Innocent Persons Resisting Arrest

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306231558' post='2245308']
Hypothetical question for you.

You are coming back from dinner at a restaurant, you arrive at your car and find that someone is inside having broken the window and is only just starting it up.
You have your trusty sidearm discretely consealed under your jacket.
Do you pull your gun out, point it at the theif and demand that they get out of your car?

What happens if they smile back at you, pull the finger and drive off.
Do you shoot at them?
[/quote]


Depends.....did they resurrect an old thread on this board?

[MithLuin]

Who preaches what you are arguing? Who in the Catholic Church says the US government has no authority to enact laws?

The US had consular/diplomatic relations with the Papal States from 1797 to 1867. 'According to Howard R. Murrow, historian of U.S.-Italian diplomatic relations, U.S. consuls in Rome “were received at all formal functions on the same footing with full diplomatic representatives of other nations.” ' And it's worth pointing out that: 'The first act of official recognition by the Papal States of the United States occurred on December 15, 1784, when American representatives in Paris were approached by the papal nuncio and told that the Papal States “opened the ports of Civita Vecchia on the Mediterranean and Ancona on the Adriatic, to the ships of the young republic of America.” '

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306270569' post='2245464']
Well, for those of us who aren't rich, the loss of certain kinds of property is a threat to our way of life. I wouldn't shoot someone over taking my television, or the radio from my car. But the entire vehicle? I cannot afford that at all. It would hurt me and my family.
[/quote]

I recommend purchasing car insurance. After all, there's nothing to say that someone won't steal your car when you aren't around to defend it, or some idiot won't crash into it, totaling it. No guarantees in life, so if the loss of the vehicle really would be crippling, then you should have it insured, so the insurance company will pay to replace it in the event of disaster/crime/ill fortune. Chances are someone will just bust a window and steal the contents, leaving the car, but it's possible someone could steal it.

In most states, driving an uninsured vehicle is not legal, so you'd be fined if you were caught.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1306291434' post='2245599']
Who preaches what you are arguing? Who in the Catholic Church says the US government has no authority to enact laws?

The US had consular/diplomatic relations with the Papal States from 1797 to 1867. 'According to Howard R. Murrow, historian of U.S.-Italian diplomatic relations, U.S. consuls in Rome “were received at all formal functions on the same footing with full diplomatic representatives of other nations.” ' And it's worth pointing out that: 'The first act of official recognition by the Papal States of the United States occurred on December 15, 1784, when American representatives in Paris were approached by the papal nuncio and told that the Papal States “opened the ports of Civita Vecchia on the Mediterranean and Ancona on the Adriatic, to the ships of the young republic of America.” '
[/quote]

It is true that there was a consul from both nations in 1797 to 1867, but niether nation gave formal recognition to the other, and no formal relations were formed. No Ambassador was sent, and no Papal Nuncio was sent here.

The US and the Vatican did not open formal diplomatic relations until 1984, William Wilson was appointed the very first ambassdor. The papal Nunci's name escapes me.


Opening your ports is hardly a recognition of legitement government, particularly while the popes were busy condemning the entire basis of the American Constitution as heresy and error and forbiding Catholics to believe it.


For example, THat Church and State should be Seperate is a formally defined error, one is not free to believe that this should be the Case. That there should be schools which are not influanced by the CHurch is a formally defined error, that marriage is regulatable by the state is a formally defined Error,
That infidel soverigns have any authority over bishops or religious affairs ( ask the the diocese of Boston if the US government has claimed such a right, and enforced it power ofver the Church) has been defined as an error, freedom of religion has been condemned as an error, that the popular will has the authority to make Law, condemned as an error, that the State has the right to intrude upon or regulate the family in anyway, condemned as an error.


The right authority of a State comes from God, it could indeed be a democracy, there was actally a great deal of democracy in the Middle Ages, the time the Church had the most influance.
But to be a properly instituted State and therefore have the Just Authority they must be constituted as a Christian State, a Catholic State. In order to be a sovereign one must rule for God, who is the origin of all sovereignty.
If one does not, if one contends that God is not the origin of all authority, and sets up the will of the people as the highest authority, as God in effect, then one is an illegitement state and has no authority.

Thus the US cannot be a legitement government.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1306291787' post='2245604']
I recommend purchasing car insurance. After all, there's nothing to say that someone won't steal your car when you aren't around to defend it, or some idiot won't crash into it, totaling it. No guarantees in life, so if the loss of the vehicle really would be crippling, then you should have it insured, so the insurance company will pay to replace it in the event of disaster/crime/ill fortune. Chances are someone will just bust a window and steal the contents, leaving the car, but it's possible someone could steal it.

In most states, driving an uninsured vehicle is not legal, so you'd be fined if you were caught.
[/quote]
I don't know of any state in which one is required to carry insurance against theft. Further, insurance will not pay for the car to be replaced, but whatever the insurance says it is worth.

