# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Hypothetical Situation:  Who is to blame when a cop kills under reasonable suspicion?

## Victory

Yeah, I'm getting tired of the same old battle fought here too:  Guy dies in cops' custody.  No drugs in his system.  One group lays the blame on the cops, the other group says don't rush to judgment.  I'd like to resolve the issue too and move on.  But this isn't quite THAT "Who is to blame?" question.  It does no good to "blame" the dead guy because he can't change his ways.  The answer to the question, "Who is to blame?" is either "the cops" or "the public."  Answering in that manner resolves the issue.  Let me explain.

Whoever the dead guy is is not a part of these arguments.  He can't respond.  Invariably the two sides are representatives of "the cops" and "the public."  It's easy to see how the cops COULD be blamed.  But how could the public be blamed?  Easy.  By not understanding the stress, trials, and tribulations the cops go through on a daily basis.  By taking the edited, packaged, and contexted word of the news media at face value and not waiting for the judgment of the jury.  By rejecting the judgment once rendered.  If the public would only stop being so stupid and see what's REALLY going on, we'd stop beating this dead horse.

So what's REALLY going on?  Are the cops circling the wagons and protecting their own murderers, or is the public too stupid to see how they're being played by the media, Youtube trouble makers, and forum libertarians?

And while we're figuring this out let's keep in mind the entire history of police brutality both real and imagined in recent US history.  Let's remember in roughly chronological order:

The LA riots that were sparked by the aquittal of the cops who beat Rodney KingThe absolutely revolutionary inclusion of cameras on cell phones that cut through the bullshit media packaging and show raw footageThe nation wide resistance cops have had to having their public actions recordedThe court room battles over the legality of recording copsThe Youtube videos that show both the arrogance and sanity of the cameramen and the copsThe increased efforts to disarm Americans from Fast and Furious to high cap mag bans to Connecticut registration gun grabThe Constitutional Renaissance in the form of Tea Party, Freedom Works, open carry efforts, and the revival of interest in a Constitutional Convention of States via Article VThe militarization of police

So let's take a look at a hypothetical situation played out a number of times against the backdrop above.  There's a lot of details left out on purpose primarily because they don't matter but also because there are those who would continue to run out the clock so to speak and demand ever more details knowing that NO level of detail would ever satisfy.  So save your "I need more details."  No, you really don't.

A guy is detained by the cops.  The cops are annoyed by his seeming lack of cooperation.  No evidence or probable cause exists that he has broken the law, only reasonable suspicion that something might be going on.  The cop gets physical first, still with no probable cause.  Some kind of struggle and resistance ensues.  Six cops beat the guy for over 11 minutes.  Each one outweighs him almost by a factor of 2.  They comment later that they thought he was on drugs, maybe even PCP.  The guy dies from injuries sustained.  His toxicology report is utterly clean.

Who is to blame for the resulting death and outrage?  Did the cops do something wrong?  Did they illegally and immorally start a chain of events and therefore should accept the blame for everything negative that happened from that point on?  Or should they accept blame only for those actions that were illegal in the immediate time frame with no regard to resulting reactions and place the larger blame of the suspect's death on the suspect himself since he was the one struggling to save his life and therefore died as a result?  Are the cops to blame for the death of the suspect due to their ignorance and denial of the suspect's rights, their judgment of whether or not he was on drugs, their judgement of appropriate use of force, and the unwarranted violence dealt out to the suspect?

Or is the public to blame because they don't understand the personal physical danger of coming face to face with an insane person on PCP?  Is the public too heartless or stupid to understand the risk cops go through on a daily basis?  Should people grant more clemency to cops if they mistakenly assume a person is on PCP and as a result mistakenly (or even deliberately) kill that person?  Should the public understand better that an abbrogation of constitutional rights is necessary for them to be safe and that the cops do their best to abbrogate the rights only of those people who are obviously guilty (knowing the courts will favor their opinion) or at least suspicious while leaving the rest of us alone and that the public shouldn't be too harsh on cops if they make a mistake in that judgment?  And if a person rightly or wrongly resists arrest does that open the flood gates and empower the cops to use the most extreme amount of force available to them at their own discretion regardless of the degree to which the suspect resists?

What side of the fence do you fall on?

