Bojidar Marinov has a little fun with me here, wishing that I would become more of a plagiarist than he pretends to believe I already am. He wishes that in my Dirty Cops post I had plagiarized from an article he wrote about the Brown and Garner cases. However, after thinking about it deeply, and after a season of unceasing prayer, and after looking this article of his that I did read, I think I’ll pass.
He begins by flattening different kinds of “riots,” intimating that the Boston Tea Party was just as bad (or worse) than our current indiscriminate rioting. It wasn’t—there are all kinds of reasons for not treating the events as in any way comparable. But that said, distinguishing them is not the same thing as approving of either. The Sons of Liberty were in fact hotheads, and no less than George Washington expressed his disapproval of what they did in no uncertain terms—he condemned “their conduct in destroying the Tea.” Principled men act on principle, and not on the basis of whose ox was being gored. John Adams, a real patriot, defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre case. In other words, the leadership at our Founding was quite different than the kind exhibited by those who need to know nothing more about a case than whether the perpetrator had black skin or a blue uniform on. The leadership, in other words, was very different than the kind Bojidar is apparently trying to exercise.
Lest you think I exaggerate, anyone who sees Bojidar’s Facebook feed knows that he routinely posts stories of police atrocities, and never any stories of cops rescuing some little girl’s kitten. But someone who does that has a political agenda, an ax to grind, which is not the same thing as an interest in justice in particular cases. The reason is that particular cases are all different.
Now I happen to agree with him about a number of the stories. The Eric Garner death really was a travesty. There have been a number of others. But the Michael Brown death was not in the same category. The Freddie Gray case was in yet another category. We do have serious problems as a society in what we police, how we police, and whom we police. I am prepared to grant all of that, and argue all that. as anybody who reads here regularly knows. This is a messy world—cops can murder civilians, civilians can murder cops, cops can falsely accuse civilians of murder, and civilians can falsely accuse cops of murder. But it is a mark of how demented our times have gotten that I can be attacked for saying that the Bible requires us to find out what happened first.
Bojidar grabs at my words when I said, “I need all the facts to condemn him.” He treats this as though I were maintaining that prior to condemning the accused, the prosecution needs to know the number of molecules in the gun. But when I said “all the facts,” I of course meant all the relevant facts. So semantics aside, we agree. All the relevant facts. But we differ when it comes to what are the relevant facts.
He winnows his approach down to what he considers the relevant facts in a police shooting.
“So, really Biblically, do we need all the facts to condemn a cop? No, we need only three facts, according to the Law of God. First, was anyone killed? Second, did that cop kill him, or was it someone else? Third, did that cop use a weapon for killing to kill the victim?”
I agree with this, so far as it goes (we do need to know these things), but there is a fourth fact we also need. “Fourth, was the killing justified according to the law of God?” Was the killing in self-defense? Was the person killed in the midst of killing somebody else? Was it an accident? If the facts are suspicious (i.e. meaning that a prosecutor has probable cause for believing that the cop might be guilty of abusing his office), then there should be an indictment and there should be a trial. But in order for the cop to be convicted of murder, the prosecution has to demonstrate significantly more than what Bojidar outlines. The defendant could grant affirmative answers to all Bojidar’s questions, and not yet have begun his defense. This means that his list of relevant facts is (woefully) inadequate.
Bojidar then illustrates his understanding of biblical justice with another scenario—a rape case.
The scenario is this. A man has consensual sex with a betrothed woman in an out of the way place. They are subsequently discovered, and her defense is that she was raped. If the place was deserted, no witnesses, then her defense (even if a lie) was to be accepted. But if it was not rape, then they were both to be executed. If it was rape, then just the rapist was to be executed. In other words, this scenario works for Bojidar’s purposes only because the man’s defense (“it was consensual”) is a defense that admits to a different capital crime. If it was consensual, they would both be executed.
So Bojidar misstates his case entirely. The emphases below are mine:
“But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death. . . . (Deut. 22:25-26).
