We are reaching a dangerous time in our culture when thanking cops for correctly doing a tough job is considered controversial.
A billboard featuring a police officer is creating controversy in Kenosha.
It shows Kenosha Officer Pablo Torres with the words “Thank you for your support, Kenosha.”
Torres is the same officer who was involved in two shootings in 10 days. One of the men he shot, 26-year-old Aaron Siler, died.
Siler’s family called the billboard a slap in the face.
“Every time I go to Kenosha, I go down that road, and I have to see that smile on his face knowing that I will never see that smile on Aaron’s face,” said Kathy Willie, a friend of the Siler family.
The Kenosha Police Association is behind the billboard.
In case you are wondering about the man who was killed.
The incident began just after 9:30 a.m. Saturday, when officers attempted to arrest Siler — wanted on an active felony probation and parole warrant. Siler initiated a vehicle pursuit with officers, and after crashing his vehicle, he took off running. Officers pursued Siler on foot, and when Siler was confronted by Officer Torres, police say Siler armed himself with a weapon.
Officer Torres then fired his handgun — striking and killing Siler.
Police say there were citizen witnesses to this officer-involved shooting.
Generally speaking, if you aren’t an armed felon who is confronting an officer while trying to evade arrest, you won’t get shot.
Who would have known that thanking police officers for a job well done would be right up there with other liberal verboten subjects:
1.) Marriage under God’s design, One man One woman.
2.) Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer.
3.) Letting business owners decide on acceptable morality in their private workplace.
Its always interesting what the next speech issue liberals will target for censorship and make “verboten” in their intolerant lexicon.
I thank Officer Torres, as well as all other law enforcement officers in Wisconsin, for making our society a safer place. Criminals, and family members of criminals, will always complain when police officers do their job well.
As a spiritual person I will never thank anyone for taking the life of another even if it’s a “justified” police officer. I also don’t let my politics influence my spirituality or my spirituality influence my politics. The two have never mixed and often led to zealots controlling the freedoms entitled to all. Christ may be our savior but others are legally allowed to chose for themselves free from the indoctrination of others. You also have the right to choose how you decide to marry but others have the right to choose for themselves without you or Gods approval. The intolerance my friend, in most of your posts, seems to be placed squarely on your shoulders. Let’s not forget one of the main reasons for our Declaration of Independence was the singular religious mandates imposed and enforced by the British monarchy. The history of religious intolerances goes back thousands of years and is responsible for millions of deaths. It time for civilized people to understand we can all inhabit the planet in harmony if we try to understand and accept the differences we all carry with us. I celebrate and rejoice your dedication to Christianity and would encourage you to do the same with others that don’t adhere to your standards.
A “spiritual person” would defend the good police officers that protet us from evil doers.
Psalm 140:4
“Keep me safe, Lord, from the hands of the wicked;
protect me from the violent,”
Police officers are a gift from the Lord to protect what is good from what is evil.
If we turn our back on those officers, especially when they make difficult, and correct, decisions in the line of duty, we fail to cling to what is good as a “spiritual person” and cling to what is evil.
I don’t ever want to see anyone shot and killed by an officer, but sometimes there is evil in the community and depending on the circumstance, it needs to be eliminated by force to protect other innocent people in the commmunity.
I say an extra thank you to Officer Torres in this situation, for those that lack thankfulness for this officer’s fine actions.
“Generally speaking, if you aren’t an armed felon who is confronting an officer while trying to evade arrest, you won’t get shot.”
Really Owen?! Tell that to Walter Scott in North Charleston. That’s right…you can’t he’s dead. Unarmed and shot 8 times while running away by Officer Slager who is now charged with murder. Or how about Tony Robinson in Madison? Oh that’s right he was unarmed and killed by police. Or how about Dontre Hamilton? Oops same story. Unarmed and homeless shot dead by ex-officer Manney after an improper pat down of the sleeping homeless man.
If police are there to protect us what the hell are they doing shooting unarmed individuals? They have tasers, billy clubs and other methods of restraint short of deadly force but they seem to have abandoned that in favor of immediate death if you have the balls to say or do anything in resistance to them. And i haven’t even addressed that most of the offciers are white and most of the victims are black.
Kevin, you’re in true form once again with religious baloney that brings sour bile up in my throat.
You said, “but sometimes there is evil in the community and depending on the circumstance, it needs to be eliminated by force to protect other innocent people in the community.” What happens if the police are perpetrators of evil?
The billboard was paid for by the Kenosha Police Association thanking the community for their support. To display Officer Torres on the billboard after he was involved in two shootings in a month was very insensitive. It’s seems like the association is trying to flaunt the victory or that their proud of the situation. Some humility and compassion in the face of death is in order. I thank the police for the many times they have helped me. However, no other westernized (civilized) nation on earth treats their citizens with such brutality. These situations can be avoided. Times are changing and the policies and procedures of law enforcement need to change with them. There is a reason statistical data wasn’t keep on officer related deaths. There is a reason Governor Scott Walker passed a law requiring independent review of officer related deaths. There hasn’t been an “unjustified” police related shooting in Wisconsin for 129 years. A little hard to believe. The “fine actions” of police are becoming more and more apparent thanks to involved citizens armed with technology. Deadly force should always be the last resort. In the Officer Torres case the aggressive pursuit of someone who had a warrant ended in a death. It could and should of been avoided. Maybe the next time a cop is in pursuit he can take a moment to ask “what would Jesus do?”. I am positive Jesus would say use restraint.
We are reaching a dangerous time in our culture when the only union left unaffected by fervent anti-union corporatists is the same union whose duty it is to enforce the laws of said corporatists.
Dave,
If the police are the perps through their actions, that needs to be dealt with. A majority of time police are simply doing their job as heroes.
What I am tired of is liberal defense of felonious thugs while ripping good police officers apart to the point where we cannot thank them for a job well done!