----------

fyrenza (05-25-2014),Trinnity (05-27-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> It does no good to "blame" the dead guy because he can't change his ways.  The answer to the question, "Who is to blame?" is either "the cops" or "the public."


That's absurd. You are absolving the suspect of all responsibility because you simply don't like the finding. Who is better able to not resist arrest than the suspect??

If a jet crashes, are you absolving the crew of blame simply because they are dead and they can't change their ways?? 

You are going to great lengths to remove blame from the suspects who resist arrest. Clearly, your motivation is to pin all blame on the police and society for the actions of criminals. 

@Victory

----------

JustPassinThru (05-24-2014),ManilaFolder (05-23-2014),Sheldonna (05-23-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

There is no simplistic answer that fits all situations.Each case has to be judged on its own.

----------

Lefty (05-23-2014)

----------


## Rudy2D

> You are going to great lengths to remove blame from the suspects who resist arrest. Clearly, your motivation is to pin all blame on the police and society for the actions of criminals.


You are going to great lengths to remove blame from the police who arrest. Clearly, your motivation is to pin all blame on the suspects for the actions of the police.

----------

Invayne (05-27-2014),Victory (05-23-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> Yeah, I'm getting tired of the same old battle fought here too:  Guy dies in cops' custody.  No drugs in his system.  One group lays the blame on the cops, the other group says don't rush to judgment.  I'd like to resolve the issue too and move on.  But this isn't quite THAT "Who is to blame?" question.  It does no good to "blame" the dead guy because he can't change his ways.  The answer to the question, "Who is to blame?" is either "the cops" or "the public."  Answering in that manner resolves the issue.  Let me explain.
> 
> Whoever the dead guy is is not a part of these arguments.  He can't respond.  Invariably the two sides are representatives of "the cops" and "the public."  It's easy to see how the cops COULD be blamed.  But how could the public be blamed?  Easy.  By not understanding the stress, trials, and tribulations the cops go through on a daily basis.  By taking the edited, packaged, and contexted word of the news media at face value and not waiting for the judgment of the jury.  By rejecting the judgment once rendered.  If the public would only stop being so stupid and see what's REALLY going on, we'd stop beating this dead horse.
> 
> So what's REALLY going on?  Are the cops circling the wagons and protecting their own murderers, or is the public too stupid to see how they're being played by the media, Youtube trouble makers, and forum libertarians?
> 
> And while we're figuring this out let's keep in mind the entire history of police brutality both real and imagined in recent US history.  Let's remember in roughly chronological order:
> 
> The LA riots that were sparked by the aquittal of the cops who beat Rodney KingThe absolutely revolutionary inclusion of cameras on cell phones that cut through the bullshit media packaging and show raw footageThe nation wide resistance cops have had to having their public actions recordedThe court room battles over the legality of recording copsThe Youtube videos that show both the arrogance and sanity of the cameramen and the copsThe increased efforts to disarm Americans from Fast and Furious to high cap mag bans to Connecticut registration gun grabThe Constitutional Renaissance in the form of Tea Party, Freedom Works, open carry efforts, and the revival of interest in a Constitutional Convention of States via Article VThe militarization of police
> ...


I've already made my stance pretty clear on this "issue".  Yes, there are bad cops.  But just like in every other occupation, the few that are corrupt and abusive do not represent the entire nation-wide police force.  At least....not yet.

I do know, however, that folks that believe each and every story about police brutality and take it on face value instead of digging deeper or waiting for the whole story to come out....are playing right in to the hands of the assholes on the left that would love nothing better than to start a race war, with this "police brutality and racism" accusation as an excuse to start the riots (See: Rodney King riots, for one example).  So if these folks really want to be "played" as useful idiots, they are free to do so.  I, however, won't be a part of such idiocy.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-23-2014)

----------


## Lefty

> There is no simplistic answer that fits all situations.Each case has to be judged on its own.



I agree.

----------


## Victory

> That's absurd. You are absolving the suspect of all responsibility because you simply don't like the finding.


What finding?  I'm talking about THIS hypothetical suspect and THESE arresting cops in THIS specific situation.  What "finding" did I mention?




> Who is better able to not resist arrest than the suspect??


