Murder rates

[SpiritualMadMan]

>You do not have to have the murder weapon to prove a murder----if someone kills someone else-----they can take the weapon and smelt it down----and can still be tried for murder

True under US law. Under God's Law, the law that several continuing threads insist we should all obey, two or more eye witnesses were necessary to convict. Circumstantial evidence was unknown in the courts of 2000 BC. In other words, most current convictions in the US would never had made it to court in OT times.

Most of the accused in those days wouldn't have made it to trial either...

Especially if a City of Refuge was too far to run to...

I get the impression that in many cases, because of the general closness of the society, that it was much harder to do harm and get off scot-free.

And, if caught in the act there was no trial, just a rush outside the city and a quick stoning...

Swift and Sure!

 

[billwald]

We need to return to the good old days of lynching parties? It was never the Good Old Boys were lynched.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I think you have to look deeper at lynchings or other forms of vigilante justice and ask why these things occur. Certainly racism can play a part, but in the history of mankind, whenever unjust conditions exist, the people will seek to enforce justice on their own.

When governments fail to secure justice and provide for the common defense they should expect their citizens to seek justice for themselves, often with frightening consequences. Lynchings are more evidence of the failure of government than they are of hate.

A government that steals from law abiding citizens and supports those who break the law should not expect the support of those citizens.

 

[billwald]

>When governments fail to secure justice and provide for the common defense they should expect their citizens to seek justice for themselves, often with frightening consequences. Lynchings are more evidence of the failure of government than they are of hate.

Isn't this the primary complaint against the existing federal government by most people on this list? Should the lynchings start in Arizona? Lynchers in Maricopa County would be tacitly ignored by Sheriff Joe?

 

[SRBooe]

It should be obvious to people living in certain areas of the country that it is foolish to depend on the federal government to handle their responsibilities. Arizona is a prime example. Oklahoma comes to mind as well.

We have learned that it is foolish to expect our federal congress to live up to their responsibilities and to stay out of the business that belongs to state government. Even those of us who live in a state know better than to depend on our state and local government to be all and end all for us. We depend on ourselves.

At some point, people will have to depend on themselves and quit depending on a government that has no inclination to do their jobs and only their jobs.

I know it makes some people feel warm and cozy to think that there is someone from the government standing by -just waiting and watching - to provide for their every need. That is not reality, and in the end, those people will feel cheated and lied to. When that happens, there will be problems and then there will be an Obama stand up and promise them that he will correct those sins of government and take care of the people once again - using the wallets of those who have always taken care of themselves. That will last only until those who are being robbed find a way to protect what is theirs from the government.

That's where we are today.

When all this fails to happen, and it will fail, then those of us who depend on ourselves may find that defending the 2nd Amendment was a very good idea. Those who wanted to tear it down may very well need help from the very people that they criticized.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

----snip----
At some point, people will have to depend on themselves and quit depending on a government that has no inclination to do their jobs and only their jobs.

Not only does the obama regime (and the old bush regime) have no intention of doing their Constituionally Madated jobs, they actively interfere with and prosecute those that try to pick up the slack..

As for Lynchings... Vigilantism, including Lynchings is illegal and morally abhorent.

However, I am a firm believer that the "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand and Defend" should be the rule of Law for people who live on the Border.

As well as "NO TRESSPASSING - Posted at the Country Seat - Violaters WILL be shot without warning!!"

You have to assume that someone coming on your land, without prior notice and without your permission, intends no good will. Especially if you can see they have automatic weapons.

In this case I'd say a good deer rifle with a sighted in scope is in order.

If we had a true Homeland Security and we were intent on securing our borders we'd stop playing pussy-foot with people who cross illegally.

They are enemy combatants! Period!

They are importing drugs, and murderers and are intent on doing their criminal activities no matter who gets in their way...

 

[billwald]

Then it is OK for Baptists to lynch undocumented aliens? Or only OK for Baptists to ignore non-baptists who are lynching undocumented aliens?

 

[just-want-peace]

Then it is OK for Baptists to lynch undocumented aliens? Or only OK for Baptists to ignore non-baptists who are lynching undocumented aliens?

And I thought that BW was finally posting sensibly for a change---??

Silly me!!:tongue3:

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Isn't this the primary complaint against the existing federal government by most people on this list? Should the lynchings start in Arizona? Lynchers in Maricopa County would be tacitly ignored by Sheriff Joe?

Then it is OK for Baptists to lynch undocumented aliens? Or only OK for Baptists to ignore non-baptists who are lynching undocumented aliens?

Are you simply playing dumb trying to draw someone out?

Of course not Bill. As long as there are people like Sheriff Joe then there will be no need for lynchings. But when the elected governments forsake thier sworn duties, then we should not be surprised if lynchings occur.

Of course Baptists, and any other law abiding citizens should not ignore law breakers, any law breakers. But my point, supported by historical evidence, is that if our government fails to enforce the law, we should not be surprised that outraged citizens eventually protest and try to enforce it themselves.

The scary part is when this happens those outraged citizens are often motivated by hate and bring dreadfull results. Read the history of the KKK, the black panthers, or any other hate group. By failing to complete their constitutional duty our current president and his administration are creating an atmosphere where hate groups will thrive. It that does not scare you, what does?