It is especially annoying to see liberal thug defense in this case. Based on his criminal record this thug ate and breathed evil deeds all day long. I’m sorry our justice system fails so badly that poor officer Torres had to be put in this position in the first place.
When a family speaks out in favor of the criminal I want to know the following:
1.). Did they aide or enable their criminal behavior?
2.). At first sign of criminal behavior did they intervene or ignore the bad choices?
3.). Did family pick him up for church or bible study?
4,). Did family shield consequences of criminal behavior by providing lawyers or bail money?
Those questions would be fascinating to have answers to if we are looking to assign blame to someone other than dead criminal.
Jade,
Jesus does not turn a blind eye to evil as you suggest.
In the beatitudes (spoken by Jesus himself) it says;
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.”
I don’t see how stopping a pursuit of a criminal to let him continue his evil deeds/ways is thirsting for what is good.
Letting unrepentant evil thrive and looking other way as none of our business is not something Jesus teaches in New Testament.
“Clinging to what is good” rarely involves letting wanted criminals run smock.
Kevin, I would agree with you that a majority of the time they are heroes protecting us. I had a cop brother in law killed in the line of duty by a low life. However, I am concerned about the growing minority of cases where the police are exercising deadly force with no REASONABLE basis for believing they are in danger and taking the person into custody could be done without killing the person. Our system is designed in the belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That may result in guilty people going free occasionally. However, the writers of the constitution and the subsequent court of this land have determined a few guilty going free is a preferable price to pay than that of erring on the side of finding guilt and punishing someone who is actually innocent of the crime. The growing lack of respect for the rights of the individual citizen are primarily burdening non-whites at this point. If they get away with it without consequence police will gradually show less and less respect for individual rights. Your assumption that anyone a policeman stops is a “felonious thug” may cause you to reflect and reconsider if you happen to be that felonious thug when stopped for a broken tail light and treated with the same respect Mr. Scott received in North Charleston. Being a conservative i would think you would be a fierce defender of individual rights and liberty.
What happen in N Charleston was a crime on officers part. It is the narrow exception to the rule.
Torres incident is hero status. Far from the N. charleston incident which is rightfully prosecuted.
Kevin,
Often police will back off of pursuits knowing that the risk to innocent life, their lives or the perpetrators life is not worth it. Eventually everyone gets caught especially when they know the perp. The Torres case is an example of a situation that could have been avoided. Furthermore, an evil person alive is a soul that could still be saved and worth saving. I’m not saying Torres wasn’t justified in his actions but maybe some restraint could have saved a young troubled life. If responsibility can be placed on the family then we as a society also bare some responsibility. We are our brothers keepers. One more thing, I did not suggest Jesus turns a blind eye to evil and in the future please refrain from putting words in my mouth. If you would like me to clarify a point then ask a question. Don’t assume. My point was with all the other take down options as well as ending the pursuit and apprehending at a more police controlled moment instead of forcing the situation to become explosive this situation could have been avoided. Jesus never called for police officers to be the judge, jury and executioner and I highly doubt Mr. Scott saw the police as a “gift from The Lord” as they filled his back with eight rounds of hot led, lied about the taser, relocated the taser and failed to perform CPR. We are only human, we make mistakes but no one deserves to be shot down on the street if it can be avoided. From what I could find Aaron Siler was convicted of two crimes. One felony and bail jumping related to that felony. Hardly a person that “ate and breathed evil deeds all day long”. He was being pursued for failing to report to his probation officer. Hardly a crime deserving death and hardly a police take down deserving hero status. A couple of rubber bullets to the chest, followed up by the taser and some pepper spray would have surely made him drop his knife. Evil comes in many forms just ask an alter boy.
Fleeing and arming one self while he is under arrest is what brought his death sentence.
That is a crime from which there is no return for criminals and cops. Better the criminal than officer gets hurt in instances like this.
In communities where a back off approach is done as you suggest, those cities are over ridden by violent crime. Milwaukee as prime example of this policy. Crime, not civil society rule.
I don’t dispute an evil man can turn from his ways and be saved, but how many innocent people get hurt in the meantime by having a lax pursuit policy?
This sends a message to bad guys, do this and you might be fatally hurt. That is a message that could save/steer others from making wrong choices in those communities.
So it may prevent other criminals from doing same thing…..except in Milwaukee.
You make it sound as if Aaron Siler deserved to die. Fleeing nor arming ones self are punishable by death. I agree that in this case it appears Officer Torres was justified but I would still argue that it was preventable. Many countries have unarmed (firearm) police with armed tactical response for elevated situations. Death by cop is a rare occurrence in other countries and there is no statistical evidence supporting death by cop is a deterrent. The death penalty has been proven to have no impact one way or the other in deterring crime. Labeling Milwaukee as a city where “crime not civility rule” is not accurate. It is a small percentage of the population that chooses a life of crime. The majority of the citizens in Milwaukee are law abiding. There may be some rotten apples but the barrels not spoiled. As a fellow Christian you seem to be very pessimistic and of little faith in your fellow man. How many innocent people have already been killed by aggressive pursuit policies. Police departments on a national scale have adopted back off policies because of the danger that can arise and the liability that can be incurred. Back off policies have very little if any impact on higher crime rates and you would be hard pressed to find any data supporting your claim. I will always support the police but never blindly.
Jade,
I’m not pessimistic about my fellow man. As a Christian love needs to be sincere. We are to hate what is evil and cling to what is good. Romans 12:9.
We cannot change/reform the criminal’s evil choices here, we can only support the officer attempting to defend good, as the authority established by God.
At some point, we have to distinguish between good and evil acts as instructed in Romans 12:9. The criminal broke the law. Officer did his job well within the law.
If you say former is good and latter is evil. We are warned against labeling good as evil, and evil as good in several places in the bible. Proverbs 14:22. Amos 5:14. Romans 14:6. Isaiah 5:20.