No need for witnesses to establish guilt. The only facts that need to be known are that the man was with the girl in the field, and that she accused him of rape. She may have gone with him voluntarily. She may have thrown herself on him. It doesn’t matter. He should have thought better before it happened. He is guilty, period, until he produces witnesses that can testify that the girl gave herself voluntarily.”
He gives the game away in that last sentence. This is case law, and Bojidar doesn’t understand the case. If she gave herself voluntarily, it was still a capital crime, but now for both of them. If the man defends himself by saying it was consensual, he is not really mounting a defense at all. What would we think about a defendant who argued he could not have raped the store clerk in the course of the crime because he was occupied the entire time with murdering the hostages in the back room?
So when we are looking at biblical case law, we must not expect every principle of justice to be stated every time, in every law. Certain principles extend over all the laws. We must remember what the law requires elsewhere as we are reading this particular law here. No one is to be convicted on the word of just one person (Dt. 17:6). We need independent confirmation in order to convict, and this is the case whether the accused is a cop or not.
What Bojidar needs in order for his cause to fly is a scriptural instance where a false rape accusation is made, and the defense consisted of something more than a concession to something just as bad or worse. But we don’t find that kind of thing in biblical law. For example, suppose the couple were both unattached and were both guilty of fornication, and she accused him later of an aggravated rape, a crime that carried a penalty that was much heavier than the crime he was willing to confess having actually committed. Now she has to prove what she says in order to convict, and the threshold for proving something like that is two or three witnesses. You never ratchet up on just one person’s word.
Bojidar then dedicates a paragraph to oblique references to our Greenfield/Wight case, demonstrating in quite a trenchant way my original contention that it is truly important to be in possession of all the relevant facts before passing judgment on a case — which Bojidar isn’t, by the way. But Bojidar apparently doesn’t need facts before determining what side he is on. This must be a continuation of those spiritual gifts he likes to defend—the gift of discernment and a word of knowledge, all at great distances.
Back to a cop doing his job. Bojidar says this:
“Once they are known, the cop is a murderer. Call for his execution. Again, unless he has witnesses that he was saving his own life. He shouldn’t have gotten in the fight in the first place if he doesn’t have those.”
“He shouldn’t have gotten in the fight in the first place . . .” Bojidar’s naiveté about police work here is just breathtaking. A cop is called to a scene of domestic violence. A man is threatening his wife and kids, and has been waving a gun around. The cop and his partner approach the house. As they work through the house, they move toward the kitchen in the back by different routes. The suspect jumps out on one of the cops, gun leveled, and the cop drops him. Seconds later, the other cop appears. There were no witnesses to confirm that the deceased had ever pointed his gun at the cop.
Bojidar’s response? “Should have thought of that possibility before you joined the force, son. I am calling for your execution.” My response? You can’t be serious. If this is biblical law, then reconstructionism was way over-rated.
Roger that Doug!
Good article.
But I was intrigued with the use of italics… made me think of Clarence Larkin.
Third, did that cop use a weapon for killing to kill the victim?
… If the first two points, i.e. that some one was killed, and whether the killer was a cop, have been established, does it really matter that the instrument of death was “a weapon for killing”?
Is the person less dead for having been (for example) beaten with a shovel, rather than having been shot?
He seems to be drawing that from Num. 35:15-21 (his source) but he doesn’t actually read the passage; because the end of the passage makes it clear the nature of the weapon is irrelevant, for the very nature you mentioned.
A great primer in properly applying Scripture. While silencing a fool. Two birds, meet stone.
I have wondered if Bojidar Marinov is so anti-cop because he is from Eastern Europe and had a bad experience. The police there are (or were) thoroughly corrupt.
As the use of bodycams by police becomes mandated in more cities, expect the number of people shot by police to increase. Officers have put themselves in danger in the past because they weren’t always certain they could justify defending themselves afterwards. (One such incident occurred in my town last spring, leaving the policeman severely injured.) Video evidence of these encounters will likely result in increased police confidence in dealing with these kinds of attacks.
