Innocent Persons Resisting Arrest

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305840485' post='2243660']
Well whether you acknowledge a Creator or not is irrelevant to whether one exists or not. I agree lack of belief that there is a Creator does not nullify your rights, but I do not agree that your human rights are based on you being human, such a proposition is silly, the rights of something cannot derive their origin from the something itself, such as a man cannot be his own father.[/quote]

Wait, what? You're suggesting that rights have to be bestowed/granted? Why?

Why can't they be part of who we are?

I mean, yes, I'm saying 'God made us that way,' so I'm hardly denying God as the source of human dignity. It just seems an odd way to put it to say that we have a right to life because God gave us one. I'd be more comfortable stating that God gave us the gift of life, and so we have a right to keep it. Meaning, no one else has the right to take it away from us (as a starting position).

I would find it absurd to suggest that we 'gave ourselves' life, of course, but we have rights because we [i]are[/i] humans. It's...intrinsic.

[quote]
[quote name="I"] [img]http://www.ihmsjc.org/roman_1.jpg[/img]
Apparently, the right to property isn't exactly at the center as the most important right.[/quote]


I'll address this later, lets say I disagree, and I believe that Catholic teaching deals with it extensively, but it is unimportant for this discussion, so I will let it go. [/quote]

Sorry for not including the image in the post last time; but the link gives the title of the graph and all. Of course Catholic teaching deals with this extensively. See below.


[quote]The Declaration of Independence is a treasonous letter sent to a king as justification of treason. It is hardly a philosophical tract on the rights of an individual. Of course it says these rights are the duty of government to protect, that is the justification for the rebellion.


( by the way, bad example if you are arguing property is a not a basic right)[/quote]

I did not say that we don't have a right to property, I merely pointed out that property isn't the most essential of the many rights we have. I based that conclusion on how it was conspicuously absent from the most basic rights enumerated in several different documents based on slightly different conceptions of human rights in different contexts. It's more minor. Obviously, taking someone else's property is stealing, and thus sinful. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

When people's rights are in conflict, it's not always clear which right prevails. Recognizing that property isn't the most important of the rights is important for that reason, though of course you did list it last. One of the reasons why there is such great sympathy for the character of Jean Valjean in [i]Les Miserables[/i] is because he stole a loaf of bread to feed his sister's family. Yes, what he did was wrong, but the punishment seems a bit excessive for the crime.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYCPHHPXTmk[/media]

And of course, this is a case of someone resisting arrest . I love this musical!


As for the Declaration of Independence, of course it is philosophical. It is giving the reason for the rebellion, explaining [i]why[/i] the colonists felt the need to break away. It's not a tome on the subject, no, but it's not important to this country's history simply because it says 'deuces' to England. The principles explained in the Declaration are important.



So, to recap, where I disagree with you in your first two points is in what is omitted rather than precisely what you said. Governments do not grant rights - there we agree. But you then relegate the government to the role of an interloper or intruder, simply because it is not the [i]source[/i] of the rights. Whereas I am saying that it is meant to protect the rights of the people governed, and the founders of the United States felt the same way. The Bill of Rights was written to ensure that the government, once granted power, would not then turn around and encroach upon the rights of individuals.

So, the government has an essential role in protecting human rights in a society. Unless, of course, there is an anarchy, in which case, each man must do his best to protect his own rights. This role of government can be abused, and when a government is guilty of human rights violations, that certainly is not a just scenario. The question then becomes...when is the line crossed in the question of arrest?

According to the UN, the line is crossed when the arrest or detention is arbitrary. Not when the person is innocent. If there is a reason to suspect that the person is guilty, arrest is appropriate, as long as it is understood that the person has the right to defend themselves in a court of law.


Moving on to your other points....

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305876532' post='2243804']
Whew, I just had to ask, didn't want to assume one way or the other. You could have been a wealthy drug lord or a disgruntled ex-marine sniper for all I know.


I'm trying to picture your scenario (with regards to the moral right to resist for an innocent).
One of my favourite movies is Rambo first blood.