A Christian does not sit back and not support those who are in the front line against evil acts. A Christian in action supports those who do good, even when they make a tough, but justified decision, in the face of evil acts.
Hate is a very strong word. Forgiveness should be considered. As humans (mere mortals) we will never be able to live up to biblical standards. If that was possible we would be par to God. It’s easy to use the bible as a crutch but to have real earthly solution is the challenge for those of us that dwell in Mortalville. For some all the answers may be within the bible and that’s okay but others have to deal with the reality of daily life. Some peoples convictions are stronger then others and it is unrealistic to expect everyone to live up to a religious standard. Ultimately God will be the judge of Officer Torres and I am insulted that you imply I am not a Christian or I don’t support the police. I made my position on both very clear. Once again you have clearly twisted my words and my character in support of your point. Play fair or get out of the game.
In The Waukesha Freeman today there is an anecdote about The late Judge Patrick Snyder. Retired judge Neil Nettesheim reflects: after sentencing a man for first degree murder Judge Snyder “stepped down from the bench, stopped the deputies in their tracks and reached out and shook the man’s hand and wished him luck’. Judge Snyder recognized ” that even in the worst of us, there might be some good” and that’s “how he would feel about anybody convicted of the most heinous crimes”. Understanding, compassion and forgiveness are truly Christian. Hate has no place at the table of our Lord. Who’s praying for Aaron Siler?
If someone is intent on doing evil and continuing to do evil, is forgiveness possible for the unrepentant?
That is what the officer was facing, unrepentant evil when Siler armed himself when faced to account for his contempt for authority.
I had no intent to imply you were not a Christian or play “unfair” by quoting the biblical instruction that drives my faith. We live in a culture that tends to extol, defend and rationalize, wrongdoing, while punishing, ridiculing, and second guessing those working on the side of good. The liberal quest to confuse what is good and what is evil is a major problem in our society.
We have a Christian duty here to defend (cling to) what is good and those working toward justice and righteousness. Its clear who was working toward justice and righteousness here.
That is where this story started. One billboard thanking the officer for a job well done. I would have liked to seen multiple billboards saying “thank you”.
Jade,
In the Snyder case, the particular felon showed remorse and repentance for what he had done.
I join you in agreeing Snyder’s actions were compassionate.
In Siler’s case, he showed no remorse or repentance by his actions. Fatal consequences were the result. That is why one must always be on your guard against choosing evil, God may hold you to account for it immediately, as in Siler’s case. Prayers for Siler would be useless at this point because they are unneccesary. (Believer is in heaven with Christ, unbeliever the prayer would be futile.)
Here’s a good article on that topic:
http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/questions-answers/none/prayers-dead-0
So when you ask “who is praying for Aaron Siler?” The answer is: possibly those that may not understand their Christianity very well.
The only thing futile is trying to have a intelligent conversation based on the realities of humanity with someone who has a God complex. It is not for us to judge. Hating and calling people evil because of the mistakes they have made is unfair and should be left to the judges of the courts here on earth and to God for those that have departed. Basing the whole of ones character and justifying his death on a few bad mistakes isn’t righteous. If your standard, as a a Christian, is the same standard for which God will judge us then we are a doomed to eternal damnation for we have all made mistakes. I guess we will never know if Siler was remorseful. Maybe Siler was a Christian, maybe he prayed to Jesus, maybe he had a kind compassionate side, maybe just maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to judge without knowing everything. Furthermore, it is our duty as responsible citizens to question everything related to our government (the good and the evil). Only God can decide if Siler was repentant or if he deserves his forgiveness and since your not God…well. There is also a clear line between working (as your job) to ensure justice and seeking righteousness. I am sure there are thousands of police officers who aren’t Christians but are able to enforce the law. For me, being a Christian encompasses far more then citing scripture or trying to live a pure life. I am willing to accept the differences of others and to understand nobody’s perfect. They do not have to be Christian to be afforded the same dignity in life even if they are “evil”. This is especially true in death. Once again to put the billboard up shortly after this troubled young mans death showed a lack of compassion unfitting any Christian.
Jade,
God is the judge of the heart. We agree on that.
As Christians, we can only judge actions. Actions demonstate where one’s heart is. Based on actions, I reject what Siler did as wrong. And accept what Torres did as right.
By not thanking the officers for their protection in a very difficult job, we show a lack of Christian compassion for those that trying to protect the innocent. I applaud the union for being so open and passionate about the “thank you”.
To me, Christian compassion is to be focused on the innocent and repentant first. Is it compassion if, in the process, you forsake the compassion for the innocent and repentant in favor of having compassion unrepentant evil that may hurt the innocent in the future?
I’m forced to answer “no”.
No matter what I say you find a way to rationalize it or to answer a question with a question. Mother Teresa spent her life showing compassion to everyone that needed it. She didn’t care what religion you “belonged” to, your innocence or guilt, your socio-economic status, your political views, your sexuality or if you were repentant. Her level of compassion, understanding and forgiveness is the model for all Christians. She knew not to stand in judgement for she would be judged. Actions, heart or fantasy the judgements you pass based on hate and evil are wrong and don’t reflect the teachings of Christ no matter how you twist them. It’s become common practice for some individuals to seek political high ground by distorting Christianity for personal gain. This is also not Christian.
Jade,
So in the name of “compassion” you embrace/justify/defend all unrighteous/evil acts?
Even if those unrighteous acts will hurt others?
Is that “mercy” for the victims of criminals?
I credit the officer with compassion and mercy for all the innocents he was protecting in this incident.
Christians do have a duty to gently admonish other Christians (Colossians 3:16)if those Christians are straying from the faith. How would one ever mature in the spiritual faith if nothing is ever “judged” to be good or evil in action?
Mother Theresa did demonstrate compassion. but did she ever “hang out” with active, unrepentant criminals? The answer is “no”. She practiced mercy on the least among us and criminals that were at least showing repentance and willingness to change their evil ways.