Body cams are going to be a mixed blessing at best. The problem with a jury watching cam footage is that it removes a major legal component that jury are *supposed* to consider: the reasonable person standard. It goes like this: In *that* situation, at *that* time, under *those* circumstances, would a reasonable person fear for his life (or the life of another)? The problem is, of course, that replaying the video in slow motion, frame by frame, months after the fact, from the comfort of their jury chairs, completely outside the events depicted, is NOT how we are to… Read more »
Sure. We see that already, of course. “He shoulda shot the gun out of his hand!”
“He should have been tased, if anything!” — The sister of Sylville Smith, explaining to reporters and gathered BLM’ers what she thinks the officer should have done when her bother raised a stolen gun with 23 rounds in an extended magazine after being told twice to put down the gun.
Isn’t it nice that so many evangelical leaders’ thoughts on these matters are pretty much indistinguishable from the thoughts of thugs and their defenders?
If that were the case, than I would say that the burden of responsibility would lie on evangelical leaders who need to level up their game and stop acting like thugs.
You really should be telling Russell Moore, Al Mohler, Matt Chandler, John Piper, and Jemar Tisby directly to quit siding with violent thugs.
You’re just preaching to the choir here.
Actually I’m not preaching to the choir at all. I’m trying to figure out what distinguishes you from the thugs you hate so much?
I’m trying to figure out what distinguishes you from the thugs you hate so much? Really? Well, let me help you out. For one thing, I don’t go around shooting people. For another, I don’t shoplift. Let’s see…I don’t beat people up because they’re a different race. Oh, yeah – I don’t rape. I don’t rob liquor stores. I don’t go on the news when my nephew rapes and kills an 88 year old woman and insist “He a good boy. He din’t do nuthin’!” I don’t get arrested 33 times in 20 years. I don’t slug elderly store owners… Read more »
Well you’re no fun!
And, remember – Doug says if you’re white, you can’t criticize blacks for their astronomical rates of violent crime, or you’re guilty of racial vainglory and racial malice. Because Jesus said white people can only criticize white people. Or something. https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/little-geneva.html It’s very odd, though. Doug condemns white people who complain about widespread violent black crime. He calls them all kinds of names, and claims that when Jesus said “take the log out of your own eye” he wasn’t really addressing individuals; what he really meant was that a member of one racial/ethnic group can’t criticize a person of another… Read more »
No, but what you do is assign all those negative characteristics to an entire race of people, in effect dehumanizing them, declaring them the enemy, and encouraging others to perceive black folks as thugs having inferior intelligence and assorted other genetic defects.
Doug is right about the blasphemy, because what is basically being said is that some races of people were just not created in God’s image.
By the way, all those thuggish behaviors are a part of white culture too.
Black Americans are six times more likely to commit murder than other Americans, and overall four times more likely to attempt violence in general.
There have also been thousands of atrocities like this recent one: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/08/teen_neighbor_charged_with_cap.html#incart_most-read_news_article
but no one dares to call them “hate crimes.”
Yeah the conventional wisdom seems to be that white people aren’t safe anywhere between Southside and Gardendale. Unfortunately not everyone had the means to escape. :-/
Yeah, many sickening incidents like this have happened in MS, AL and other states but all the public hears is what happened 50 years ago. Often, elderly whites are the victims.
How many Alabamians are on this thread?
Not me. I’m from “Parts Unknown,” like those pro wrasslers back in the good ol’ days.
BLOCKED
STOP POSTING RACIST HATE ON THIS SITE
Setting an 80+ year old man on fire is surely hate in my book, but don’t expect Loretta Lynch and Co. to go down South and bring “justice.”
That made me feel so sick I couldn’t finish reading. I have always wanted to believe that even wicked people feel something like tenderness for the very young and the very old. But some of them don’t.