The guy becomes a vagrant and wanders into a town where the Sherif doesn't like the look of him and tries to drive him past the town. He ultimately gets arrested for vagrancy.
When they are processing him back at teh station, some are rough on him and joke and laugh at him. One guy grabs him in a headlock from behind, Rambo gets a flashback vision of being tortured in Vietnam, freaks out, attacks the officers and runs away. This basically sets up the rest of the movie where he (as an innocent) is fleeing from the law.

So, i'm trying to imagine, instead of flashbacks of torture, instead maybe a flash back of a Catholic Priest telling him that he has the moral right to resist arrest if he is innocent.
I don't think the audience would have had any sympathy for him if that was the case.
[/quote]
I think First Blood is a great example.

Rambo was trying to get food, the police unjustly prevented him from getting food, this violated his right to life. Then when he attempted to come back to get food, he was unjustly arrested.

My contention is that as an innocent he had the rght to resist then. Just as he had a right to resist later when he was being roughed up (though it was degrading and unjust I would hardly call it torture, the police,not the NVA). He had the right to resist arrest for the resistance un the ppolice station, as that was defense of life and liberty.
All of the men he inujured or killed were combatants who sought to unjustly arrest him for unjust cause. This includes the posse in the woods and the natiional Gaurdsmen later.

He even displayed proportionality in that he did not kill the origional posse in the woods, accept when necessary, he had the chance to slit Brian Dennihy's (Sp?) throatbut gave his a warning and let him go.

My contention is that all of this was completly morally acceptable and that he was within his rights to do it.

THe very end where he assaults the town in order to Kill the sherrif is a different matter (it may or may not be moral, depending on other factors), but as long as he was just trying to escape unjust imprisonment, he was within his rights to resist.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Wait, what? You're suggesting that rights have to be bestowed/granted? Why?

Why can't they be part of who we are?

I mean, yes, I'm saying 'God made us that way,' so I'm hardly denying God as the source of human dignity. It just seems an odd way to put it to say that we have a right to life because God gave us one. I'd be more comfortable stating that God gave us the gift of life, and so we have a right to keep it. Meaning, no one else has the right to take it away from us (as a starting position).

I would find it absurd to suggest that we 'gave ourselves' life, of course, but we have rights because we [i]are[/i] humans. It's...intrinsic. [/quote]


Rights must come from somewhere, even if it is Nature, but they cannot come from what has them, something cannot be the origin of itself.

Yes we have rights becuase we are human, it is indeed intrisic, the statement counters nothing said earlier, the rights we have intrinsicly come from our humanness. Why? becuase they were instilled by the Creator, even if that Creator is a panthiestic abstraciton of God.


[quote]Sorry for not including the image in the post last time; but the link gives the title of the graph and all. Of course Catholic teaching deals with this extensively. See below. [/quote] I have see this graph, I don't really find it terribly compelling, As I said, it is an issue for another thread, as the right to property is not really in dispute here. Suffice it to say, that graph is not an Official Church document, nor is it magnificent piece of philosophical explination.

I find it a very weak document. It would be better done as a venn diagram. Without derailing this discussion, the right to work is an overlapping subset of the right to liberty and the right to property.

[quote]I did not say that we don't have a right to property, I merely pointed out that property isn't the most essential of the many rights we have. I based that conclusion on how it was conspicuously absent from the most basic rights enumerated in several different documents based on slightly different conceptions of human rights in different contexts. It's more minor. Obviously, taking someone else's property is stealing, and thus sinful. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

When people's rights are in conflict, it's not always clear which right prevails. Recognizing that property isn't the most important of the rights is important for that reason, though of course you did list it last. One of the reasons why there is such great sympathy for the character of Jean Valjean in [i]Les Miserables[/i] is because he stole a loaf of bread to feed his sister's family. Yes, what he did was wrong, but the punishment seems a bit excessive for the crime.
[/quote]!

Yes he stole a loaf of bread, violating the right to lproperty, to protect the innocent's right to life, but of that crime he was guilty, he was not innocent, was he morally culpable for theft? no. Was He guilty of theft? Yes.