Compassion for the criminal does not change the earthly consequence for his evil acts here. From an eternal perspective, a perspective Christians should embrace, (Colossians 3:2) compassion for Siler is useless because he is either with Christ or in eternal punishment.
Siler serves as a useful lesson for Christians with an eternal perspective. Christ May call you home at anytime. Will you be caught doing evil and being unrepentant without the fruit of the Holy Spirit dwelling within or will you be demonstrating the gifts of the Holy Spirit in action? (Galatians 5:22-23).
Actions serve as evidence whether the Holy Spirit dwells within.
Compassion for the eternal consequence should be our focus as Christians. If we make no judgement on actions on good and evil, we embrace evil by not supporting the good. Embracing evil leads us further from Christ not closer. Leading ourselves or others away from Christ, by not clinging to what is good, is not compassion.
So when we talk “compassion” are we talking in the earthy liberal sense, that embraces all kinds of evil acts as good, or in the true spiritual, eternal perspective of Christianity? (The destination of one’s soul to heaven or hell.)
You had indicated the latter in prior post, but strongly indicate the former in your subsequent reactions.
If we get clear on that, we can pretty much pinpoint the disagreement here.
Kevin,
We will never be able to pinpoint the disagreement. Your unwillingness to see past your spirituality and consider not all earthy problems can be solved biblically makes it impossible for you to debate. Everything always comes back to questioning another’s position religiously or politically. There are answers beyond that limited spectrum. Seven out of twenty one of your sentences were questions. Putting me on the spot doesn’t take away the fact the billboard was insensitive. You should answer the questions yourself because no matter what my opinion is you only hear your own side. You also have made an effort to pinpoint my political stance. I have never been foolish enough to align myself with any political party. The “parties” no longer represent the will of the people. Once again I don’t let politics influence my spirituality nor do I let my spirituality influence my politics. I find it makes life less complicated. As far as Mother Teresa is concerned, it is foolish of you to assume that she was never in the company of the unrepentant. Mother Teresa’s work encompassed everything you listed but also included helping non-Christians (vastly more), the victims of aids/HIV and hard core alcoholics. It would be obvious that some of them were “unrepentant” and some were definitely criminals. As a matter of fact one of her sects deals exclusively with inmates. Mother Teresa did not put conditions of her Christian charity which included compassion, kindness and forgiveness. I am afraid you might want to reconsider your position. A true Christian would not label another human being as evil. Once again you have tried to label me, twist my position and questioned my faith. Therefore, as a kind, compassionate and forgiving Christian I will end this conversation before I say something I would regret.
Jade,
The fact that your Christianity cannot be reflected on for all earthly problems is where we disagree.
Christians should reflect on their faith first when it comes to all trials and problems in this world. Christian faith is not something that can be discarded because its difficult or not the trendy thing to do. The periods in my life where difficulties and problems were the greatest is where my faith grew the most. To discard faith in those instances, and claim the bible does not have the answers for those times really means ones clings to their own understanding vs being guided by the Holy Spirit to grow your faith.
In this case, thanking the police officer seems to be the untrendy thing to do.
If your spirituality does not guide your politics, then you don’t have strong spirituality. Strong Christian spirituality demands one declares certain actions as evil or wrong and look for politicians that support the same.
Kevin,
I recant my last sentence and what I’m about to say I will not regret. You sir are a pompous a**. Once again you have manipulated my words to suit your self loathing. I know many Republicans that aren’t spiritual and I know many Democrats that are Christians. Being able to separate the two is a skill you obviously have no interest in entertaining but that doesn’t mean others can’t. Your intolerance and indifference to those that choose to apply their values the way they see fit in disgusting. Your fire and brimstone rhetoric is almost unbearable. Modern problems sometimes require modern answers. If the person making those decisions is guided by faith that is a bonus but not a requirement. Politics is the practice of separating you from your vote and if you believe politicians seeking power and wealth represent Christianity then you should re-examine both your faith and your politics. I’m not a person who cares about trendy. Another bad assumption on your part. Nor am I a person that concerns myself with others opinions about my devotion. Yet another bad assumption on your part. You seem to like turning everything into a religious or political debate and have a problem sticking to the subject at hand. Preaching is one thing. Having an intelligent debate is another. I’m truly sorry your incapable of either one. I also realize you are absolutely incapable of hearing anyone else’s point of view or even considering it. Every man of the cloth I have ever spoken to listened, comforted, guided, showed compassion and understanding but rarely quoted scripture. They give advise person to person and save the preaching for the pulpit. They realized I had studied the bible and was well aware of the scripture. Maybe your continued recital of the scripture isn’t for others but to somehow reassure yourself when you take an un-Christian position. It’s very curious, every time you take a position that’s questionable you rebut with questioning my faith or recite more scripture. The bottom line is the billboard was insensitive and of course… Thank you police! Everything else was uncalled for and shows that your an arrogant, pompous a** determined to indoctrinate everyone with your views and show absolute disregard for theirs. You should stick to licensing pot-bellied pigs. How’s that for Christian!
Jade,
When you claimed being a spiritual person, I didn’t think it would be a problem discussing this issue from a scripture perspective which should guide such matters.
I apologize if the questions and biblical passages to back the spiritual points in my comments got you upset.
Clearly, I should have taken your comment about spirituality with less excitement.
Now you would like to argue the conceptual semantics of who brought religion into the conversation. The answer is you. In your response to Owens post you clearly list a 1,2,3, religious jabs at “liberal verboten”. I was merely pointing out you don’t have to be intolerant, a liberal, a criminal or the family member of a criminal to believe the billboard was insensitive. I found the billboard to be misleading. It appeared as if Officer Torres was thanking the community. In reality it was the Kenosha Police Association using Officer Torres’ s image. Thanks were indeed warranted as well as some humility. The feelings of the community should have been considered and the response should have been anticipated. Hence insensitive.