No, but what you do is assign all those negative characteristics to an entire race of people, in effect dehumanizing them Doug is right about the blasphemy, because what is basically being said is that some races of people were just not created in God’s image. I’ve never said anything of the kind. I said that blacks commit violent crimes and cause other social problems at rates massively higher than white rates. You think people shouldn’t talk about that, and you hate me for pointing it out even though it’s indisputably true, so you accuse me of saying every black… Read more »
“You think people shouldn’t talk about that, and you hate me for pointing it out…”
Not at all. I think people should reveal what is actually in their heart. Also, you’re hardly worthy of my hatred, so wrong on that count too.
“Quick, call Jilly “racist and stupid” again!”
I never actually called Jilly racist and stupid. She personalized a comment that was actually directed at you.
“That should win you some more fans.”
Unlike you, I am not motivated in the least by trying to appeal to “fans.”
Your blog seems to contradict your last sentence…
LOL! As to my blog, I like people. I don’t have minions or a fan base.
As to henpecking, that’s a real thing in the world, you know. I’ve watched the hens turn a rooster into chicken nuggets. Gruesome! No, I don’t henpeck my husband. That’s what the internet is for.
“I said that blacks commit violent crimes and cause other social problems at rates massively higher than white rates.”
You also seem to think that this trend will continue indefinitely, which would imply that the gospel can have no effect on them.
Then you really, really need to learn how to express yourself better.
Because your original comment that I replied to has absolutely nothing to do with what you just said.
Ashv, the two times I requested video from the police, the critical parts showing the illegality of the officer’s actions was absent. Too bad, so sad.
Police departments at all levels need to clean up their acts and clean cops need to get rid of the dirty ones.
Interesting. There’s a breakdown in authority within our culture. In the good old days for example, you would use common sense and have some respect for cops, based partially on the fact that we’ve armed them and placed them in a position where they must make snap decisions based on limited “facts.” So as people are prone to be, they can be a bit nervous, prepared for a fight. So when you encounter cops, you comply, you submit, you live to tell the tale. Enter modern times where common sense has gone to die, and suddenly cops are the enemy… Read more »
Masters or cops must obey the law better, not follow a different law.
See what I mean, folks, when I say that a lot of theonomists are complete skitzos?
Doug, where did you find this guy?
I can’t believe he has any sort of following.
Why would you even respond to a lunatic like this?
This article doesn’t even rise to the level of shooting fish in a barrel.
Defeating this guy in an argument isn’t like taking candy from a baby. It’s like taking candy from a deaf, dumb, blind, and paralyzed baby.
The Eric Garner death really was a travesty. No, it wasn’t. Not even close. Unpleasant? Certainly. But when a 350 lb middle aged man with dozens of arrests stretching back decades tells a cop who goes to arrest him for once again flouting the law that from this day forward he’s not obeying the community’s laws (“It ends today!”), and then begins resisting arrest, and then he has a heart attack from trying to fight off the cops he’s resisting, that’s neither a tragedy, nor a travesty. He didn’t choke to death. He died from a heart attack because he… Read more »
I think Doug meant a tragedy and not a travesty, if it’s a travesty then he agrees with you.
I think he means that Garner’s death, and the fact that no cop went to jail for it, is a travesty of justice.
It isn’t.
Search this site for “Garner”, and read some of the articles he’s written about the case. He thinks that was happened to Garner was a crime, and someone should be in prison for it.
I don’t have a side in this, cuz I don’t know enough, but in the face of it, I lean towards arrests should not kill people. But I do get the overweight resisting arrest issue too.