YEt you seem to be saying that he did not have to rightt o run to escape unjust punishment, certianly he could not if a man who was truely innocent does not have the right to run.


[quote]As for the Declaration of Independence, of course it is philosophical. It is giving the reason for the rebellion, explaining [i]why[/i] the colonists felt the need to break away. It's not a tome on the subject, no, but it's not important to this country's history simply because it says 'deuces' to England. The principles explained in the Declaration are important. [/quote]

Fine, I'll play. Jefferson wrote the Pursuit of Property first, but the C. Congress changed it to pursuit of Happiness becuase they thought it meant the same thing and sounded less capricious.

THe Founders concidered property to be coequal to liberty.
[quote]So, to recap, where I disagree with you in your first two points is in what is omitted rather than precisely what you said.[/quote]
You don't really understand how reasoning works do you.
Your a science teacher, think of it as a science experiment, you only test one variable at a time, what is being tested is how far the innocent can go in defense of liberty and life.
No arguement has been made about Governments duty to protect rights, if one is innocent and the government is trying to aresst you then obviously the government is failing in this duty. At least in regard to the innocent.


[quote]Governments do not grant rights - there we agree. But you then relegate the government to the role of an interloper or intruder, simply because it is not the [i]source[/i] of the rights. Whereas I am saying that it is meant to protect the rights of the people governed, and the founders of the United States felt the same way. The Bill of Rights was written to ensure that the government, once granted power, would not then turn around and encroach upon the rights of individuals. [/quote]
Governments do not grant rights, therefore they cannot justly take them. The government (any Government) has the just Authority to punish those who have forfieted thier rights and violated the rights of another. If they are attempting to take away the rights of an innocent then they have violated his rights, and become the unjust agressor. THat thier agression is or is not unknowing is irrelevent, all have the right to self defense, even agaisnt those who are not intending to harm you. In this case the government is attempting to harm you, it may or may not be morally clupable, but it is certianly attempting to take away your rights.

[quote]So, the government has an essential role in protecting human rights in a society. Unless, of course, there is an anarchy, in which case, each man must do his best to protect his own rights. This role of government can be abused, and when a government is guilty of human rights violations, that certainly is not a just scenario. The question then becomes...when is the line crossed in the question of arrest?[/quote]
We have no disagreement about the governments duty, only the individuals right to protect his own rights, even if it is the government trying to take them away.



[quote]According to the UN, the line is crossed when the arrest or detention is arbitrary. Not when the person is innocent. If there is a reason to suspect that the person is guilty, arrest is appropriate, as long as it is understood that the person has the right to defend themselves in a court of law. [/quote]

The UN is an evil organization and has been fro mits beginning, what they say has little meaning to me.

[MithLuin]

[quote name="Don John of Austria"]3. These rights cannot justly be taken from a human being by anyone, for any reason; however, they can be forfeited by the person holding them. A person forfeits these rights by unjustly attempting to remove the rights of another.

4. A person is empowered to defend these rights against those who would take them, including the use of force, up to and including deadly force, in order to defend any right he has not forfeited.[/quote]


How do you forfeit rights? That is a key question in all of this. If rights are an intrinsic part of who you are....what can change that?

You are truly free when you are obedient to God, and when your will chooses what is good, true and beautiful. You are a slave when you indulge in sin and desire what is contrary to God's law. So, to the question of 'How does one forfeit the right to freedom?' the answer is 'By becoming a sinner.' Sinners are never truly free, as they (okay, we ) lack the ability to choose that which is good.

We are all born sinners. There's no way around that. None of us are truly free. That's why we need a Redeemer, and frequent reception of the sacraments. With God's grace, we can experience freedom.

But obviously that does not mean that we all deserve to be locked up in a jail, either. Loss of this type of freedom refers to actually losing freedom of movement, to being constrained to remain someplace against your will.

So what is the role of the rule of law in all of this?

[quote]But mischief is often caused by erroneous opinions. Many people think that the laws which govern man's relations with the State are the same as those which regulate the blind, elemental forces of the universe. But it is not so; the laws which govern men are quite different. The Father of the universe has inscribed them in man's nature, and that is where we must look for them; there and nowhere else.

