Hi Sylvia
I haven't been here for a long while - how's things going with you?
...in all fiction:jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.
", says richard dawkins in the god delusion p51.
he goes on to say, "those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror".. would you agree?.
Hi Sylvia
I haven't been here for a long while - how's things going with you?
...in all fiction:jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.
", says richard dawkins in the god delusion p51.
he goes on to say, "those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror".. would you agree?.
Just looking through some old posts, found this an interesting read. I have added some more scriptures here, along with a statement by Jesus in support of the OT
Gen 3:16 ... " To the woman he said: 'I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.' " Why would God do this to womankind?
Lev 20:13 ... " And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. " Homosexuality is not a choice, some people are this way, yet God wants them dead?
Deut 25:11-12 ... " In case men struggle together with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the hand of the one striking him, and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of him by his privates, you must then amputate her hand. Your eye must feel no sorrow. " So, a husband mutilates his wife for protecting him?
Luke 14:26 ... " If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple. " Sorry Jesus, but i love my family.
Hosea 13:16 ... " Samaria will be held guilty, for she is actually rebellious against her God. By the sword they will fall. Their own children will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women themselves will be ripped up. " God kills children and pregnant women.
1 Sam 15:3 ... " Now go, and you must strike down Amalek and devote him to destruction, with all that he has, and you must not have compassion upon him, and you must put him to death, man as well as woman, child as well as suckling, bull as well as sheep, camel as well as ass. " God again kills women and children, oh and farm animals.
Ex 4:24 ... " Now it came about on the road at the lodging place that Jehovah got to meet him and kept looking for a way to put him to death. " This is a real clincher for me, God was looking for a way to kill Moses! If he aint safe who is?
... and the list goes on Deut 13:6-11, Deut 22:28,29, Deut 2:30-35, Deut 7:1,2, Deut 7:16, Josh 6:21, 1 Sam 6:19, Jer 13:14
The argument that this took place in the Old Testament is a very weak line to take. In the New Testament Jesus says on the Sermon on the Mount, "Do not think that i came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill; for truly I say to you that sooner heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. " Matt 5:17, 18
the usa, claiming that the usa supports freedom, has often supported revolutionaries/dissenters in other countries.. some examples:.
currently, the syrian war commenced circa 2011 in the so-called arab spring.
it is claimed that the usa supplied weapons to anti-government forces.
Trump was elected democratically. No comparison. If you don't like it, make sure you get as many people to vote for your candidate next time around.
Revolution???? because you didn't get your candidate? sigh.
Salvador Allende, the democratically elected Communist President of Chile, was overthrown in 1970 in a coup supported and funded by the CIA - putting General Pinochet's evil regime in to power.
There is a direct comparison.
it's hard enough for businesses to enter these areas the government once had to offer up tax breaks to service them.
in watts, california it took decades for city residents to get a grocery store after the thugs burned their businesses to the ground.
you can see the insanity taking place, when you allow mobs and fools to burn building down nothing good comes from it.
Murder also means an intention to cause grevious bodily harm, where the result is death. Though i agree it appears unlikely it is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
There could be a disconnect between events for joint enterprise, but ultimately that's question of fact to lay before the jury, as equally there could also be a connection.
False arrest can result in assault charges ... in the example of drugs coming back negative, i would assume there is an initial probable cause, ie a bag of white powder should be enough. In the arrest of Freddie Gray it seems to be implied there was no probable cause, leaving the police officers open to a charge of assault. Resisting an illegal arrest is lawful as far as English law is concerned, the defendant would not be charged ... as for US law on resisting arrest i'm not 100%.
it's hard enough for businesses to enter these areas the government once had to offer up tax breaks to service them.
in watts, california it took decades for city residents to get a grocery store after the thugs burned their businesses to the ground.
you can see the insanity taking place, when you allow mobs and fools to burn building down nothing good comes from it.
Interesting discussion, i haven't read the whole thread just the debate around the charges.
My personal opinion is that either Murder or Manslaughter will be proven based upon what we know. There seems to be confusion that maliciousness is needed to prove murder ( i think it was Simon who said, though I maybe wrong). The mental element the law adopts for murder is 'malice aforethought' ... it's an antiquated legal term and doesn't equate to maliciousness. It basically means intention and that intention is based upon a foresight of consequences. That intention can also be based upon an intention to do grievous bodily harm (or the US equivalent, forgive me i'm English). If the resulting consequence is death from grievous bodily harm it is still murder, even though there wasn't an intention to kill.
