Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	Well many contemporary Christians *support* injustice either directly
	(the pro-choice movement) or indirectly by stopping others from working
	to stop it (those who fight stopping Saddam and others who 50 years
	ago argued against stopping Hitler using the same arguements). There
	seems to be an idea in some circles that actively preventing injustice
	may involve force and that it is better to let injustice take place
	than to risk using force to prevent it. This is hard to take sometimes.

	For myself I actively protect injustice where ever and when ever I
	can. I support the protection of the weak and poor by supporting their
	right to resist injustice. I actively work to keep taxes down in my
	town while at the same time working to make sure that everyone gets
	as good an education as possible through work on school committees.

	And I pray. I pray that God will help and guide the hearts and minds
	of those in power.

				Alfred

re Note 396.1 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> 	Well many contemporary Christians *support* injustice either directly
> 	(the pro-choice movement) or indirectly by stopping others from working
> 	to stop it (those who fight stopping Saddam and others who 50 years
> 	ago argued against stopping Hitler using the same arguements). There
> 	seems to be an idea in some circles that actively preventing injustice
> 	may involve force and that it is better to let injustice take place
> 	than to risk using force to prevent it. This is hard to take sometimes.

        Alfred,

        It is clear to me that many who support the pro-choice
        movement, and many who are anti-war, do so not to oppose
        justice but to support it.  Many in those camps just see the
        situation with respect to the demands of justice differently
        than you.

        People who oppose war, for example, don't do it to keep the
        Saddams and Hitlers of this world from justice, but to
        protect nameless and faceless masses from being trampled,
        unjustly, as we who are at a safe distance follow a blind
        rage to administer justice to one person.

        People who oppose absolute government authority over a
        woman's pregnancy are not doing so to oppose justice but
        rather to prevent government limiting women to the unjust
        choices of mental or physical injury, social ostracism,
        deeper poverty, suicide, or back-alley abortions.

        You have every right to disagree with their vision of
        justice, and you have every right to claim that your side, in
        the balance, is the more just one.  But you do demean and
        belittle them to claim that they have no interest in justice
        while you stand firmly on the side of all justice.

        This is why issues like these are hard issues -- there are
        claims of justice on BOTH sides.

        Bob

Early on in the Bible, one learns that the cultural norm for justice is
utter annihilation.  The earliest that I recall recorded is the story of how
Dinah's father, Jacob, and her brothers wipe out the entire male population
of Hamor, the father of Shechem.  Shechem is Dinah's rapist (Genesis 34).
This act of vengeance is performed not without deceit, and is topped off
by a spree of looting.

Later on, the Mosaic Law makes an attempt to put a cap on retaliation for
injustices suffered ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth").  This
perspective on justice promoted equitable resolutions.  At the same time,
it promoted a system of judgment based on a scale of balance, in other
words, "getting even".

This progression culminated in the teachings and Spirit of Jesus, the Christ,
who taught us to seek no vengeance at all, but instead to love our enemies.
This remains to be a concept too radical for many people, including many
Christians.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: Justice
    
    My father use to say "Fair exchange has never been robbery".  Equate
    that with the cliche "Scales of Justice", and I conceive of the whole
    matter of "Justice" as one of balance and equality.
    
    Justice...not JUST US.  
    
    Playtoe

	Justice, in the "get even" sense of the word, is a dominant theme
of our modern cinema entertainment.

	Typically, the protagonist is raked over early on in the story,
but overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds to wreak glorious retaliation
(justice) on the antagonists in the end.  Some of these movies carry the
word "justice" in the title - "American Justice" - comes to mind.  The original
"Death Wish" movie was of this genre (I haven't seen any of the sequels).  The
"Rambo" movies were predictably like this as well.  It's not an uncommon theme
in Schwartzeneggar movies.  The more horrific the antagonists can be portrayed,
the greater the pleasure we feel in seeing them get their "just rewards."

	I suggest that these movies fulfill the fantasy and perpetuate the
myth that this version of justice is true justice.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: 5
    
    That's what I'm hearing!  I entered this note because I sought insights
    and/or affirmations of God's Justice.  I think Ezekiel 33 has much to
    do with the question of Justice.  
    
    You know, just lately it came to me the idea of how some elevate "men",
    calling them "saints" even...but fail to elevate ideas, a higher
    consciousness...letting a concept stand out in their mind.  Jesus asks
    us "Call no man good, only God is good"...yet some call me more than
    good when the call them "saints"....I feel that this is part of the
    same problem as above.
    