These laws clearly indicate how a man must behave toward his fellows in society, and how the mutual relationships between the members of a State and its officials are to be conducted. They show too what principles must govern the relations between States; and finally, what should be the relations between individuals or States on the one hand, and the world-wide community of nations on the other.

[i]Pacem in Terris[/i], Pope John XXIII, 1963[/quote]

The Church has always supported rule of law as a means of encouraging people to live in liberty. Lawlessness is associated with barbaric behavior, and everyone 'doing whatever they want' tends to end...badly. The Church recognizes that as sinful human beings, clear consequences help us to live in better freedom.

[quote]What has been said of the liberty of individuals is no less applicable to them when considered as bound together in civil society. For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals, that human law, promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature; and they command men to follow after what is right and to shun what is wrong, adding at the same time a suitable sanction. But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society, because, just as civil society did not create human nature, so neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal, law. [b]The precepts, therefore, of the natural law, contained bodily in the laws of men, have not merely the force of human law, but they possess that higher and more august sanction which belongs to the law of nature and the eternal law.[/b] And within the sphere of this kind of laws the duty of the civil legislator is, mainly, to keep the community in obedience by the adoption of a common discipline and by putting restraint upon refractory and viciously inclined men, so that, deterred from evil, they may turn to what is good, or at any rate may avoid causing trouble and disturbance to the State. Now, there are other enactments of the civil authority, which do not follow directly, but somewhat remotely, from the natural law, and decide many points which the law of nature treats only in a general and indefinite way. For instance, though nature commands all to contribute to the public peace and prosperity, whatever belongs to the manner, and circumstances, and conditions under which such service is to be rendered must be determined by the wisdom of men and not by nature herself. It is in the constitution of these particular rules of life, suggested by reason and prudence, and put forth by competent authority, that human law, properly so called, consists, binding all citizens to work together for the attainment of the common end proposed to the community, and forbidding them to depart from this end, and, in so far as human law is in conformity with the dictates of nature, leading to what is good, and deterring from evil.
...
Moreover, the highest duty is to respect authority, and obediently to submit to just law; and by this the members of a community are effectually protected from the wrong-doing of evil men. Lawful power is from God, "and whosoever resisteth authority resisteth the ordinance of God'*; wherefore, obedience is greatly ennobled when subjected to an authority which is the most just and supreme of all. But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God. Thus, an effectual barrier being opposed to tyranny, the authority in the State will not have all its own way, but the interests and rights of all will be safeguarded - the rights of individuals, of domestic society, and of all the members of the commonwealth; all being free to live according to law and right reason; and in this, as We have shown, true liberty really consists.

* Romans 13:2
[i]Libertas praestantissimum[/i], Pope Leo XIII, 1888 (incidentally, the same year he canonized St. Peter Claver)[/quote]

Actually, this whole encyclical is worth reading - great stuff! But anyway, yes, we have an obligation as Christians to submit to just authority. Detaining and arresting a person in accordance with the laws of the land designed to curtail evil actions is legitimate. It may be unfortunate if a mistake is made and an innocent person is arrested, but efforts to clear the name are needed in that case - and the courts are the place to do that.

As long as submitting to the authority does not cause you to disobey the laws of God in any way...then we should submit.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.



More later.....

[Don John of Austria]

I am on my phone so this will be short. Those documents do not support your position they support mine. John says directly that the state man relationship is bound the natural law my position is directly founded on the theory of natural law as supported by the church. More when I have a comput er

[stevil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305907898' post='2243863']
but as long as he was just trying to escape unjust imprisonment, he was within his rights to resist.
[/quote]
I feel that I am more in-tune with the general audience than you in this matter. (I could be wrong)

It was understandable that Rambo paniced and fleed due to the horrific nature of his past in Vietnam.
He acted somewhat sensibly in the movie by not seriously harming anyone, other than the guy that died by accident falling from the helicopter. (the book was much different BTW, everyone was killed)

So I feel although the audience had sympathy for him, they knew he had escallated the issue and commited many crimes (resisting arrest, assault on many officers, theft of a vehicle, destruction of property, breaking and entering, theft of weapons). He deserved to go to prison by the end of the movie.