The other avenue prosecutors can go down is involuntary manslaughter. As has been mentioned this an be through negligence, but it can also be proven through an assault that leads to death ... ie, i punch you on the nose, not realising that you have fragile bones and die from my punch. I did not intend to cause you death, or grievous bodily harm, i only intended to assault you. Involuntary manslaughter is death caused through another criminal act (ie my assault).
Another aspect of this case is joint enterprise or a common purpose. So for instance i'm with a gang of other guys. We all join in beating someone up. One person kicks the victim in the head, causing death. In the eyes of the law joint enterprise is used to find all guilty of murder or manslaughter. It does not matter who struck the fatal blow, the fact that we were all part of the initial beating means that we could all be guilty of the unlawful killing by association. Its a very contentious point of law, as it was initially intended to stop a group of individuals denying they struck the fatal blow and hence declaring themselves innocent. It is in need of reform, however it is still on the books in many countries, including the US.
So how do we apply this to the case at hand?
For murder the prosecution would have to prove the officers either intended to kill or intended to cause grievous bodily harm by their so called 'rough riding' and as a result Freddie Gray died. For the purposes of intention, proving that the officers had a virtually certain foresight of death or grievous bodily harm could be enough to prove the mental element (malice aforethought), also known as intention. Proving either of these would mean murder.
For involuntary manslaughter the prosecutors would have to prove that the officers assaulted Freddie Gray which eventually resulted in his death. Personally i think this has a better chance based upon what we know. As the arrest appears to be wrongful arrest, the officers would more than likely be up for an assault charge. This is enough for involuntary manslaughter, as the result was death. The death could be viewed as a continuous act from the initial assault (wrongful arrest), straight through the rough riding ... either the initial assault or the rough riding proven could be enough for an assault charge. If prosecutors proved this lesser offence, then as the final result was death involuntary manslaughter would in my opinion likely stick.
Under the concept of joint enterprise, it does not matter which officer struck the fatal blow. If they are all involved in the assault and death was the eventual result, then all officers could be charged in the same way as the one who was doing the driving of the so called 'rough ride'.
It will be an interesting case to follow and one that i will certainly follow.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1766536/biology-professor-creationist-magazine/.
a biology professor is speaking out, demanding an apology and calling for an end to attempts to perpetuate lies against evolution after a statement from him was taken out of context in a creationist article in awake!, a jehovahs witness publication.
he says that a portion of his statement was picked from the whole, leaving a completely different impression from his actual statement.. .
Does anyone know , is there any way that the professor can take this further ?
Assuming you are talking of financial compensation, he would have to prove that his reputation has been damaged which has subsequently cost him financially.
in addition to the above question, why do citizens of the two above mentioned countries, or other countries, feel the necessity to tell americans how they should interpret the american constitution for localized issues?.
i fairly much have an idea what the general population in the usa feels in regards to the first question.
this could be one of the possible reasons cnn piers morgan poor ratings and eventual firing.
The USA would be much more civilised if it were still a British colony
my son, at age 25 finally, was able to get accepted into a community college.
but i dont have words of joy to share with him.
im instead dizzy with fear of possible financial failure.
Good for him, he's decided to get an education. I started my education at 37, the best thing I ever did. He'll be 35 when he gets to where he wants to be and will have 30 years of working in an environment he enjoys. Would you rather he be stuck in a job he doesn't enjoy for the rest of his working life? I doubt it.
At 25 he is a man now, allow him to make his own choices regarding student debt. He is correct about free online classes, they are good for learning but not if you want an accreditation to take into employment.
Starting studying at 25 is not late in life. Be happy for him, congratulate him and encourage him.
do you get confused sometimes whether this site is a discussion forum or a debating forum ?.
just asking.
whats your thoughts.. smiddy.
Anything that can be contentious tend to be posted in the politics forum. If I recall that was created a few years after this site was set up, in large due to debating occurring on the regular discussion sections.
There are a number of posters who enjoy debating and having a separate section as in the politics forum can be a good thing, leaving other sections for those who maybe still JW's or lurking around for Watchtower related discussions.
in the past week, i have heard from a number of friends scattered all over the place.
a number of them are very upset over the congregation being required, to send in all monies over $4,000.
a number of these were kh's that were saving to buy land, and or build new kh's.
There is an argument with regards to gifts that if you are giving it on a condition, as in the case of building work, that you have created a trust for that purpose. Even though legally the local congregation owns the money they cannot from a legal standpoint use that money for any purpose they desire, it is being held on trust for the purpose it was given.
A trust doesn't have to be declared in that situation, a court will find that one has been created constructively.
Whether the individual has the balls to sue the society and/or local congregation, or even ask for their money back is another matter.