    Playtoe

I do not understand the Rodney King verdict.  It is most alarming to me.
I'm afraid it may be a symptom of a more pervasive disease.

Richard

    Re.7
           I am afraid you are right. I think the disease involved
           is called "racism".

                                                             
                                                               Mike

   RE: .7 and .8

   I don't know what those jurors watched but it couldn't have been that
   video tape or there were 12 blind jurors.  That verdict was beyond 
   belief.  It seems there was another crime, only at the courthouse!

   Allison

    I am also abhorred.  In this case I can understand the violence a lot 
    more than I can the verdict.  To me it defies all sensibilites.
    
    prayerfully,
    Karen

	The verdict was hard to understand but of course none of us saw or
	heard all the evidence. The violence that the verdict has meant I
	do not understand. That is much harder to understand. I firmly believe
	that it will be a serious blow to racial relations in this country.
	Far worse then the verdict is.

			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    I do not see the violence stemming primarily from a racial issue, 
    though I believe that is a factor.  According to the news clips
    I saw, they show people of various races/nationalities being 
    involved in the violence.   I see the core issue as a "have and 
    have not" and the local and national politics that have helped
    bring this about.  
    
    But it also goes beyond politics, imo.  There is a prevalent mind-set 
    in this country that places material wealth and as the crowning glory 
    of a good life, at the expense of those people and planetary resources 
    used and abused to provide it.  I would also agree with Mike Seabury
    that the "justice" system we have does only a marginal job at justice
    at best.  It's still skewed to one side of the population spectrum and 
    that's the "haves."    
    
    Karen

>    I do not see the violence stemming primarily from a racial issue, 
>    though I believe that is a factor. 

	Neither do I. But then I don't see the aquital stemming primarily
	from a racial issue either. A big part of the problem here is the 
	way the media has played this thing from the beginning BTW. I believe
	they played up the racial angle far more then was justified. I blame
	media sensationalism for most of the violence. 

	I do agree whole heartedly that the haves v. havenots is a big problem
	in the US. I see it as the single biggest barrier to solving the 
	problems of racial strife and crime in America. The media running a
	close second BTW. 

	I do not however believe that the justice system is heavily skewed
	towards the wealthy. Skewed yes. Heavily no. I say this because I
	believe that the system is skewed the most against the middle class.
	There is always money to fight for the rich. They have their own. 
	There is always money to fight for the poor. It's taken from the 
	middle class. It is the middle class that must use it's own resources
	(like the rich) but has to little of its own resources (like to poor)
	to defend itself against a so called justace system that is all too
	often interested in punishing "someone" then looking for truth or
	determining right and wrong.

	It's a concequence of wanting to "solve" the "easy" problem of crime
	rather then the more difficult problem of poverty. I believe that this
	all started getting worse when the churches started losing the resources
	and will to work the poverty issues. If the churches were strong and
	alive with people giving time and money the problem of poverty would
	not be as bad. Government almost by its very nature can only make the
	problem of poverty worse. Unless it is willing to go to forced socialism
	which I believe is detramental to society and has the potential for
	worse long term effects then the short term gains are worth.

			Alfred

This article was taken from the Reason Notes File.
Perhaps it will fill in a little of the Rest of the Story
the press seems to have overlooked.

This note was extracted without permission, so the original
author's name was excised. The Node::Username extracted this 
note from an Easynet source.

Best wishes,

================================================================================
Note 87.13                      Police Brutality                        13 of 14
BEING::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."         108 lines   1-MAY-1992 08:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This article gives a good argument for the "not guilty" verdict.
    				-- edp
I watched most of the trial on Court TV and learned alot about the case
that didn't come out in any of the news reports tonight.  It was not as
"open and shut" as it appears if you only look at the clip most of the
news programs show.  I think the media is responsible for some serious    
misunderstandings underlying the violence we're seeing.

The tape runs 81 seconds but the first part, where King attacks the police,
has rarely been shown.  Even tonight, one news program reported the tape
runs 60 seconds and gave the impression King was a motorist dragged out
of his car and beaten for no good reason.

In fact, King was stopped for driving at speeds in excess of 115 MPH and
"weaving."  I think most people know he led police on a chase and was 
later tested at over twice the legal limit for alcohol.

Initially, King and his two passengers assumed the "felony arrest position",
face down on the ground, arms out.  Police regard drivers who evade them
as "suspected felons" and take extra precautions.  Testimony showed there
were very few cases of evaders who did not have outstanding felony warrants.