Had he not paniced, he would have been released from the police station in due course, no-one would have been hurt.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305922137' post='2243931']
I feel that I am more in-tune with the general audience than you in this matter. (I could be wrong)

It was understandable that Rambo paniced and fleed due to the horrific nature of his past in Vietnam.
He acted somewhat sensibly in the movie by not seriously harming anyone, other than the guy that died by accident falling from the helicopter. (the book was much different BTW, everyone was killed)

So I feel although the audience had sympathy for him, they knew he had escallated the issue and commited many crimes (resisting arrest, assault on many officers, theft of a vehicle, destruction of property, breaking and entering, theft of weapons). He deserved to go to prison by the end of the movie.

Had he not paniced, he would have been released from the police station in due course, no-one would have been hurt.
[/quote]


So being hungry qualifies as an arrestable offence?

The police were tyrannical, and were abusive, in both cases Rambo had the right of resistance.

I have no way of knowing what the general audiance felt, but, I will remind you he was concidered heroic enough tomake a sequal where he was the hero. (and another one too, but that doesn't really count becuase it would be effected by his heroism in the second movie).

That said, the US has a long tradition of looking favorably upon those who resist government oppression.

Were the Founders wrong in resisting the Crown of England? Why is that groups have a right to revolt, but individuals, who ahve their rights taken from them, do not?

[Laudate_Dominum]

This thread became aw[s][/s]esome the moment Rambo was introduced into the discussion.

[stevil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305926733' post='2243959']
So being hungry qualifies as an arrestable offence?
[/quote]
He was arrested unfairly. I don't think it was just about hunger from Rambo's POV. He is more than capable of living off the land, I feel he also wanted human interaction/companionship, may be in search of a community he could belong to. Rambo 4 brought him back to this theme, many years on he had given up on his country, on society and on people, he had lost his social skills and was very much a recluse, at the end of Rambo 4 he had been brought back to a place where he was ready to forgive and have a more optimistic view on humanity and make an attempt for himself to come back to society.

From the Sheriff's perspective, he had made judgment simply on sight of Rambo. Sheriff thought Rambo may cause trouble in "his" town. The sheriff was wrong and abused his position of power.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305926733' post='2243959']
The police were tyrannical, and were abusive, in both cases Rambo had the right of resistance.
[/quote]
I feel the directors and/or story writer didn't think that there was enough cause to get the audience to sympathise with Rambo, hence they included the flashback of Vietnam.
Rambo's actions were erronous but understandable given his traumatic history.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305926733' post='2243959']
Why is that groups have a right to revolt, but individuals, who ahve their rights taken from them, do not?
[/quote]
History tends to be written by those that win the battles.

[MithLuin]

[quote]Yes he stole a loaf of bread, violating the right to property, to protect the innocent's right to life, but of that crime he was guilty, he was not innocent, was he morally culpable for theft? No. Was he guilty of theft? Yes.

Yet you seem to be saying that he did not have the right to run to escape unjust punishment, certainly he could not if a man who was truly innocent does not have the right to run.[/quote]

Well, the story of Les Mis is a lot more complicated than that. But before I get into that, I'll reiterate that the reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that when rights come into conflict, it is important to understand which are more important. Yes, Valjean is a guilty man - he stole, so he is a thief. It was not a sin for him to try to feed a starving child, though. So on that point, we agree. Valjean never denies his guilt, but he does express a good deal of frustration with the law for making him pay such a steep price for his transgression.