Once again you have questioned my spirituality by saying “when you claimed to be a Christian” and “Clearly, I should have taken your comment about spirituality with less excitement”. My spirituality is not for your excitement and I’m a little weirded out by the thought. At this point it’s not my Christianity that’s in question and if I had concerns I would not seek guidance from someone who preaches intolerance and hate, twists the scripture for personal gain and to degrade others or that freely passes judgement and makes un-researched biblical claims. When it comes to my spirituality keep your opinions to yourself. I will let a God make that decision. He’s clearly more qualified.
“When a family speaks out in favor of the criminal” it’s probably because they lost their son, grandson, brother, nephew or cousin who they loved despite his troubles. Anyone having children would clearly have empathy and compassion for their situation. Not try to place further blame. Once again not a very Christian thing to do.
Oh and by the way… Mother Teresa has always been spelled with a T not a Th.
Jade said,
“Anyone having children would clearly have empathy and compassion for their situation. Not try to place further blame. Once again not a very Christian thing to do.”
Could you point out which family of the criminal we are talking about? This family was squarely blaming the officer. They were taking the blame off their criminal relative and placing all blame on the officer, which seems to happen in every one of these cases. (Most of the time, that blame shift is unjustified).
You also point out “the feelings of the community”? You are the “judge” of that? It’s interesting you want to criticize my “judging” of the situation, but you do the same exact thing. Is this one of those liberal cases where “judging” the insensitive reigns supreme, but “judging” good and evil verboten?
If so, missed the political correctness memo/meeting on that one.
More manipulation. I said “the feelings of the community should have been considered”. The community had a response to both the shooting and the billboard. Do you believe it was just the family? Is it possible you won’t except the community response because it doesn’t jive with your ideology. Direct me to the videos and quotes showing this family “placing ALL the blame on the officer”. Their questions and concerns were the same raised by the police department. It just so happens in was their relative so they were naturally more emotional and demanding more answers. Not once did I hear any relative deny the troubles this young man had. I believe any family would want to know the truth and would demand it.
I never judged the community as you imply, simply gave an opinion. You however have been passing judgement not only on me but the family, liberals, criminals, citizens of Milwaukee (Owen is one), the unrepentant, felonious thugs and Mother Teresa. The more you say the deeper your foot goes into your mouth and the clearer it becomes that the intolerance still lies squarely on your shoulders.
Nice try labeling me as a liberal but your pattern of being wrong has already been established or was that further judgement as you clearly don’t hold liberals in high regard.
Jade,
So “opinions” never involve any judgement of any sort?
Matters of opinion can encompass many things but that doesn’t make them right or wrong. They are by nature simply opinions. Judgements are a completely different beast. However, my opinion, which you already distorted and misquoted, “the feelings of the community should have been considered” was not in any sense judgement. Please stop trying to pervert my statements and twist the subject. The linguistic dead falls won’t ensnare me. I won’t be trapped and held hostage by irrational thought processes designed to support another’s agenda (even if it’s similar to mine). At this point I don’t care about your politics or your religion (no judgement implied or meant). Those are for you to manage. I also will have trouble taking anything you say seriously after this display. I wish you the best and will pray for you. Let’s move on.
Jade,
Just to clarify. When I have an opinion, its a judgement.
When you have an opinion, its not a judgement.
Interesting.
If that distinction is incorrect, then you should just view ALL my previous statements as “opinions” in similar fashion to how you treat your “opinions”, and perhaps, consider, not being so judgemental about my opinions.
Problem solved.
So if I say “the feelings of the commmunity are to support the officer and say thank you boldly”, that is an “opinion”, not a “judgement”, correct?
I have to admit, I did not anticipate this conversation getting this interesting.
“So if I say” have you talked to a mental health professional lately is that my opinion that you should or am I judging? MOVE ON.
Jade,
Just trying to distinguish between the use of the word “opinion”, and what is the use, by liberals, as the “be quiet, none of your business” word : “judging”.
One word allows debate, the other word tries to end debate as the liberal code word for “shut-up”.
I realize you want to move on because you are caught on this point.
I just find it interesting as a “spiritual” person you refuse to label good and evil, but want to be the judgemental arbitrator of “insensitivity”.
If you insist on beating this dead horse I will continue to indulge your nonsense. You are obviously intent on painting me as a liberal because that justifies your point. I am NOT a liberal or should I repeat it ten more times in all caps? With that being said, i believe it is possible to think something is insensitive while still supporting the police. I am a big enough person to admit that I occasionally pass judgement. I am only human. I do however possess the ability and intelligence to decipher between opinions and judgements. It can sometimes be a fine line. One who judges believes or has decided that their opinion is correct. Matters of opinion can be judgements and judgements can be opinions. I think you were correct in that point. In the context we are considering I believe you are wrong. I think that your opinions crossed the line of ration thought and aren’t supported by fact. I pointed that out several times. If you can prove those statements then I will concede to your superior intelligence and debating skills.
When I use the word insensitive it works both ways. Maybe the more appropriate choice of words (or word) should have been inciting or inflammatory. The community reacted in support and in opposition to the billboard. Hence “the feelings of the community should have been considered”. I did mean community literally.
Being guided by spirituality in all aspects of life is a great thing. We have seen the flip side of the coin. Take Iran j(the government) for instance. Religious zealots (my opinion and judgement). Their distorted and extreme religious views dictate their often irrational political decisions. They would rather die for their spirituality then compromise on their politics because they are unwilling to separate the two. I can still be a Christian and recognize the liberties of all other religious, racial, ethnic and socio-economic groups. That doesn’t make me a liberal or any less of a Christian. Sometimes you have to take the politics and religion out of the equation to make a decision that is far to all. As a country we can represent the majority without forgetting about the minority. Hence, I don’t let my politics influence my spirituality or my spirituality influence my politics. That doesn’t mean I’m not guided. I don’t let one dictate the other. Manage your spirituality and politics the way you see fit and let me manage mine free from your judgement (opinions).