I really recommend that you go on youtube and watch the full unedited video (which I believe is 11-12 minutes long). The police actions to me seem inexcusable. As Garner points out to the police, they didn’t come to arrest him, they were called in due to a fight, which Garner had broken up before they go there, and it seemed beyond ridiculous to come in for a fight call and then randomly arrest the very guy who had just broken up the fight for you on some worthless charge. Second of all, they refused to explain what their evidence… Read more »
“Bojidar’s response? “Should have thought of that possibility before you joined the force, son. I am calling for your execution.” My response? You can’t be serious.” Want to apply that exact same thought to child sexual abuse? To rape? Here’s how that works, fair or unfair,all the burden of that authority lies with the rapist. There is no possibility of consent in a child. They bear absolutely no responsibility, even if they throw themselves at a pedophile. That is the responsibility that goes along with the authority of being an adult. Cops are in a similar position. With authority comes… Read more »
So if you execute a man as a cop, the burden to prove yourself innocent of murder is going to lie with you.
Which Reformed seminary do you teach at?
None, but if I did it would have to be one that followed a logical train of thought. It is not logical to declare that rape victims must have 3 witnesses in order to prove a crime was committed and they are justified in filling charges but a cop who shoots somebody needs no witness to declare the man was worthy of execution? So, a woman has no idea if she’s actually been raped and must meet overwhelming skepticism, but a cop who may have lost his cool is always presumed innocent. Why is that? Biblical law, apparently. I ain’t… Read more »
You have repeatedly discredited your understanding of justice. Why should we listen to you now?
“Why should we listen to you now?”
Because I have a lot of experience and I never tickle anyone’s ears.
Uh… Okay. I’m not even going to try to respond to that.
Gentle Reader — observe what an intellectually dishonest fool this ‘ME’ is … and then, understand that *everything* she (or he) says is going to be said in the service of moral wickedness — Doug Wilson (after having slain many pixels explaining the seious flaws in Bojidar’s “reasoning”): “Bojidar’s response? “Should have thought of that possibility before you joined the force, son. I am calling for your execution.” My response? You can’t be serious. If this is biblical law, then reconstructionism was way over-rated.“ ME (“reasoning” in exactly the manner DW has just demolished): “Want to apply that exact same… Read more »
I am not intellectually dishonest. And I’m afraid Wilson has not dismantled the argument. That’s a shame because I think it’s an argument that could be dismantled, but Bojidar, crazy or not, has successfully pointed out a flaw in the reasoning.
And I’m not going to quarrel with you over whether you are intellectually dishonest. I’ve shown that you are, that is sufficient: we don’t need your agreement to know that it is true.
I never quarrel. Your assessment is simply inaccurate.
You have already shown that you don’t understand the basic difference between guilt and innocence. For your own sake, you should stop posting.
Good one. Let me guess–you’ve never henpecked your husband either?
I read Marinov’s article. Please, somebody tell me this is a piece of facetious reasoning written to elicit pained smiles. If I have this right, a cop confronts a gun-wielding criminal in a dark alley. The cop yells, Drop the gun! The criminal points it at the cop, who shoots first. Criminal dies. And because there are no civilian witnesses, the cop gets charged with murder. He can’t prove self-defense so he fries. Under such rules of engagement, who would ever be willing to be a cop? Who will protect Marinov from the gangs of armed criminals who are much… Read more »
He hates cops and wants them completely abolished.
I’d never heard of this freak until today. But after googling around, it seems that Marinov really, really hates “racism”. Well, when a person hates “racism”, what that really means is they hate white people. And if you really, really hate white people, you’re probably not going to be a big fan of the people who help keep them safe from violent criminals.
He is a grade A nut job. I just finished reading “It’s time to teach our kids disrespect to authority”: It’s about time to start teaching our kids disrespect to any “authority” that can not or would not present a legitimate moral foundation for its demands. True authority is only in God, and is only legitimized by His Law found in the Bible. If a cop, or a tax collector, or a school principal, or a bureaucrat, can not or would not present a Biblical warrant for their actions, our kids must be trained to find the best way to… Read more »
Besides his raging hatred of cops and white people, I’m guessing this guy has some serious mental/emotional issues.
He’s a theonomist, and a lot of theonomists are complete whack jobs.