Jean Valjean stole the loaf of bread as a young person, was caught, arrested, found guilty, and jailed. He spent [i]19 years[/i] in jail fulfilling his sentence. The initial sentence was 'only' 5 years , but he tried (and failed) to escape (possibly twice?), so it was lengthened. After he did his time, he was released, but on probation. ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdRJTr23gQo]Prologue[/url])

Unable to get a job because of his status as an ex-convict, he took advantage of a bishop's charity/hospitality and stole some silver. Caught, he claimed it was a gift (so, he lied to the police). When they brought him back to the bishop to expose his story, the bishop [to everyone's shock] corroborated the story and told him he forgot the candlesticks and added them as a further 'gift'. ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUqK6bA0AI]On Parole/ The Bishop/ What Have I Done?[/url])

The bishop's mercy allowed him to get a new start, so he left behind the name of Jean Valjean and started life under a new identity, eventually becoming a factory owner and mayor under this new name. As Valjean, he was wanted for violating his probation. Eventually, another man is captured and identified as Valjean, so he comes clean and reveals his true identity to prevent this innocent from being jailed in his name. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PXZ1nLiUZo](Who am I?)[/url]

But just when his past has caught up with him, one of his employees (whom he had fired and left destitute), died, leaving behind a daughter who had no one to care for her. That's the moment Javert (the policeman) catches up with Valjean, so he begs for three days to see to his responsibility towards the girl and set things to rights. But he's been at flight for [i]years,[/i] so Javert is understandably a bit skeptical and refuses to let him go. Jean Valjean is an exceptionally strong man, so he knocks out Javert and flees, finding the young girl and restarting his life yet [i]again[/i]. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WdoAnlQ30U](The Confrontation)[/url]

But the story doesn't end there....they both find themselves in the midst of a student uprising. Javert is now the prisoner, and Valjean is in the position of authority (such as it is). [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbYkf0119Qk](First Attack)[/url] Valjean chooses to let him go, and Javert...takes this badly. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKiQezZxVwY](Suicide)[/url]


As you can see, the entire musical is a very involved treatment of the concepts of justice and mercy, freedom and servitude, and yes...human rights. No doubt Victor Hugo's novel is even more nuanced, but I haven't read it, so I can't comment. Both Valjean and Javert are flawed, though in different ways.

In the song 'The Confrontation', Javert is correct in wanting to bring Valjean in. Valjean is guilty of breaking the law, and Javert is fulfilling his duty by capturing the criminal. BUT, Valjean is correct in wanting to fulfill his promise to a dying woman, so by asking for the delay, so that he can fulfill both his promise [i]and[/i] his debt to society, he is being somewhat reasonable. Valjean [i]does[/i] threaten to kill Javert, and ends up using violence to get away.

The audiences' sympathy for Valjean comes from several sources. One, we know the initial crime was rather minor, and it seems that by now, Valjean has paid his debt to society. It seems unfair that his past continues to follow him so many years later. Also, we know he's experienced a genuine conversion, and is now a good and upright man. So, even if he did start out as a thief and a liar, he isn't any more - he just risked his own freedom to ensure an innocent man went free. Add to that the plight of Cosette (the dead woman's young daughter), and few are rooting for Javert during their confrontation.

Javert is not very sympathetic, because he refuses to view Valjean as a fellow human being. He constantly refers to him by his prisoner number (24601) and makes it clear that in his opinion, he is a much better man. Also, he's intransigent, fixed in his ways, and unwilling to consider any other possibilities. He's all about justice, and has little use for mercy. He's certainly not up for considering exceptions to the law!

But if Valjean had actually killed Javert, things would be quite different. A lot of the sympathy would go away, as well as his justification of using his freedom to try to save innocents - because how would killing Javert 'make up for' saving the wounded Marius?




Anyway, to tie it all back into the discussion here, Valjean is always trying to run to save some other innocent's life. That's an extenuating circumstance in his attempt to resist arrest! He never denies Javert's right to arrest him, he merely requests a little extra time as a free man, to achieve an important good.







As for the encyclicals, where do they state that it is acceptable to kill the police officers who come for you if you are not guilty? There's a lot in there about authority, and as long as the laws are just and in accordance with natural law, there's nothing that says you should take the law into your own hand. It DOES say you should not obey a law if it requires you to do something that would be against God's laws, but nowhere (that I found) does it suggest that an accusation that turns out not to be true is a violation of justice. Tyranny is a problem, yes, but not mistakes. Killing a man doesn't clear your name and it doesn't exactly honor God's laws, either.