Now you're being absurd.  I don't even know what you're talking about or what you're getting at.  Look, no attempt was made to steer the discussion.  Look at the structure and the wording.  I'm presenting two sides--two mindsets--and the reader is supposed to choose.  Did I misrepresent a side?  Did I get something wrong?

----------


## DonGlock26

> You are going to great lengths to remove blame from the police who arrest. Clearly, your motivation is to pin all blame on the suspects for the actions of the police.


No, I look at them on a case by case basis. You should try it.

----------


## Victory

> There is no simplistic answer that fits all situations.Each case has to be judged on its own.


I agree.  That's why I'm not making blanket statements like "All cops suck" and sticking to a very specific hypothetical situation.  THIS case has to be judged on its own.

How do you judge?

----------


## DonGlock26

> What finding?  I'm talking about THIS hypothetical suspect and THESE arresting cops in THIS specific situation.  What "finding" did I mention?
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're being absurd.  I don't even know what you're talking about or what you're getting at.  Look, no attempt was made to steer the discussion.  Look at the structure and the wording.  I'm presenting two sides--two mindsets--and the reader is supposed to choose.  Did I misrepresent a side?  Did I get something wrong?


Actually, you came up with that crap prior to your scenario. By doing that, you already absolved the resisting suspect of ALL blame. You should run for kangaroo court judge.

Yes, you absolved all suspects who die of blame. Do you retract that bit of lunacy or not?

----------


## Victory

> So, sometimes, it is not the cop's fault when a suspect dies in a struggle. Then, why do you rush to judgement??


I don't.  Thanks for asking.

----------


## Victory

> Stop acting purposefully obtuse. You were forced to admit that even you would have the police swarm a man on PCP.


I've always felt that police can and should if necessary swarm a man on PCP.  No forcing necessary.  You're reply:  Then why did it take so long?  My answer:  Because the longer your rope the more effective your hanging.  I think at this time it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt your PCP argument has ALWAYS been a ridiculous distraction having NO application to these "cops gone bad" threads.  You might as well be in fear that every person wearing a vest is hiding a bomb vest and write a thousand OPs justifying citizens being tackled and killed for wearing *overt* bomb vests with sticks of dynamite protruding out of them thinking that people will bitch about a dead guy in a North Face vest while ignoring the dynamite sticking out of it.  Go ahead, make that OP.




> If he died, wouldn't that make you a murderer too


Still no.  What's the number.  How many times do I have to answer?  Just give me a number.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I've always felt that police can and should if necessary swarm a man on PCP.  No forcing necessary.  You're reply:  Then why did it take so long?  My answer:  Because the longer your rope the more effective your hanging.  I think at this time it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt your PCP argument has ALWAYS been a ridiculous distraction having NO application to these "cops gone bad" threads.  You might as well be in fear that every person wearing a vest is hiding a bomb vest and write a thousand OPs justifying citizens being tackled and killed for wearing *overt* bomb vests with sticks of dynamite protruding out of them thinking that people will bitch about a dead guy in a North Face vest while ignoring the dynamite sticking out of it.  Go ahead, make that OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Still no.  What's the number.  How many times do I have to answer?  Just give me a number.


But, these aren't "cops gone bad" threads. They are "man dies after confrontation" threads in which police critics hurl accusations of the most extreme types. I've literally seen people calling for executions without trial and cop murders over an initial mainstream media "report". That's insane. Can you admit that? 

Police don't know for sure someone is on drugs. They can suspect it. Some of the signs like extreme resistance to handcuffing can also happen with seriously mentally ill people or people who are being extremely emotional. Some ex-cons or others will simple resist until they can no longer resist because they chose to. The results can all be the same. The suspect can die as a result of the struggle WITHOUT the police using excessive force. Yet, here are the police critics handing out guilty verdicts and death sentences because the media or a kook website told them something. 

Is there police corruption? Yes. Do I want dirty cops prosecuted? Yes. 

Is there police brutality? Yes. Do I want it prosecuted? Yes. But, there has to be a full investigation, due process, and an assumption of innocence.
The police critics here are not interested in such constitutional niceties.

If you aren't automatically a murderer, then neither are the men and women actually risking their lives until a jury says so. Got it?