As I said the other day, most people who prattle on about “making God’s law-word the only standard in our society” are actually radical antinomians.
This freak certainly is.
And, yes, it does appear that he has some sort of following. He gets speaking/preaching gigs on a regular basis. Or has until quite recently.
It’s hard to believe any church or group would allow this nutjob anywhere near a pulpit.
I need to go read some more. He really deserves inclusion in the Encyclopedia of American Loons, one of my favorite sites.
That’s a great website, although I don’t understand how David Trosch wound up there. He was a bit loony and a papist, but the Catholic Church has certainly done worse.
Indeed it has. It produced me!
What I don’t understand about theonomists is that, having described a system of government so repellent that only people like themselves would want to live under it, how do they imagine they could get themselves elected? I have no doubt that we are a worldly and sinful people (and I include myself in that number), which makes it all the more likely that we’re not going to vote for candidates with campaign slogans like: KILL THE GAYS! A BULLET IS CHEAPER THAN A PRISON CELL! LET’S STONE YOUR REBELLIOUS CHILD! NO MORE TRAFFIC FINES AND NO MORE PUBLIC ROADS! They… Read more »
One of my personal favorites is LET’S LEGALIZE DRUNK DRIVING!
I expect he might be cool with that. In his post “Marijuana: God’s Weed or Satan’s Lettuce” (I confess to being very fond of that title, and I plan to use it soon), he eventually concludes that it is the former. I am one of the few Californians I know without a medical marijuana license from Dr. Feelgood, so I am banned from entering the neighborhood dispensaries (one a block around here). Otherwise, I would go in and order 0.64 g of Satan’s Lettuce.
Beelzebud
That is brilliant!
I just finished King Lear, so I’m inspired to figuring out how to make Poor Tom’s (Edgar’s) fiends work: Obidicut, Hobbididance, Mahu, Modo, and Flibbertigibbet.
But really, “Flibbertigibbet” probably won’t take much tweaking.
“Obidi-uncut” might work, but that’s veering off into cocaine.
You have a way with words, Wesley (how alliterative). I used to find Lear so tragic I couldn’t stand it. But then I encountered the work of Susan Herbert, and now I can laugh as Lear rages through the storm:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/396035360962018699/
As long as you buy me a cow and 1/5th if you run over my goat. Run over my kid and we’ll stone you.
One really strange thing is that 30 years ago, theonomists were, by and large, pretty hard core “racists.” Not all of them by any means, but a whole bunch of them, and probably the majority. There was a lot of overlap between Theonomy and Christian Identity, but lots of theonomists who weren’t Christian Identity were still “racists.” Today that has turned completely around. Some theonomists are still “racists” (some kinists are, of a sort, but I don’t know enough about kinism to know if they’re all theonomists, or only some of them), but probably the majority of theonomists these days… Read more »
In fairness, however, I think most of them are under no illusion that they’re going to be voted into power in present day America. Some would say a great revival will sooner or later take place in the US, at which point, enough people will support theonomy that they can take power. Personally, I’m extremely dubious about this scenario. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think it’s completely insane. But probably most of them are preparing for the rebuilding process after a near extinction level event – the comet hits, the terrorists get hold of an… Read more »
I think I might like to be one of the 90% No good Catholic fears death. But this Catholic would find life under Marinov a little frightening. I have an innate objection to stoning people. Even very, very bad people.
It’s not if people get stoned, it’s who and for what. In America’s case it’s babies.
“What I don’t understand about theonomists is that, having described a
system of government so repellent that only people like themselves would
want to live under it, how do they imagine they could get themselves
elected?”
Careful there. You just described God-given Biblical law at least for one time and place in history.
I do agree about its lack of marketability, however.
Check out Pastor Jeff Durbin if you’re laboring under the delusion that theonomy and the pastorate are somehow mutually exclusive.
I don’t agree with everything you have to say, but you’re definitely right that a lot of theonomists are really radical antinomians.