In my case, the truck I drive to and from work, has, according to insurance NO value, thats right, my moving, inspection passing truck, is worth 0.


I very well might shoot someone trying to steal it, my families well being is tied up in my possesson of it.

That said, I would more likely calmly walk up and take him captive while he stalled it over and over, she is a tempermental old truck.


If he resisted my attempt to subdue him, yes I would shoot him.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1306290762' post='2245593']
Depends.....did they resurrect an old thread on this board?
[/quote]
You know I was looking at a very old thread, one from 2004 and concidereing resurrecting it.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[stevil]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306298403' post='2245649']
THat Church and State should be Seperate is a formally defined error, one is not free to believe that this should be the Case. That there should be schools which are not influanced by the CHurch is a formally defined error, that marriage is regulatable by the state is a formally defined Error,
That infidel soverigns have any authority over bishops or religious affairs ( ask the the diocese of Boston if the US government has claimed such a right, and enforced it power ofver the Church) has been defined as an error, freedom of religion has been condemned as an error, that the popular will has the authority to make Law, condemned as an error, that the State has the right to intrude upon or regulate the family in anyway, condemned as an error.


The right authority of a State comes from God, it could indeed be a democracy, there was actally a great deal of democracy in the Middle Ages, the time the Church had the most influance.
But to be a properly instituted State and therefore have the Just Authority they must be constituted as a Christian State, a Catholic State. In order to be a sovereign one must rule for God, who is the origin of all sovereignty.
If one does not, if one contends that God is not the origin of all authority, and sets up the will of the people as the highest authority, as God in effect, then one is an illegitement state and has no authority.

Thus the US cannot be a legitement government.
[/quote]
Oh, wow. That's just mind boggling. Sounds like it came from the middle ages. Such intolerance, so much violation of human rights.
Would many Catholics these days agree with this?

[Winchester]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1306291787' post='2245604']
I recommend purchasing car insurance. After all, there's nothing to say that someone won't steal your car when you aren't around to defend it, or some idiot won't crash into it, totaling it. No guarantees in life, so if the loss of the vehicle really would be crippling, then you should have it insured, so the insurance company will pay to replace it in the event of disaster/crime/ill fortune. Chances are someone will just bust a window and steal the contents, leaving the car, but it's possible someone could steal it.

In most states, driving an uninsured vehicle is not legal, so you'd be fined if you were caught.
[/quote]
I have insurance. There are many different levels of insurance. The insurance you're imagining is expensive.

[Winchester]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306305987' post='2245681']
Oh, wow. That's just mind boggling. Sounds like it came from the middle ages. Such intolerance, so much violation of human rights.
Would many Catholics these days agree with this?
[/quote]
You don't believe in private property and you'd put people in prison for owning stuff you prefer they not own, and you're pointing fingers at "violations" of human rights.

[stevil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306323812' post='2245731']
You don't believe in private property and you'd put people in prison for owning stuff you prefer they not own, and you're pointing fingers at "violations" of human rights.
[/quote]
Most definately. I don't feel that it is a violation of human rights to take weapons away from people.

[Winchester]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306324501' post='2245737']
Most definately. I don't feel that it is a violation of human rights to take weapons away from people.
[/quote]
Based on your personal preferences, you would take action against people even when their actions do not affect you. You would imprison people because they own something you don't want them to own. I shouldn't think violations of individual will would bother you, very much.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306305987' post='2245681']
Oh, wow. That's just mind boggling. Sounds like it came from the middle ages. Such intolerance, so much violation of human rights.
Would many Catholics these days agree with this?
[/quote]


Really? I don't see any violation of human rights there at all, nothing like confiscation of persons property, or impinging on thier right to live. No nothing I cited was from the Middle Ages, though if it were it ouldn't make it less an error.

I suspect many Catholics have been successfully modernised to the point where they are material, if not formal heritics.

The second part, well I would hope most Catholics would agree that all sovereignty comes from God, even if they have not concidered the consequences of that belief.

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306265885' post='2245439']
What about marrage to the person that they love? Would that be worse than owning a gun?
[/quote]
I love my mother dearly.
Doesn't mean I must be allowed to marry her.

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306324501' post='2245737']
Most definately. I don't feel that it is a violation of human rights to take weapons away from people.
[/quote]
I'm so grateful our founding fathers felt otherwise.

[stevil]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1306326324' post='2245742']
Based on your personal preferences, you would take action against people even when their actions do not affect you. You would imprison people because they own something you don't want them to own. I shouldn't think violations of individual will would bother you, very much.
[/quote]
I would imprison people for breaking the law and refusing to comply even when asked to many times.
People carrying guns does impact me. I would be terrified to see some people with guns. I would be in great morning if some depressed kid took a gun to school and shot my children. I want a reasonably safe place to live in.