----------


## Victory

> Police don't know for sure someone is on drugs.


Then it sucks to be them if they screw that up and kill a guy.

In fact, I MIGHT go so far (I'm not there yet so back off!) as to consider the cops guilty until proven innocent in such a situation.  Why oh why would I do such a thing?

Because cops are the law.  They are the representative of the full force of the government.  The presumption of innocence has ALWAYS fallen on the citizen not the law.  The cops are the law.  And so the presumption of innocence is preserved when somebody dies in the custody of the cops if the burden of proof falls on the law--that is, the cops--that no wrong doing occured.  Things that would exonerate cops in this situation:  A positive toxicology report, a cop video that does NOT pan away at a convenient time that shows the WHOLE engagement with the suspect.

Things that would NOT exonerate a cop:  "Gosh!  I THOUGHT he was on drugs!"

----------


## DonGlock26

> Then it sucks to be them if they screw that up and kill a guy.
> 
> In fact, I MIGHT go so far (I'm not there yet so back off!) as to consider the cops guilty until proven innocent in such a situation.  Why oh why would I do such a thing?
> 
> Because cops are the law.  They are the representative of the full force of the government.  The presumption of innocence has ALWAYS fallen on the citizen not the law.  The cops are the law.  And so the presumption of innocence is preserved when somebody dies in the custody of the cops if the burden of proof falls on the law--that is, the cops--that no wrong doing occured.  Things that would exonerate cops in this situation:  A positive toxicology report, a cop video that does NOT pan away at a convenient time that shows the WHOLE engagement with the suspect.
> 
> Things that would NOT exonerate a cop:  "Gosh!  I THOUGHT he was on drugs!"



Why? They did their jobs. Why would it suck to be them? Again, you want the suspect to have NO personal responsibility.

Sorry, no one is giving up their constitutional rights- even the police because you have an authority issue.

They are not "the law". They enforce the law and maintain the peace. 

The guilt or innocence of a suspect has nothing to do with resisting a lawful arrest. I think you are very confused about this. The police do arrest innocent people occasionally. That does not give a citizen a right to resist a lawful arrest. Mentally ill subjects are not even accused of crimes, yet they must be restrained and sometimes they die. That is not murder unless the officers use EXCESSIVE force.

Again, the police are not guilty before being proven innocent. That is just a manifestation of your extreme bias against them.

Actually, what the officer perceives during a use of force incident is a key part of his justification. You are simply showing us that you don't really understand the issue in an intellectual way. Why would an officer think that a person would be on drugs? By his behavior of course. And, what behavior would that be? Well, resisting arrest and handcuffing to the point of forcing an officer to using more force and said force not having any effect. The fact that the subject is actually on drugs or not is MEANINGLESS. What matters is that the level of force is not working. If the force is not working, the officer can legally use greater force to effect the arrest. 

The police critics here are extremely emotional and quick to call others all sorts of names, but they are not rationally examining these cases point by point. In fact, rational discussion and looking for evidence only aggravates them. They don't seem to want answers that threaten their predisposition to accuse the police of murder.

----------


## Victory

> Why? They did their jobs.


Killing somebody not on drugs is their job?

You see the divide that exists between us.




> The police do arrest innocent people occasionally. That does not give a citizen a right to resist a lawful arrest.


An arrest under a mere "reasonable suspicion" is illegal.  Skip the blah blah over obstruction of justice being a special case not requiring PC.  It's not a special case.  It's merely a separate case.




> Again, the police are not guilty before being proven innocent.


I know.  Perhaps they should be.

Define excessive force.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Killing somebody not on drugs is their job? 
> 
> 
> 
> An arrest under a mere "reasonable suspicion" is illegal.  Skip the blah blah over obstruction of justice being a special case not requiring PC.  It's not a special case.  It's merely a separate case.
> 
> 
> 
> I know.  Perhaps they should be.
> ...




No subduing them is. They may die as a result of their actions though.

The divide is that you are unable to accept that, in the real world, people sometime die as a result of their choice to resist arrest without it being anyone's fault but their own.

I didn't say an arrest under mere suspicion. A PC arrest is not always one of a guilty party. Regardless, you have no right to resist a lawful arrest. 