I used to believe that genuine racism (hating someone specifically for being black or Asian or Jewish without any reference to what the person was like) stemmed from a lack of familiarity with anyone of that race. I no longer believe that. But I still wonder if white Christians who claim to hate cops really know any cops personally. I have a black friend on LAPD who went to the Sorbonne, speaks fluent Russian, could have had an academic career, yet wanted to give back to the community. Do people really think she gets out of bed every morning and… Read more »
But I still wonder if white Christians who claim to hate cops really know any cops personally. I have a black friend on LAPD who went to the Sorbonne, speaks fluent Russian, could have had an academic career, yet wanted to give back to the community. Do people really think she gets out of bed every morning and hopes she can go shoot someone?
Oh, no, not all all. These preachers and others who support BLM and denounce racist cops would never include her in their condemnations. Non-white police officers aren’t evil; only white cops are evil.
But would they count her as black, given all her education and advantages? If they couldn’t patronize her, she could hardly qualify.
But would they count her as black, given all her education and advantages? If they couldn’t patronize her, she could hardly qualify.
Of course they would.
She has black skin, she qualifies.
In fact, they would hold her up as being an example of what most black people could accomplish if evil whites weren’t holding them back.
Can I ask if you are a professional writer? In idle speculation, I have gone back and forth between lawyer and columnist.
LOL
You crack me up!
What brought on this question?
Idle curiosity. Most people here write quite well, but you are very good indeed.
Wow. Thanks!
Let’s put it this way. I have a law degree. But I work in corporate law. I’m not like Perry Mason or Atticus Finch. The legal work I do is extremely boring. It does involve some writing, but mostly legalese.
But thanks again! I’m very flattered.
It’s funny you said that. It really did crack me up.
Because I had just started typing a post saying it’s time to hit the sack, and I have got to either quit spending so much time on this site, or find a way to get paid for it.
So when you asked about me being a professional writer, it was like you have ESPN or something!
Aha! It is a sad day when lawyers write better than your typical academic. But I was not impressed with what I saw in court when I attended the trial of a young man I knew who, while speeding, clipped the side of a van. Sadly, there was a policeman doing surveillance in the van, and he died of a heart attack. The lawyers did not have a good command of the mother tongue, and that’s putting it mildly. I was a teacher for a long time,but the best job I ever had was working as a copywriter for a… Read more »
What are you doing these days?
I certainly can see you writing for a living. Your comments are very well written. And well reasoned.
Thank you. Mostly I “manage” my daughter’s acting career, but I sometimes write freelance. I write resumes for money, but I am very bad at collections. Right now I am writing a masterpiece for the judge who will hear my husband’s divorce petition, on why I can’t possibly live on the amount he has proposed! I plan to unscrew a couple of my dental implants to lend verisimilitude to my claim that I’ll have to live in a cardboard box and beg for handouts on the nearby off-ramp!
Oh, gosh!
That’s funny!
Don’t get me started.
I better get off here!
Well, about time to take a break again. Getting burned out. Plus, I need to to start preparing for our company’s Spirit of Diversity awards banquet in a couple of weeks. I hate these things, but these days, if you don’t show up, you can seriously damage your career. Plus, I’ve been nominated for White Cisgender Heterosexual Male of the Year. (I’m praying I don’t win – the “prize” for this award is you get docked two months pay, which gets redistributed among all the non-white and LGBTQ employees.) On top of that, I need to memorize the lyrics to… Read more »
Give us a verse from “Ebony and Ivory” before you depart.
Actually, last year’s song was an adaptation of that song, called Ebony and Sodomy.
It is not right that someone as wickedly un-PC as you should be so funny.
LOL
I don’t think there are too many others on here who are enamored of my wit, so I’m glad you appreciate it!
Her freakishly high IQ having nothing to do with it, of course.