I understand you hate the liberal cesspool and are a devote Christian but don’t be so quick to assume those with differing stances are always democrats. You may inadvertently alienate support.
Jade,
I like the words “inciting and inflammatory”. Good words.
When the family did not come out and say what their relative did was completely wrong and they feel sorry for officer being placed in that terrible position…the family was “inciting and inflammatory” to civil society and what is good.
As I have said any family placed in their position would obviously want answers. Right or wrong, the natural instinct to protect loved ones and their reputation can sometimes be jaded in the face of death. I can not discount their emotional reaction is this instance. The family was well aware of the troubles this young man was dealing with but to seek answers,question the circumstances and express feelings shouldn’t be held against them. I wouldn’t say they were any more or less incite full or inflammatory to society then the police association that didn’t consider the community reaction (as a whole) when erecting the billboard. I would think the family sought representation that probably steered them away from making statements about their relative or the officer. It is a great lesson for the police, the association and society. We should all be more understanding, compassionate and forgiving. We should remember the loss this family endured and the tough decisions challenging officers. The family and the officer will both deal with emotional ramifications of that tragic day. I still believe the billboard was insensitive and would express MY thanks in a way that ensured civil stability. I also believe that in some cases restraint is in order. I don’t question the justification for the use of deadly force in this case but wonder (out loud) if it could of been avoided. These situations make everyone involved question the circumstances and those with a conscience question their faith. I will let God make the final decision as to whether Siler was unrighteous, evil and unrepentant.
Jade,
So if police association, right or wrong, wants to protect its family, and loved ones also, (as well as community at large) why don’t you afford that family the same compassion and ability to speak out in the same way (with a media bullhorn) the family of the criminal does?
There should be more compassion for officer, and those that speak out to support the good the officer does, than those speaking out to support the unrepentant criminal in this situation.
Not saying the family of the criminal shouldn’t have any compassion in this situation, but one should afford at least the same amount of compassion to those speaking in favor of the offcier in this situation.
I absolutely do believe the same “speak out” position should be afforded to both parties and I have expressed my compassion and understanding for what the officer must be going through. The difference is the family has a spokeswoman speaking for them. According to Foxs 6 News the spokeswoman said the family is asking “that people not jump to conclusions about what happened”. Hardly an incite full and inflammatory position being screamed from a media bullhorn. Next question
Let me add, the spokeswoman did express some personal concerns about the billboard but those aren’t necessary representative of the families views. Silers mother, Ms. Toppi, is even more emotional then most parents would be. She grew up with and has known Officer Torres most of her life. This probably makes this equally difficult for Torres. Maybe the billboard was thanks enough without adding Officers Torres smiling image. In hindsight not the best P.R. move. Ms. Toppi has asked “why did you have to shot him six times”. Probably thinking her son might still be alive if he was shot less then six times. Besides for that I am hard pressed to find the family screaming from a media bullhorn. Furthermore, from what I can gather Siler did express remorse and ask for forgiveness( for his actions ) to the victim, his mother and the court. I don’t know if he asked God.
I think its great the officer asked for forgiveness from the family, even though he did the correct thing here.
To me, that means he deserves a public thank you for being a good guy in action, as well, after the incident. He really gets a big “thank you” from me for doing that.
What would be great is: if the immediate famiy of Siler came out and said, “What Siler did was wrong and we are sorry Officer Torres had to be put in that difficult position.”
That would be a refreshing outcome here.
As long as the investigation doesn’t turn up any wrong doing by the officer and because of the criminals mothers relationship with the officer that’s a strong possibility. I think it could relieve some of the tension. Probably won’t do much for Baltimore (Siler was white) but it would show the nation how Wisconsin handles itself.
I’m not sure if Officer Torres asked for forgiveness from the family. I haven’t heard that. If you are referring to my statement “Siler did express remorse and ask for forgiveness (for his actions) to the victim, his mother and the court”. I meant the criminal (Siler) expressed this for his original crime. If Officer Torres did ask for forgiveness from the family it shows tremendous character no matter the outcome of the investigation.
If one is truly sorry, one accepts consequence, which if probation was a consequence, one does not do what Siler did even if it was a random, unannounced check!
The repentant reaction to any probation check would be “yes, officer whatever you need!” Picking up a gun to shoot officer is a sign his previous repentance may not have been truly a change of heart and a true sign Siler meant to amend his ways.
Actions point to where one’s heart is.
You should call the people running the independent investigation and let them know about your insider information. I am amazed that a guy that lives an hour and a half from the crime scene would be privy to such information. You possess many skills you haven’t shared with us peasants. Once again you are making assumptions about something you are really in no position to know. Maybe it was a stick, a knife or a book ( with gay content).
Maybe he asked for forgiveness as he was lying on the ground dying. Lifestyles don’t change over night. Being sorry for ones action doesn’t mean he was successful at completely reforming his life. Maybe he had substance abuse issues. I’m happy your life is so clear and defined but that’s not the case for everyone. We already discussed this mans troubled life. To expect an overnight turn around isn’t realistic especially when he knows nothing else. Alcoholics, even those of faith, education and wealth talk about the life long struggle they face and the many relapses and poor decisions they will make along the way. George W Bush is a great example. He found Jesus, worked hard, made mistakes ( cocaine) but eventually figured it out. Just think if we had disregarded him or shoot him down because he failed to report to a probation appointment. I find it hard to believe it was a gun. From all accounts I have read he ran from the car and then acquired a weapon. Hard to believe he found a gun lying in the street but you seem to already know. Some people like George W have addiction issues. With some people its food addiction.Some people can’t stop eating the DQ or McD and feed it to their kids on a daily basis. The slow painful suffering of obesity at the hands of a parent is a form of child abuse. A crime. As a socially conscientious individual do you tell the obese woman with her obese kid you won’t serve them any food? Do you accuse her of being unrepentant or make her aware of the consequences of her actions. Do you ask her if she is truly sorry, tell her to have a change of heart or ask her to amend her ways. Actions point to where ones heart is. That would be assuming a lot, forming opinions and passing judgement about things you would not have all the information on. Maybe she’s already on probation for child abuse, maybe she was going to order the salad. Let’s wait for the investigation to conclude before we form any more opinions or pass any more judgements. Maybe Officer Torres will tell us he witnessed a miracle and saw Jesus himself come down and lift Aaron Silers sole up to Heaven.
