Author Topic: The Roman Catechism on self-defense. (Read 4582 times)

Jehanne · « **on:** July 23, 2013, 07:36:40 PM »

Quote

Killing In Self-Defense

If a man kill another in self-defense, having used every means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this Commandment

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm05.htm

P.S. And, yes, I am referring to that guy in Florida.

Sigismund · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2013, 07:46:03 PM »

It would have been really consistent with Zimmerman's safety to follow the dispatcher's orders, stay in his car, and not be some creepy guy with a gun following a kid becasue he was black. Everyone would have been very safe if he had been able to exercise even this minimal degree of good sense.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2013, 09:11:33 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

It would have been really consistent with Zimmerman's safety to follow the dispatcher's orders, stay in his car, and not be some creepy guy with a gun following a kid becasue he was black. Everyone would have been very safe if he had been able to exercise even this minimal degree of good sense.

Are you still playing that game?

The only racist is Trayvon referring to a man as a "creepy -ss cracker."

By the way, it's a neighborhood watches job to keep his eyes on people acting suspiciously.

As for safe, we will never know how many future victims Mr. Zimmerman saved from violence and burglary at the hands of this punk kid.

Furthermore, all Trayvon had to do was simply say, "Yo, I just walking to my Dad's house." Instead, he chose to violently attack and, well, Florida and many other states have right to carry laws.

Let's also consider the very likelihood that Trayvon hid behind a bush or the side of the building and, as Mr. Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle, Trayvon decided to sneak up and sucker punch him.

The jury saw all of the evidence and they voted not-guilty. You never even watch TV and apparently take your talking points from race hustlers so, in short, your opinion is based on malevolence and "lack of knowledge."

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2013, 09:27:32 PM »

I heard on a talk show on the Zimmerman verdict. If his attorney
thought if Zimmerman was any way racist, he would have not
represent him in court. If it was proven if Zimmerman went on
a racialist website even once, this would be qualified of being
labeled racist.
However, Trayvon Martin went on black racialist websites, that
was not even considered.
Using inflammatory terms as "creepy a-- cracker" is just a black
man talking.
Travon was a Man, because if he have committed a capital crime
such as the murder of George Zimmerman, he would have been
tried as an adult. He was 17 years of age.
We have come a long ways since the 1960's when it was a
campaign for equal rights to reverse racism 40 years latter.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2013, 09:56:08 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

It would have been really consistent with Zimmerman's safety to follow the dispatcher's orders, stay in his car, and not be some creepy guy with a gun following a kid becasue he was black. Everyone would have been very safe if he had been able to exercise even this minimal degree of good sense.

This is proof to me that Sigismund's liberalism and political correctness are far worse than he usually lets on.

A man concerned about his neighborhood is attacked by a bloodthirsty burglar (Trayvon was found with a bag of woman's Jєωelry) and drug abuser, one that has embraced "black culture" in all it's filthiness, and all Sigismund can say is that he shouldn't have gotten involved.

We should all live in our cars and cede the streets to those animals, otherwise if they attack us we're to blame for what results.

Sickening.

Sigismund doesn't care what those wild beasts do to us or our families, he's still on their side when men seek to protect themselves and their neighborhoods.

This sort of attitude only comes from exposure satanic leftism, satanic leftism that makes apology for someone without redeeming characteristics attacking a concerned citizen. That sort of satanic leftism is very common in the Novus Ordo.

I guess he should have stayed in his car here too?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-rescue-family-trapped-suv/story?id=19735432

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:01:46 PM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

I heard on a talk show on the Zimmerman verdict. If his attorney
thought if Zimmerman was any way racist, he would have not
represent him in court. If it was proven if Zimmerman went on
a racialist website even once, this would be qualified of being
labeled racist.

This means that leftists that dominate public discourse dehumanize so-called racists and believe they don't deserve rights. It also shows that they don't believe whites have a right to defend themselves from racially motivated attacks by degenerates.

Tiffany · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:13:59 PM »

There was a time when being a racist was not the unpardonable sin. The whole "hate crime" nonsense has seeped into our thinking. It should not have mattered if if Zimmerman was a racist or not for his defense or if his lawyer was willing to defend him. What mattered is if he did it out of self-defense or if it was murder.

Tiffany · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:17:12 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Furthermore, all Trayvon had to do was simply say, "Yo, I just walking to my Dad's house."

I don't know the details of the case, but I would not argue that. We don't need to explain what we are doing on a public street, to a neighborhood watch man or a police officer. A question should not be met with a violent attack, but I would not go so far to say he needed to respond to someone asking him what he was doing.

Jehanne · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:18:02 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

It would have been really consistent with Zimmerman's safety to follow the dispatcher's orders, stay in his car, and not be some creepy guy with a gun following a kid becasue he was black. Everyone would have been very safe if he had been able to exercise even this minimal degree of good sense.

From the Roman Catechism:

Quote

The Honour Due To Civil Rulers

The same is to be said of civil rulers, governors, magistrates and others to whose authority we are subject. The Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans, explains at length the honour, respect and obedience that should be shown them, and he also bids us to pray for them. St. Peter says: Be ye subject, therefore, to every human creature for God's sake; whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him.

For whatever honour we show them is given to God, since exalted human dignity deserves respect because it is an image of the divine power, and in it we revere the providence of God who has entrusted to men the care of public affairs and who uses them as the instruments of His power.