Without warning, King springs to his feet and attacks officer Powell. This
happens in 6 frames on the tape and is called a "super human feat" by the
defense.  It causes the officers to believe King was under the influence
of PCP.  Powell responds by striking King with his baton, possibly in the
face, possibly on the shoulder.

This is important because the procesecution needs a baton blow to the head 
at this point to sustain its "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" charge.  All
other blows on the tape can be seen and all are to the buttocks, legs and
kidney areas - possibly assault but not deadly.  Apparently the jury 
accepted the defense that this blow was purely self defense.

Koon then fires a taser but it has no effect on King other than to make
his "cheeks vibrate" and cause him to "roar like a bear."  The second 
taser shot has no effect either and Powell strikes King again with his
baton.  King goes down but then rises up and reaches for his wasteband.

This brings on the first flurry of blows and King goes back down.  The 
tape shows the officers stop hitting King when he lies still and start
hitting him again whenever he rises to his hands and knees.  At one point
he rolls over on his back as is still but the officers keep hitting him,
claiming his hand is near his waistband again.  That is not apparent on
the video.

Eventually, King raises his hands over his head, the beatings stop and he
is handcuffed.  Powell struck a total of 45 blows although 10 to 15 of
them miss.  Winds strikes King 11 times.  Bressineo (sp) never hits King
but does kick him, claiming he was trying to push his (King's) shoulders
down.  It's hard to tell even when the tape is played in slow motion but
the jury obviously believed it.  Koon doesn't strike King at all but 
was the commanding officer.

Other interesting things not reported:
Most of the "police" seen "standing around" on the tape were, in fact,
School District Police not trained to deal with violent suspects.  LAPD
policy is that they would not engage such a suspect.

Some of the LAPD police on the scene  but not participating were assigned 
to guard the two passengers in Kings car.

Doctors at the hospital found King "combative" and required that be be 
strapped down.  When he was later transfered to the drug treatment center,
(they thought he was on PCP but tests later were negative), doctors would
not let ambulance attendents transport him because he was "violent." Police
took him in a sier.         

Race really didn't enter into the trial much.  In the first place, none of
the charges had a racial component.  Assault with a deadly weapon does not
consider motive (ie, racisim) so not much time was spent on that.

The two racial remarks were "...(our last call) was like something out of
'Gorillas in the Mist" and "I wonder who be the parties."  It's doubtful
the gorillas remark could stand up as a racial slur even as a hate crime
and the "parties" remark brought out quite an interesting point.

In order to accept that as a racial slur, one would have to believe blacks
had difficulty conjugating the verb "to be" which is a racist belief.  The
prosecuter (a black man) made that point and just left it to the jury saying
something like "if you believe the language 'who be the parties' identifies
a certain race then this remark is racist."

The single outstanding charge is "Use of Excessive Force Under Color of 
Authority" against Powell.  He will surely be re-tried.  All four officers
will be tried again on Federal charges and also face a civil suit by
King. (A man who obviously saw millions of dollars evaporate and looked
like it when he was interviewed.)  For what its worth, 3 of the 4 have
lost their homes and are financially devastated.  Koon has a book deal.

.
-- 

    That article brings up once again the issue of his speeding. What
    someone does before being assaulted is not a justification for being
    assaulted.  This is again a case of victim-blaming, not unlike the
    defense lawyer in a rape case who brings up the the provocative dress
    or other behavior of the rape victim.  I was glad to see that, in
    Indianapolis (where I used to live), the jury in the Mike Tyson case
    didn't buy that sort of victim-blaming argument, or (in the offensive
    words of the Rodney King juror) that the victim "was in control of the
    situation".

    We've seen this time and time again in cases of police brutality.  We
    saw it in Miami in 1979, in Chicago in 1968, and now LA in 1992. 
    Unscrupulous police officers usually can get away with assaulting
    people, often with the full support of a lot of people.  It is rare
    that a police brutality case is successfully prosecuted.

    It is interesting to note that we also have a videotape from the riot,
    of black men assaulting and nearly killing a white man.  Those men who
    assaulted the truck driver, if they are identified, should be tried to
    the fullest extent of the law.  If they are tried, then the videotape
    will be compelling evidence in the courtroom against them.  And if that
    happens, does anyone want to take bets on whether or not *they* would
    get a non guilty verdict?  Does anyone have some swamp land in Florida
    they would like to buy?

    -- Mike

re Note 396.14 by USCTR1::RTRUEBLOOD:

> Initially, King and his two passengers assumed the "felony arrest position",
> face down on the ground, arms out.  Police regard drivers who evade them
> as "suspected felons" and take extra precautions.  

