. You keep side-slipping, so I'll spoon feed it to you from what we all know.

  A guy confessed to the elders that he had committed a murder and had not faced any trial for it.

  The elders wrote the society and asked what to do.

  The society wrote back and said not to tell anyone about it.

  Those are the facts. I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but you are dealing in speculation, and I'm dealing with the evidence we have.

  If all of those items I outlined were true, do you think the society can be justified for doing what they did?

  Yes, or no, or "I don't know" are all acceptable answers.

  Farkel
• 

  Had Enough

  If I may add a thought here....(not that Farkel needs any help here)

  Yadirf: you say:

  But perhaps with the enlightenment that he has come by, after once having studied the Bible, he NOW sees that what he originally thought to be justifiable homicide was in fact murder because now he sees that he should have not been a part of a “gang” to begin with.

  I doesn't matter what the man thinks now, the fact remains he is wanted by the police. That makes him a fugitive and the elders were told to harbour him. How honest, law-abiding and obeying Caesar is that?

  And how considerate of the victims' family is that and how loving to the rest of the congregation he's associating with and the general public is that?

  Whatever his "reason" for killing, he is wanted for murder and needs to have the courts decide his outcome.

  Had Enough
• 

  Farkel

  Yes, Had Enough.

  Harboring a someone who has admitted to committing a crime without justice being served is a criminal act. In fact, it is a felony.

  That makes the WTS felons. Nowadays they are trying to hide behind the cloak of pastoral confidentiality. Yet those bastards claim they have NO clergy! Hypocrites, felons, criminals.

  Farkel
• 

  Yadirf

  Farkel

  Those are the facts.

  No, those are the facts that were disclosed. You can’t say that there weren’t more to the story any more than I can say that there was.

  you are dealing in speculation, and I'm dealing with the evidence we have.

  But there may be OTHER evidence, that possibility can’t be dismissed. And without having heard ALL there might be to hear nobody can reasonably arrive at a decision such as you have.

  Too, there is a document that was mentioned in the “murder letter” that is missing from our view … namely the letter from the elders requesting direction. And none of us know entirely what was said in that document.

  PS> I'm working on borrowed time now, meaning that I've reached my limit of 25 posts (correction typos made me do it), so this will likely be my last post today.
• 

  teejay

  just scanned thru this thread (i must meet the mule) so i'll be brief
  and will hopefully return here this p.m.

  there's a lot that we don't know about the guy, but who should
  reasonably be aware of and in the process of investigating all
  the "what ifs"?

  case closed.
• 

  Yadirf

  Farkel

  Harboring a someone who has admitted to committing a crime without justice being served is a criminal act. In fact, it is a felony.

  That makes the WTS felons.

  Enough of such allegations! Since you are that convinced, Farkel, and you have the "murder letter" as all the evidence that you supposedly need, I challenge YOU to take the matter to the secular authorties and prove your case. Are you that sure of yourself?

  Yadirf

  PS> I don't intend for this latter post to cause my earlier reply to be neglected.
• 

  Yadirf

  teejay

  just scanned thru this thread (i must meet the mule)

  What exactly do you mean by "must meet the mule"?

  there's a lot that we don't know about the guy, but who should
  reasonably be aware of and in the process of investigating all
  the "what ifs"?

  And that's ALL you have to say? That's it? Case closed?
  You know it appears that perhaps you NEVER even read my introductory remarks, but you're not alone. There's much of what I said that nobody, so far, has even been willing to comment on. See if you can detect what I'm talkin' 'bout in the copy down below.

  Actually there's no one here, obviously, that knows any of the details. But what about this possible scenario:

  What if this "murderer", at the time he committed such deeds, had been part of a "gang" that was involved in "gang warfare" ... whereby he participated in the disrespect shown for life. Now he thinks of himself as having committed "murder" because of his participation and support for his "gang", even though it was "kill or be killed". People are killed in every war. Are the warriors of all past wars "murderers" also? If not, then which ones are and which ones aren't? Should they all be brought to justice? Are they each being "shielded" and "protected" by the authorities that be?

  Yes, gang warfare is unlawful but its a reality nonetheless ... the same as wars between the nations is not merely a figment of the imagination. -- Yadirf