If we sometimes have wicked and unworthy officials it is not their faults that we revere, but the authority from God which they possess. Indeed, while it may seem strange, we are not excused from highly honouring them even when they show themselves hostile and implacable towards us. Thus David rendered great services to Saul even when the latter was his bitter foe, and to this he alludes when he says: With them that hated peace I was peaceable.

However, should their commands be wicked or unjust, they should not be obeyed, since in such a case they rule not according to their rightful authority, but according to injustice and perversity.

In dialing 911, George Zimmerman was acknowledging the authority of the civil authorities, that is, the police, who he chose to disobey, and the instructions which we given to him by the 911 dispatcher were not unjust.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:20:24 PM »

Jehanne, a 911 operator is not a civil authority. That's ridiculous.

Everyone has the right to walk the streets and to makes observations of suspicious characters.

If a person is then attacked, such a person does not lose their right to self-defense.

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:37:00 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Sigismund
It would have been really consistent with Zimmerman's safety to follow the dispatcher's orders, stay in his car, and not be some creepy guy with a gun following a kid becasue he was black. Everyone would have been very safe if he had been able to exercise even this minimal degree of good sense.

This is proof to me that Sigismund's liberalism and political correctness are far worse than he usually lets on.

A man concerned about his neighborhood is attacked by a bloodthirsty burglar (Trayvon was found with a bag of woman's Jєωelry) and drug abuser, one that has embraced "black culture" in all it's filthiness, and all Sigismund can say is that he shouldn't have gotten involved.

We should all live in our cars and cede the streets to those animals, otherwise if they attack us we're to blame for what results.

Sickening.

Sigismund doesn't care what those wild beasts do to us or our families, he's still on their side when men seek to protect themselves and their neighborhoods.

This sort of attitude only comes from exposure satanic leftism, satanic leftism that makes apology for someone without redeeming characteristics attacking a concerned citizen. That sort of satanic leftism is very common in the Novus Ordo.

I guess he should have stayed in his car here too?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-rescue-family-trapped-suv/story?id=19735432

From the Roman Catechism:

Quote

The above are the cases in which life may be taken without violating this Commandment; and with these exceptions all other killing is forbidden, whether we consider the person who kills, the person killed, or the means used to kill.

As to the person who kills, the Commandment recognises no exception whatever, be he rich or powerful, master or parent. All, without exception or distinction, are forbidden to kill.

With regard to the person killed, the law extends to all. There is no individual, however humble or lowly his condition, whose life is not shielded by this law.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:38:37 PM »

Quote from: Tiffany

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Furthermore, all Trayvon had to do was simply say, "Yo, I just walking to my Dad's house."

I don't know the details of the case, but I would not argue that. We don't need to explain what we are doing on a public street, to a neighborhood watch man or a police officer. A question should not be met with a violent attack, but I would not go so far to say he needed to respond to someone asking him what he was doing.

This is very correct. Trayvon could have just ignored him and kept walking. My point above is that scuм like Trayvon view being polite as a form of weakness. We'll never know how many people he had assaulted in the past. Lucky for Mr. Zimmerman. Concealed carry is just about a necessity.

Trayvon was slamming a man's head into the sidewalk repeatedly and he had no cause or reason for doing so. Merely being followed doesn't suffice.

Mr. Zimmerman's rights were violated by the physical attack and then they were violated by the state's politically motivated witch hunt.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2013, 10:42:25 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

With regard to the person killed, the law extends to all. There is no individual, however humble or lowly his condition, whose life is not shielded by this law.

[/quote]

I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Trayvon initiated what appeared to be a homicidal attack that George Zimmerman was on the receiving end of. He did it because of what he was, an aspiring criminal.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2013, 11:04:47 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Jehanne, a 911 operator is not a civil authority. That's ridiculous.

Everyone has the right to walk the streets and to makes observations of suspicious characters.

If a person is then attacked, such a person does not lose their right to self-defense.

The 911 dispatcher never even gave an order, either. He said, "Are you following him now ?" George Zimmerman responded in the affirmative and the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."

The OP is disingenuous, since the Church obviously supports the protection of public order through such means as neighbourhood watches, the police/city guardsmen, and the army. Yet, obviously one is not, strictly speaking, doing everything in his power to avoid all situations by which he could avoid having to kill another if one volunteers for such a position. But piety and justice require a man to concern himself with the common good of the political community, namely by fostering peace, which is the aim of such institutions. The OP poster is disingenuous if it pretends that taking realistic precautions against credible threats (carrying a gun, or in former times, a sword) is somehow against the mind of the Church, or if the OP poster pretends that pursuing evil doers and profiling potential criminals through probabilistic reasoning is likewise opposed to the Catholic spirit. In short, the OP is pietistic silliness. The world is full of violent men and lawbreakers of all kinds. The Church has never been pacifistic in regards to them, and has instead supported the cause of the natural order and those who respect and defend it.

As for Sigismund's post, it is truly disgusting. Very disappointing, Sigismund. Sometimes you can be rather fair-minded, but it seems that you are deciding to be curmudgeonly and mean rather than generous on this issue. You don't know George Zimmerman personally, so I have to wonder why you refuse him the benefit of the doubt, especially given the preponderance of evidence in his favour.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2013, 11:11:07 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote
With regard to the person killed, the law extends to all. There is no individual, however humble or lowly his condition, whose life is not shielded by this law.

How is this even remotely pertinent to what Telesphorus wrote ? He didn't say that anybody's life was of less worth or little worth such that erstwhile unjust killing of him was permissible.