A person who would not normally be arrested during an investigatory detention may turn that detention into an arrest by obstructing the police from doing their lawful duties. 
Resisting that obstruction arrest would be unlawful.

Nonsense. Who would take the job??

I explained that to you. The standard case law description would be force beyond what a reasonable OFFICER (not a non-officer) would use to overcome the unlawful resistance of the suspect.

_

----------


## Victory

> No subduing them is. They may die as a result of their actions though.
> 
> The divide is that you are unable to accept that, in the real world, people sometime die as a result of their choice to resist arrest without it being anyone's fault but their own.
> 
> I didn't say an arrest under mere suspicion. A PC arrest is not always one of a guilty party. Regardless, you have no right to resist a lawful arrest. 
> 
> A person who would not normally be arrested during an investigatory detention may turn that detention into an arrest by obstructing the police from doing their lawful duties. 
> Resisting that obstruction arrest would be unlawful.
> 
> ...


Or of the actions of the officer.

Or that of the officer.




> I didn't say an arrest under mere suspicion.


I know.  I did.  Right in the title of the OP.  It's what the thread is about.  It's what we're talking about.  Your "lawful arrest" is as much a distraction as your introduction of PCP.  Nobody is talking about PCP except you.  Nobody is talking about lawful arrests.  This thread is about unlawful arrests.  Welcome to the thread.  It only took you 117 replies to figure out what it's about.




> Nonsense. Who would take the job??


Fewer marginal cops who are lured into positions of power via the Stanford Prison Experiment that's who:




Eliminating the bad cops and reducing the number of marginal cops who are good in good departments and bad in bad ones will only increase the percentage of cops who behave according to their better character rather than according to their surroundings.  Don't you want to improve the police force?

Your answer:  That would reduce the number of cops.  You're a cop hater.

My reply:  Nope.  Still not a cop hater.  And the number of cops probably should be reduced.  Can you imagine what those marginal people/cops in the Stanford Prison Experiment would do in today's militarized police force?



Who would take the job?  Fewer people that's for sure!  Good.  We need fewer APCs and Strykers on our streets.  Furthermore, it's not my job to provide jobs for cops.  The cops' use (and abuse) of modern technology has reduced the need (and desire) for such large numbers anyway.

Who are these marginal cops?  Well, for starters the cops who participated in this:




SWAT teams enforcing student loans?  Why?  Justify that.

----------

Invayne (05-28-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> Define excessive force.

----------


## Victory

> 


Yes.  I'd say so.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Or of the actions of the officer.
> 
> Or that of the officer.
> 
> 
> 
> I know.  I did.  Right in the title of the OP.  It's what the thread is about.  It's what we're talking about.  Your "lawful arrest" is as much a distraction as your introduction of PCP.  Nobody is talking about PCP except you.  Nobody is talking about lawful arrests.  This thread is about unlawful arrests.  Welcome to the thread.  It only took you 117 replies to figure out what it's about.
> 
> 
> ...



Even if the actions of the officers leads to death, it is not murder unless excessive force is used. You seem to think a good outcome is guaranteed, when force is used. That is not how the real world works.

It isn't the officers fault unless excessive force is used. That's why the jury ACQUITTED the officers in the Kelly case. 

We are having a general discussion now. I am talking about lawful arrests. You are weaseling out of it by trying to limit what I can discuss. That isn't going to work.
If you accept that suspects may die as they resist arrest and the officers may not be at fault, then just say so. I hope we can both agree on that.

No, smart cops are going to avoid the possibility of your kangaroo court system where they are assumed to be guilty.

Swat team for the Dept. of Education? What pray tell does that have to do with your scenario?

For the record: I'd abolish the DoE and the majority of the federal alphabet agencies and their individual swat teams.

_

----------


## Rudy2D

> You're missing the point. I'm not being spoon fed by the mainstream progressive media as you are.


Had we read that post without knowing the source--both I and those who know me would deem it written by a lunatic.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Had we read that post without knowing the source--both I and those who know me would deem it written by a lunatic.


If you take media hit pieces about the police at face value, you were no cop.

----------


## Victory

> It isn't the officers fault unless excessive force is used. That's why the jury ACQUITTED the officers in the Kelly case.