There seems to be lack of clarity between accused and victim, and not understanding the nature of enforcing the law. Doug is right that the onus in on proving guilt. This is not because an accused person is innocent, it is because we don’t know and we mustn’t punish the innocent. The call for 2 to 3 witnesses is to establish guilt, though one could perhaps consider modern forensic evidence as a witness. The passage in Deuteronomy is poorly understood, my take is similar to Doug’s that the woman is the one whose guilt is questioned and she is to… Read more »
Very interesting.
I wonder too, since girls protected their virginity if there might not have also been physical evidence that was viewed by the older women in the community – as a witness, so to speak. If the girl cried out and there was no one to hear, she might want to prove her innocence in some fashion.
I’m just stepping into theonomy, so I don’t know if adding like that is acceptable or even a good idea.
Purely speculative, but I doubt that a virgin would be subject to such “investigation”, be that by a woman or otherwise.
Sorry, I wasn’t meaning to be crude. I know that the evidence of virginity was given on the night a wedding was consumated. It didn’t seem like that much of a stretch for a young woman to want to show the evidence of the rape. Here’s my reasoning. If a young woman were guilty of consentual sex, she would want to hide the fact and would tell no one. If she were raped, she would want to tell as soon as possible for two reasons. First, there would be the blood on her, and second, there would still be blood… Read more »
Edit: by subject to, I include even voluntarily.
In our jurisprudence no one can be convicted on an uncorroborated confession. Was that the case under Biblical law?
I am not aware of anything in the Pentateuch that would suggest a man must have his confession corroborated.
I note that David puts to death men who claimed to kill Saul (though possibly didn’t) by the word of their own testimony.
(I think it should be somewhat dependent on how the confession came about.)
Considering the police, we have the situation where we are giving certain men the power over life and death. Much as we do with soldiers and judges. Police, judges and soldiers can all murder (note Joab), but they are in a unique position of having the power of the sword. As such, killing in the line of duty may be necessary. Decisions need to be made with less than full information with the goal of protecting the innocent and (to an extent) themselves. Therefore, in the course of addressing criminal behaviour there is a presumed innocence. Just as the virgin… Read more »
Rather than have a special punishment for govt officials, just enforce the biblical false testimony law: the perjurer gets the consequence they were attempting to perpetrate on the defendant.
I agree, I am happy that they are punished if miscarriage of justice is proven, but not all perjury can be proven. I am thinking also that if a cop steals then he is fined heavier than the standard fine.
Sad to say, having interacted a bit on his web page, I find Bojidar
Marinov strong on wooden thinking and lacking much in the way of
metaphor/simile/parallel, not to mention Nuance. I don’t think
interacting with what he writes will be profitable unless he has a
following that can be disabused of incorrect things by following an
argument better than he can. But if they could I doubt they’d be
following him.
Funny, that’s the way I’d describe Wilson and his followers/minions too.
Do you read the comments here?
If you mean that most of the commenters respect Pastor Wilson, when you think they shouldn’t, then okay(?), but there’s hardly a post where DW isn’t verbally accosted for whatever view by a significant number of the Mablog faithful.
I guess Marinov is not the only one capable of flattening distinctions.
right? exactly…Wilson and flattening distinctions has hall of fame potential
I’d reword your response slightly: “I know you are, but what am I ?” It’s shorter and gets us more quickly to the core of your argument.
Sorry, I forgot nuance is too tricky for the minions
Nuance: a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.
You should try it sometime.
Ryan Sather
Full of blather;
Gives us minions
Dumb opinions.
Well Jilly , the bard has no need to worry of serious competition, but at least we are showing more than being only prosaic!????????
You been hittin’ that Flibbertigibbet, eh j-bean?
Who me?
Wesley, do you know why ants never get sick?
It’s because they have antibodies.
Thanks for addressing Doug. I am a retired cop and found myself going back and forth with Bojidar online with facts and realities. Anecdotally speaking, he is a bully. If you don’t subscribe to his “abolish the police” mentality, then you are immediately deleted from the thread and all connections to him on social media. This man is highly toxic to anything logical, and is a master of manipulation.