Jade,
The article comments,
“The incident began just after 9:30 a.m. Saturday, when officers attempted to arrest Siler — wanted on an active felony probation and parole warrant. Siler initiated a vehicle pursuit with officers, and after crashing his vehicle, he took off running. Officers pursued Siler on foot, and when Siler was confronted by Officer Torres, police say Siler armed himself with a weapon.”
There has been no reason to doubt that sequence of events, unless you think officers are lying, which means you have some sort of inside information.
Did like the unsustained crack at fast food demoniztion. Which study do you want me to quote that food portions out of whack at home, and sedentary lifestyles are largely responsible for childhood obesity.
Even if we accept your premise, fast food makes peole fat, we all have a “healthy menu” (at least what readical liberals consider healthy until next science change) items that consumers do not order. Why? People want what tastes good. They want an experience, nt a failed liberal science lecture. (Trans fat being the worst liberal “science” to be wiped out, abruptly in last 3-4 years because that liberal “science” ended up killing people.)
Wasn’t condemning fast food I actually enjoy it in moderation and often take my children to DQ and McD. I did anticipate your response and will point out once again that you jump to conclusion and have an ability to prejudge (form opinions) without having all the facts. I was trying to point out lifestyle choices can have consequences. Should we judge or make a assumptions about the obese? There are many articles about Siler not one clearly defines where/how he obtained the weapon, if he had it on him or if it was a gun. My premise was not “fast food makes people fat”. Re-read it if you must. Touchy subject?
Not touchy.
Just passionate about the implication that fast food restaurants do not have healthy choices available.
I thought because of your experience in the industry this might be a good analogy. Wasn’t trying to imply anything about fast food merely raising the question where do our civil and religious obligations begin and end. If it’s our duty as Christians and as responsible citizens to expose evil does that apply to the above mentioned scenario.
Would you make her aware of the consequences of her actions?
Would you serve them food?
Would you accuse her of being unrepentant?
Would you ask her if she was truly sorry?
Would you tell her to have a change of heart?
Would you ask her to amend her way?
Would you blame her family?
Would you protect an innocent child from the abuse of a neglectful parent?
If she ordered an unhealthily amount of food would you say anything?
“Actions point to where ones heart is”
Jade,
In the era of refrigeration and food safety, the restaurant industry is better suited than many home kitchens when it comes to preventing food bourne illness.
So your questions would not even enter my mind, because its safer, in terms of food bourne illness, to eat at a commercial grade restaurant many times.
So to not let kid eat at a commercial grade restaurant opens up a whole set of other evaluations of alternatives in terms of health and risk.
Naturally, not feeding the child at all is even worse.
So its not a good analogy at all, because the alternatives can be, depending on situation, be much worse for the child than the perceived less healthy choices the parents may allow their children at a restaurant.
It was a few decades ago liberals ran around screaming the population bomb was going to cause us all to starve, now obesity is the big “liberal” issue du jour. So when you approach the restaurant industry subject from a libeal perspective, you will probably be in a difficult position to discuss it resonably right out of the gate.
So if you are saying that parents feeding their children, fast and safely, while spending time with their children, and having a family experience with their children at a restaurant is evil, or bad…you would certainly need a perspective shift on what is bad, or evil, in our society given your comments above about Siler.
I don’t doubt for a minute that some liberals will label all restaurants evil, bad, or unhealthy…but I realize that liberals are intolerant and have long been assaulting family time at restaurants. (Without regard for consequences of worse food safety alternatives, sometimes at home, for poor and middle class). I do my best to oppose liberals doing that.
People should be free to choose since going to restaurant does not violate rights of others.
My analogy has nothing to do with restaurants, the food industry or the safe thereof.
That’s hilarious.
Fantastic deflection. Are you “caught on this point”? I indulged your nonsense, why don’t you indulge mine.
If an obese woman with her obese child came into your restaurant and ordered an obscene amount of food do you say anything?
Do you get involve?
Obviously I am asking you to answer a hypothetical question but if you’ll indulge me by answering the questions I will show you where I’m heading.
Actually, I don’t need your response. It would only be another deflection, manipulation or sermon.
My point is you obviously pick and choose the issues that you will defend.
Gluttony is a sin and it is a further diversion from the bible when this behavior is perpetrated against a child (or innocent) by an adult. There are many many biblical references associated with these immoral acts.
It could also be considered a form of child abuse/neglect. If a parent knowingly contributes to or enables harm to a child it could be considered child abuse.
Statistically, the costs to society associated with obesity have now surpassed smoking. By 2018 the annual cost to taxpayers will exceed 400 billion dollars.
I will use your words to question why you don’t stand up against this evil.
“Strong Christian spirituality demands one declares certain actions as evil or wrong”
“We have to distinguish between good and evil acts as instructed in Romans 12:9”
“Christian compassion is to be focused on the innocent”
“Actions serve as evidence whether the Holy Spirit dwells within”
“Christians should reflect on their faith first when it comes to all trials and problems in this world”
“As Christians we can only judge actions”
And finally,
Christian faith is not something that can be discarded because it’s difficult or not the trendy thing to do”
The hypothetical woman who continues to enable a child’s gluttony is clearly unrepentant according to the standards you have established in this conversation.
Is this really a hypothetical situation?
I am sure you have encountered many obese mothers with their obese children eating in a gluttonous manner within your restaurant.