Are you acquainted with the dangers of equating your morality with legality like you've done here?  If so, what are they and how have you avoided that here?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Are you acquainted with the dangers of equating your morality with legality like you've done here?  If so, what are they and how have you avoided that here?


Morality? Where do you get your system of morality?

I don't see a moral issue here except for a resisting criminal, if the cops are acting in good faith and are simply trying to subdue a resisting suspect with appropriate force. I'm just more mature, realistic, and less emotional than you. The vast majority of arrests are accomplished without force. Only a tiny percentage of violent resisting suspects die as a result of their resistance. While that is unfortunate, what is a realistic alternative?

----------


## Victory

> Morality? Where do you get your system of morality?


Uh. . .Christianity.  Slam dunk.




> I don't see a moral issue here except for a resisting criminal, i*f the cops are acting in good faith* and are simply trying to subdue a resisting suspect with appropriate force.


What if they aren't and as you say. . .




> . . .the jury ACQUITTED the officers in the Kelly case.


Are your morality and legality in conflict?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Uh. . .Christianity.  Slam dunk.
> 
> 
> 
> What if they aren't and as you say. . .
> 
> 
> 
> Are your morality and legality in conflict?


Is that right?




> *Romans 13:1-14*
> 
> English Standard Version (ESV)
> 
> *Submission to the Authorities*
> 
> *13* Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. *2* Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. *3**For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,** 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid,** for he does not bear the sword in vain.** For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.* *5* Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. *6* For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. *7* Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...14&version=ESV
> ...


Then, they are likely breaking policy or the law and should be punished, if that is true.

No, yours is.

----------


## Invayne



----------


## DonGlock26

> 











You BETTER respect your progressive elite or off to club fed you go.

----------


## Victory

> Is that right?
> 
> 
> 
> Then, they are likely breaking policy or the law and should be punished, if that is true.
> 
> No, yours is.


Who is in charge here?  The president, his cabinet, the attorney general, their appointed officers, state level police, the precinct police, the individual cop who has his boot on a citizen's neck. . ?

Or "We the People?"

Kinda flips your whole interpretation upside down, doesn't it.

----------


## Victory

> Is that right?
> 
> 
> 
> Then, they are likely breaking policy or the law and should be punished, if that is true.
> 
> No, yours is.





> English Standard Version (ESV)
> 
> *Submission to the Authorities*
> 
> *13* Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. *2* Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. *3**For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,** 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid,** for he does not bear the sword in vain.** For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.* *5* Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. *6* For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. *7* Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.


Thank God I have the New American Edition which offers the following interpretation:




> Paul must come to grips with the problem raised by a message that declares people free from the law. How are they to relate to Roman authority? The problem was exacerbated by the fact that imperial protocol was interwoven with devotion to various deities. Paul builds on the traditional instruction exhibited in Wis 6:1–3, according to which kings and magistrates rule by consent of God. From this perspective, then, believers who render obedience to the governing authorities are obeying the one who is highest in command. At the same time, it is recognized that Caesar has the responsibility to make just ordinances and to commend uprightness; cf. Wis 6:4–21. *That Caesar is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God’s prior claim to the believers’ moral decision becomes clear in the light of the following verses.*


And what would those verses be?




> *Love Fulfills the Law.**8Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.f9The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, [namely] “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”g10Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.h


And the interpretation:




> When love directs the Christian’s moral decisions, the interest of law in basic concerns, such as familial relationships, *sanctity of life, and security of property*, is safeguarded (Rom 13:9). Indeed, says Paul, the same applies to any other commandment (Rom 13:9), whether one in the Mosaic code or one drawn up by local magistrates under imperial authority. Love anticipates the purpose of public legislation, namely, to *secure the best interests of the citizenry*. Since *Caesar’s obligation is to punish the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4), the Christian who acts in love is free from all legitimate indictment*.



And so, you see DonGlock, resisting out of love, for the sake of others, is a loving and utterly moral thing to do even if it goes against Caesar or his appointed officers.  My morality is completely intact.  Yours, on the other hand, is based on your biblical passage taken out of context.  I have provided the proper context.  You're welcome.

Your morality is in dire need of an overhaul.

----------

DeadEye (05-30-2014),Invayne (05-30-2014),Rudy2D (05-31-2014)

----------