[list]# Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
# Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
# Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
# Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
# Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
# Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
# Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
# Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [/list]



I probably will have to be away from phatmass for awhile, so I apologize for abandoning this thread. It's been interesting!

Edited May 21, 2011 by MithLuin

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305954962' post='2244107']
Well, the story of Les Mis is a lot more complicated than that. But before I get into that, I'll reiterate that the reason I brought it up was to demonstrate that when rights come into conflict, it is important to understand which are more important. Yes, Valjean is a guilty man - he stole, so he is a thief. It was not a sin for him to try to feed a starving child, though. So on that point, we agree. Valjean never denies his guilt, but he does express a good deal of frustration with the law for making him pay such a steep price for his transgression.


Jean Valjean stole the loaf of bread as a young person, was caught, arrested, found guilty, and jailed. He spent [i]19 years[/i] in jail fulfilling his sentence. The initial sentence was 'only' 5 years , but he tried (and failed) to escape (possibly twice?), so it was lengthened. After he did his time, he was released, but on probation. ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdRJTr23gQo]Prologue[/url])

Unable to get a job because of his status as an ex-convict, he took advantage of a bishop's charity/hospitality and stole some silver. Caught, he claimed it was a gift (so, he lied to the police). When they brought him back to the bishop to expose his story, the bishop [to everyone's shock] corroborated the story and told him he forgot the candlesticks and added them as a further 'gift'. ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZUqK6bA0AI]On Parole/ The Bishop/ What Have I Done?[/url])

The bishop's mercy allowed him to get a new start, so he left behind the name of Jean Valjean and started life under a new identity, eventually becoming a factory owner and mayor under this new name. As Valjean, he was wanted for violating his probation. Eventually, another man is captured and identified as Valjean, so he comes clean and reveals his true identity to prevent this innocent from being jailed in his name. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PXZ1nLiUZo](Who am I?)[/url]

But just when his past has caught up with him, one of his employees (whom he had fired and left destitute), died, leaving behind a daughter who had no one to care for her. That's the moment Javert (the policeman) catches up with Valjean, so he begs for three days to see to his responsibility towards the girl and set things to rights. But he's been at flight for [i]years,[/i] so Javert is understandably a bit skeptical and refuses to let him go. Jean Valjean is an exceptionally strong man, so he knocks out Javert and flees, finding the young girl and restarting his life yet [i]again[/i]. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WdoAnlQ30U](The Confrontation)[/url]

But the story doesn't end there....they both find themselves in the midst of a student uprising. Javert is now the prisoner, and Valjean is in the position of authority (such as it is). [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbYkf0119Qk](First Attack)[/url] Valjean chooses to let him go, and Javert...takes this badly. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKiQezZxVwY](Suicide)[/url]


As you can see, the entire musical is a very involved treatment of the concepts of justice and mercy, freedom and servitude, and yes...human rights. No doubt Victor Hugo's novel is even more nuanced, but I haven't read it, so I can't comment. Both Valjean and Javert are flawed, though in different ways.

In the song 'The Confrontation', Javert is correct in wanting to bring Valjean in. Valjean is guilty of breaking the law, and Javert is fulfilling his duty by capturing the criminal. BUT, Valjean is correct in wanting to fulfill his promise to a dying woman, so by asking for the delay, so that he can fulfill both his promise [i]and[/i] his debt to society, he is being somewhat reasonable. Valjean [i]does[/i] threaten to kill Javert, and ends up using violence to get away.

The audiences' sympathy for Valjean comes from several sources. One, we know the initial crime was rather minor, and it seems that by now, Valjean has paid his debt to society. It seems unfair that his past continues to follow him so many years later. Also, we know he's experienced a genuine conversion, and is now a good and upright man. So, even if he did start out as a thief and a liar, he isn't any more - he just risked his own freedom to ensure an innocent man went free. Add to that the plight of Cosette (the dead woman's young daughter), and few are rooting for Javert during their confrontation.

Javert is not very sympathetic, because he refuses to view Valjean as a fellow human being. He constantly refers to him by his prisoner number (24601) and makes it clear that in his opinion, he is a much better man. Also, he's intransigent, fixed in his ways, and unwilling to consider any other possibilities. He's all about justice, and has little use for mercy. He's certainly not up for considering exceptions to the law!

