• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Chauvin: The Case Against the Mob

atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
When did Christianity first arrive in Britain?
Click to expand...
They were Catholic, too.

Saint Alban (/ˈɔːlbən, ˈæl-/; Latin: Albanus) is venerated as the first-recorded British Christian martyr, for which reason he is considered to be the British protomartyr. Along with fellow Saints Julius and Aaron, Alban is one of three named martyrs recorded at an early date from Roman Britain ("Amphibalus" was the name given much later to the priest he was said to have been protecting). He is traditionally believed to have been beheaded in the Roman city of Verulamium (modern St Albans) sometime during the 3rd or 4th century, and his cult has been celebrated there since ancient times.​

"Another early text to mention Alban is the Vita Germani, or Life of St Germanus of Auxerre, written about 480 by Constantius of Lyon. The text only very briefly mentions Alban but is an important text concerning his nascent cult. According to the Vita, Germanus visited Alban's grave shortly after defeating the Pelagian heresy in Britain and petitioned Alban to give thanks to God on Germanus'a behalf. They once again call on him during their voyage home, and Alban is credited with providing smooth sailing for their voyage back to the continent."

- Saint Alban​
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
atpollard said:
They were Catholic, too.

Saint Alban (/ˈɔːlbən, ˈæl-/; Latin: Albanus) is venerated as the first-recorded British Christian martyr, for which reason he is considered to be the British protomartyr. Along with fellow Saints Julius and Aaron, Alban is one of three named martyrs recorded at an early date from Roman Britain ("Amphibalus" was the name given much later to the priest he was said to have been protecting). He is traditionally believed to have been beheaded in the Roman city of Verulamium (modern St Albans) sometime during the 3rd or 4th century, and his cult has been celebrated there since ancient times.​

"Another early text to mention Alban is the Vita Germani, or Life of St Germanus of Auxerre, written about 480 by Constantius of Lyon. The text only very briefly mentions Alban but is an important text concerning his nascent cult. According to the Vita, Germanus visited Alban's grave shortly after defeating the Pelagian heresy in Britain and petitioned Alban to give thanks to God on Germanus'a behalf. They once again call on him during their voyage home, and Alban is credited with providing smooth sailing for their voyage back to the continent."

- Saint Alban​
Click to expand...

The Christianity that the English took to the US was not Roman Catholicism but solid Biblical Christianity. Whether we were Catholic before makes no difference
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
The Christianity that the English took to the US was not Roman Catholicism but solid Biblical Christianity. Whether we were Catholic before makes no difference
Click to expand...
The difference between the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church in the 1600’s was the ability to divorce and replacing the Pope with the King as “defender of the Faith” ... so WHICH was really more Biblical?

(Both baptized infants and placed Cardinals and Bishops in authority over the local churches.)

That was why the Pilgrims had to flee to Holland and then New England.
 
canadyjd

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
The Christianity that the English took to the US was not Roman Catholicism but solid Biblical Christianity. Whether we were Catholic before makes no difference
Click to expand...
The Christianity that was brought to your godless land by the Italian Roman Catholics laid the foundation for what followed.

Please be honest with yourself and thank God the Catholics brought Christianity to Britain, which was, according to your own words, a godless land.

Just admit it, so we can get back to the OP

peace to you
 
Salty

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
I did NOT realize how far off the OP this has taken us.
For those who want to talk about Christianity going to America and England -
START A NEW THREAD.

Othersise - take this back to the OP!
The first sentence of Post # 1 starts as:

One of the main arguments being advanced by Eric Nelson, sole attorney for Derek Chauvin in his trial for the murder of George Floyd, is that the hostile crowd itself prevented the officers from attempting to perform CPR in the last minutes of Floyd’s life.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
canadyjd said:
The Christianity that was brought to your godless land by the Italian Roman Catholics laid the foundation for what followed.

Please be honest with yourself and thank God the Catholics brought Christianity to Britain, which was, according to your own words, a godless land.

Just admit it, so we can get back to the OP

peace to you
Click to expand...

Your "history" is wrong! There were Christians in England centuries BEFORE the Romans came here, so they could NOT have brought it! Get your facts right. Also, admit that the English did not bring any false form of the Christian Faith, but what you follow and believe, as Reformed. Also note, that much earlier than Luther and the Reformation, in the 16th century, it was an English man, John Wycliffe, 200 years earlier, who actually started the Reformation, by his opposition to the Roman Catholic church! Can you admit these FACTS???
 
Salty

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
SavedByGrace said:
Your "history" is wrong! There were Christians in England centuries BEFORE the Romans came here, so they could NOT have brought it! Get your facts right. Also, admit that the English did not bring any false form of the Christian Faith, but what you follow and believe, as Reformed. Also note, that much earlier than Luther and the Reformation, in the 16th century, it was an English man, John Wycliffe, 200 years earlier, who actually started the Reformation, by his opposition to the Roman Catholic church! Can you admit these FACTS???
Click to expand...