As Christian and a responsible citizen have you ever confronted this obvious sin and possible violation of the law?
Or do you over look it for the almighty dollar (also a sin)!
Jade said,
“If an obese woman with her obese child came into your restaurant and ordered an obscene amount of food do you say anything?
Do you get involve?”
Answer: Depends. If they are a member of my church, I might schedule an appropriate place and time to speak with them about my concern in private. There is a duty to gently adminish Christians living contrary to the gospel. (Matthew 18. First you speak with them one on one. If they fail to listen, bring a fellow beliver to gently speak with them. If that fails, then bring pastor in to visit and correct.) However, there are so many more challenges caused by liberalism in today’s society, in the church, there is many more spiritual needs to be addressed also. Such as those who may be spiritually astray, living together without being married, those facing health challenges and personal challenges. Concern for this issue may fall down the list. I do make visits to church members that may encompass many spiritual issues.
For those outside the church, who are unbelievers, it is not appropriate to address this particular issue in a public restaurant. I’d take the appraoch to evangelize first and if they become a disciple of christ, then it may be appropriate to appraoch this issue.
This analogy is different because the harm to others is not overt, immediate, and minimal depending on available food alternative unlike the criminal acts in this situation.
Jade,
I’m against smoking as a habit. Never smoked myself, but defend right of property owners to make that lifestyle choice in their home or private workplace. I encourage everyone to not smoke, especially teenagers in my emloy.
I’m against alcohol. Outside a small handful of social events in my life, I never drink alcohol. Alcohol is fine in moderation. I still preach against alcohol consumption in general and the abuse from alcoholism.
Fast food is not evil. It is fine in moderation. Like alcohol, it is fine in moderation. If someone is abusing it, its fine to speak out, at the appropriate time and place, IN PRIVATE TO START, AS CALLED FOR IN MATTHEW 18:
MATTHEW 18: 15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
In a restaurant, in front of others, is not the time or place for what you propose. Would you like to come to a bible study on appropriate admonishment in situations like this?
Again, it is not at all like situation we are discussing, because the harm (sin), if any, is not immediate, overt, to anyone else and minimal to person in question, if the customer has worse, or no food choices available to them.
I welcome you to a bible study on the topic. Just let me know when you would like to come.
Jade,
Out of this learn one thing, don’t waste your time trying to win an argument with a narcissist because you never will. Not only are they always right, but you are always wrong.
I have mentioned that I would not take any of your advise seriously after this display . So no I would like to come to bible study.i do appreciate the offer, however, I seek advisement of issues of faith from people who aren’t hypocritical.
Have you ever, IN PRIVATE, talked to one of your obese customers who have shown gluttonous eating habits while in your restaurant about the sins they are committing and the possible violations of the law?
This is not a comparison of issues. You strongly asserted a position on dealing with sin. Know you have reset your guidelines and side stepped your original position to suit your needs. Typical of someone who doesn’t practice what they preach. I question your convictions and believe your lack the moral fiber to have opinions or pass judgements based on assumptions. Time and time again I have stood fast and proven my position.
Once again I will state my position and I WILL move on.
“As a spiritual person I will never thank anyone for taking the life of another even if it’s a “justified” police officer. I also don’t let my politics influence my spirituality or my spirituality influence my politics. The two have never mixed and often led to zealots controlling the freedoms entitled to all. Christ may be our savior but others are legally allowed to chose for themselves free from the indoctrination of others. The intolerance my friend, in most of your posts, seems to be placed squarely on your shoulders.”
Jade,
I have done that in private.
Dealing with sin is much more important if others are being harmed, especially those sins where the soul is in eternal peril, by rejecting Christ or wandering away from Christ in action. Hard to say that 1 meal at a fast food restaurant fits that parameter. The food scenaerio you brought forth, as I have already explained, MAY NOT be a sin. What if they have not eaten for 3 days and they are using the free coupons provided by my church to have a much needed, emergency meal? I call that “compassion”, not a sin. I have provided those meals in the past, without charge, regardless of who they are.
You don’t need to thank the officer for his job well done but consider not standing in the way of those of us that want to thank the officer for all his good work.
Seriously, Jade, debating Kevin is like playing tennis against a brick wall, except the wall thinks it’s freaking Pete Sampras when you get tired and go home.
A big wide gluttonous judgmental wall with an insatiable appetite for money, power and self righteousness. I believe Ronald Reagan said “tear down that wall”.
Just my opinion about walls.
Jade,
For someone that does not like to judge, isn’t that a little judgmental?
So you do judge actions after all?
Was that an opinion or was I being judge mental ? Either way, I apologize for my insensitive words about walls.
I’m a big boy. No apology needed.
Just trying to point out that you are not immune from making judgments about actions of others.
If we did not do that, we could not sort actions of others , and ourselves, into right, and wrong, categories. If we cannot do that, we cannot function as “spiritual” beings.
This liberal idea that being “judgmental” of actions as being bad is the issue I’m attacking. Liberals are inherently the most judgmental people on the planet screning every microcosmic action of anyone for “insensitivity”. Liberals make me look like a rookie when it comes to judging the actions of others. Liberals are the masters of judgmentalism.
So lets all embrae the idea we make judgments about actions of others. No reason to deny it.
I never came at this from a liberal prospective. You accused me of that. My objective by using the wall analogy was to point out the fine line between judgment and opinion. A point you were arguing. You must have missed the sarcasm.
A liberal perspective is strongly denoted of having a strong perspective of failing to defend good from evil. Did I miss something? You seem to strongly advocate being pacifist in these situations…trying to find a peaceful solution even when it seems like that is not possible.
I have never claimed to be a pacifist another accusation on your part. I even provided you with an example of me standing up against evil and could give many more. I also never advocated for a peaceful solution, yet another false accusation on your part. My position has been clear you just don’t want to acknowledge it because it doesn’t comply to your standards.