But if Valjean had actually killed Javert, things would be quite different. A lot of the sympathy would go away, as well as his justification of using his freedom to try to save innocents - because how would killing Javert 'make up for' saving the wounded Marius?




Anyway, to tie it all back into the discussion here, Valjean is always trying to run to save some other innocent's life. That's an extenuating circumstance in his attempt to resist arrest! He never denies Javert's right to arrest him, he merely requests a little extra time as a free man, to achieve an important good.







As for the encyclicals, where do they state that it is acceptable to kill the police officers who come for you if you are not guilty? There's a lot in there about authority, and as long as the laws are just and in accordance with natural law, there's nothing that says you should take the law into your own hand. It DOES say you should not obey a law if it requires you to do something that would be against God's laws, but nowhere (that I found) does it suggest that an accusation that turns out not to be true is a violation of justice. Tyranny is a problem, yes, but not mistakes. Killing a man doesn't clear your name and it doesn't exactly honor God's laws, either.

[list]# Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
# Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.
# Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
# Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
# Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
# Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
# Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
# Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [/list]



I probably will have to be away from phatmass for awhile, so I apologize for abandoning this thread. It's been interesting!
[/quote]


I suggest you study the ethical system of Natural Law, this is ussually what the Popes are refering to when they say natural law. Look it up, I think you'll find it interesting.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]He was arrested unfairly. I don't think it was just about hunger from Rambo's POV. He is more than capable of living off the land, I feel he also wanted human interaction/companionship, may be in search of a community he could belong to. Rambo 4 brought him back to this theme, many years on he had given up on his country, on society and on people, he had lost his social skills and was very much a recluse, at the end of Rambo 4 he had been brought back to a place where he was ready to forgive and have a more optimistic view on humanity and make an attempt for himself to come back to society.[/quote]

That is a possibility but isn't applicable to the issue at hand, whatever his reason, he had done nothing wrong, and he resisted with a minimum of force to escape, he consistantly tried to escape and was pursued, only later does he to fianally take the offensive.

[quote]From the Sheriff's perspective, he had made judgment simply on sight of Rambo. Sheriff thought Rambo may cause trouble in "his" town. The sheriff was wrong and abused his position of power.[/quote]
Yup.

[quote]I feel the directors and/or story writer didn't think that there was enough cause to get the audience to sympathise with Rambo, hence they included the flashback of Vietnam.
Rambo's actions were erronous but understandable given his traumatic history.[/quote] Well movies don't ussually have enough time to getinto philosophical issuses --Rambo snaps and reverts to his training.

[quote]
History tends to be written by those that win the battles.[/quote] Thats a common statement, but truth be told, losers tend to write plenty of history. Frankly I have found the works by the winners tend to be more honest than that of the losers. Lsers tend to be bitter.

But i still don't understand the objection.


If humans do not have the right to resist government oppression we need to tear down all those monuments to the founders and write a really nice letter of appology to the Queen of England.

[stevil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305959041' post='2244113']
If humans do not have the right to resist government oppression we need to tear down all those monuments to the founders and write a really nice letter of appology to the Queen of England.
[/quote]
There is a difference between human rights and historical events.
The birth of a country does not necessarily improve human rights, simply ask the native American Indians or the African's taken from their homeland and sold as American slaves.

[The Shover Robot]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305964418' post='2244117']
There is a difference between human rights and historical events.
The birth of a country does not necessarily improve human rights, simply ask the native American Indians or the African's taken from their homeland and sold as American slaves.
[/quote]

There was plenty of slavery and killing of American Indians before the American Revolution. You can't pin those deplorable acts on the founding of the United States.

[stevil]

[quote name='The Shover Robot' timestamp='1305970745' post='2244121']
There was plenty of slavery and killing of American Indians before the American Revolution. You can't pin those deplorable acts on the founding of the United States.
[/quote]
You are right, and I am not.

Just highlighting that the American Revolution was simply a seperation of America as a country from Britian. It was independant of any human rights issues.