So who brought Christianity to England - and when?
 
atpollard

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Salty said:
One of the main arguments being advanced by Eric Nelson, sole attorney for Derek Chauvin in his trial for the murder of George Floyd, is that the hostile crowd itself prevented the officers from attempting to perform CPR in the last minutes of Floyd’s life.
Click to expand...
While true, it ignores the issue of everything that happened “in the middle”.

Having watched the videos, it seems clear that the Police had to use some level of force to restrain a clearly uncooperative Floyd that was fighting and refusing to get into the patrol car. So the initial force needed to restrain Floyd to the ground and establish control was clearly needed.

The real question is what should have happened after control was reestablished? Was maximum restraint face down on the street for 19 minutes “appropriate” or “excessive” force? The crowd and a jury have both viewed it as excessive. While not an expert, I am inclined to agree.

I only oppose the conviction for “murder” because I am not convinced “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the criminal actions (excessive force) were the cause of his death. The data on blood O2 does not seem to agree with the narrative on asphyxiation as the cause of death. Discovering such vital information at the end of the trial really warrants a mistrial.

Watching the video, I saw no real evidence that the police restraining Floyd ever gave any thought to First Aid prior to his having no pulse or immediately after. It was their attitude of clear indifference that raised the tensions in the crowd to the levels that required EMS to just load and run.

So while the statements are true about the crowd and EMS, the Lawyer is painting the result as the cause.
 
R

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
atpollard said:
While true, it ignores the issue of everything that happened “in the middle”.

Having watched the videos, it seems clear that the Police had to use some level of force to restrain a clearly uncooperative Floyd that was fighting and refusing to get into the patrol car. So the initial force needed to restrain Floyd to the ground and establish control was clearly needed.

The real question is what should have happened after control was reestablished? Was maximum restraint face down on the street for 19 minutes “appropriate” or “excessive” force? The crowd and a jury have both viewed it as excessive. While not an expert, I am inclined to agree.

I only oppose the conviction for “murder” because I am not convinced “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the criminal actions (excessive force) were the cause of his death. The data on blood O2 does not seem to agree with the narrative on asphyxiation as the cause of death. Discovering such vital information at the end of the trial really warrants a mistrial.

Watching the video, I saw no real evidence that the police restraining Floyd ever gave any thought to First Aid prior to his having no pulse or immediately after. It was their attitude of clear indifference that raised the tensions in the crowd to the levels that required EMS to just load and run.

So while the statements are true about the crowd and EMS, the Lawyer is painting the result as the cause.
Click to expand...
The prosecution case admittedly relied solely on visual data with the added claim that there would be no permanent evidence of damage from the lack of oxygen and there was no bruising at all. Without such evidence, they are free to decide however they want, but it is a guess.

IIRC, the defense expert said that the cause of death should have been listed as undetermined. That is, while it could have been listed as homicide, there was no conclusive data for that. Conclusion: Reasonable Doubt (which is the standard, not "preponderance of the evidence").
 
R

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
atpollard said:
While true, it ignores the issue of everything that happened “in the middle”.

Having watched the videos, it seems clear that the Police had to use some level of force to restrain a clearly uncooperative Floyd that was fighting and refusing to get into the patrol car. So the initial force needed to restrain Floyd to the ground and establish control was clearly needed.

The real question is what should have happened after control was reestablished? Was maximum restraint face down on the street for 19 minutes “appropriate” or “excessive” force? The crowd and a jury have both viewed it as excessive. While not an expert, I am inclined to agree.

I only oppose the conviction for “murder” because I am not convinced “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the criminal actions (excessive force) were the cause of his death. The data on blood O2 does not seem to agree with the narrative on asphyxiation as the cause of death. Discovering such vital information at the end of the trial really warrants a mistrial.

Watching the video, I saw no real evidence that the police restraining Floyd ever gave any thought to First Aid prior to his having no pulse or immediately after. It was their attitude of clear indifference that raised the tensions in the crowd to the levels that required EMS to just load and run.

So while the statements are true about the crowd and EMS, the Lawyer is painting the result as the cause.
Click to expand...
The trial brought out some points that might warrant a different approach to such arrests. Chauvin could not see Floyd from the angle of the crowd or of the free officer. From his perspective and experience, perhaps he was making what he thought was the best decision.

But perhaps he should not have had an overriding say in the positioning. Did the department have a policy about who would be in the best position to ascertain the suspect's condition?

Still, not every expert agreed it was excessive force. Some prosecution witnesses denied Chauvin used a police restraint method, which seems preposterous given what his own trainer said. And no one demonstrated what the actual forces on Floyd were.

AFAIK, Tobin did not do a force diagram showing definitively how all of the forces would have been applied, nor how they would have affected Floyd's body. And any bona fide analysis would show a range of error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top