        Can somebody tell me more about this "felony arrest
        position"?  If I were arrested and didn't perform this, would
        I be beaten up by an officer?  Should this be something that
        is taught to every school child, so that they can correctly
        perform it if and when they are arrested?

        If I failed to correctly hear and obey the commands of an
        officer (presumably in the heat of passion -- mine AND
        theirs), would I be fair play for a beating?

        Bob

    Alfred .13,
    
    Thanks for offering your views on this.  I agree that the justice
    system all too often seems more interested in punishing someone than
    in determining the truth.  I don't know enough about it to know if
    the middle class bears most of the consequences of this, but I 
    wouldn't doubt it.  Although the poor may be assigned state or federal 
    subsidized defense, if you're poor and non-white, I think the deck gets 
    increasingly stacked against you and the chances for a fair trial
    become more remote, for the reasons you cited already.
    
    I also agree with your implication that poverty breeds crime, both
    material, and particularly, spiritual poverty, imho.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Karen

   From what I know there are at least 2 positions an officer would like
   to see during a felony arrest.  The key point is no resistance, total
   submission.  The positions are face down legs spread, hands behind the
   head, or leaning into a wall or other stationary object arms and legs
   spread.  In either case If arrested or asked to halt one would do well
   to assume the most position that most clearly indicates your not
   hostile to the officer.  Resistance on the part of the suspect is
   authorization for the officer to use force as needed to maintain
   control.  Even if it is an error on the part of the officer every
   effort to cooperate must be made.  None of this will protect against
   someone intent on abuse, fortunately those are few at the level of
   violence, though harrassment is more common and sometime subtle.

   Allison

    I have not practiced civil disobedience, but I do know that those who
    do will not obey police orders; for example, one tactic involves lying
    limp, requiring that they then be physically carried off in order to be
    arrested.  Since they don't obey police orders, perhaps they should be
    beaten too.  

    (The movie "Gandhi" actually portrays that as having happened; protesters
    walked up to the authorities and were systematically and brutally
    beaten.  It was a very poignant scene; I don't know if that happened in
    real life India or not.)

    -- Mike

	Someone asked about the area where the Watts riots happened. I drove
	through there about 22 years ago. Coming from New York I was floored.
	Compared to areas in NYC it was down right great looking. Single 
	family houses with real yards. I thought I was in the country. My
	hosts pointed out that those houses were a lot worse then the ones
	in other nearby neighborhoods. So I guess contrast is a bigger factor
	then absolute values. I have no idea what the area is like now though.

			Alfred

Mike .19,

I have been involved in nonviolent civil disobediance.  And yes, the officials
can be quite rough.  However, I am white, well-scrubbed and in a wheelchair.
I have no doubt that these factors influenced the way I personally was treated.
And actually, I suspect I was a most unwelcome learning experience for my
captors.  I was assigned a guard separate from the others.  I was loaded into
a separate van than the others.  I was ridiculed and bad-mouthed, but that's
about all.

Before participating in the action, we were all reminded that the arresting
officials were not our enemies, but our brothers and sisters.  And we all
agreed in advance that we would present no threat to them or in any way
provoke them to respond in fear.

This is not to say that there existed no possibility that anyone would
have been beaten or injured.  Nonviolence, like love, doesn't always
produce the desired results.

Peace,
Richard

Perhaps we need to review our judicial system a little. 

 a. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an 
    event occurred.
 b. The defense has only to create a reasonable doubt, he does not
    have to prove innocence. (Napoleonic Law turns the tables here
    but Napoleonic Code is applicable only in Louisiana.)
 c. The judge rules on points of law, keeps decorum, keeps things
    moving, and imposes justice/mercy.
 d. It is up to the Jury to determine Truth. (In ancient times
    jurors could investigate all evidence independantly, ask questions,
    seek undiscovered evidence etc.)  

If the prosecutor fails to convince the jury, the defendant goes free.

Thats all there is to it.

    
     Re.22
    
       Just a nit, but the Napoleononic code hasn't been applicable
     in Louisiana since Napoleon ran the place.
    
                                                          Mike

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that juries determine Truth; practically
    speaking, all they determine is what will happen to the defendant,
    based on a host of factors that may or may not correspond to some sort
    of Truth.  We all know that court verdicts are not always correct;
    innocent people have been convicted, and guilty people have been set
    free.  That does not mean that our legal system is bad, or should be
    replaced with a different one, at least not necessarily; it simply
    means that it is composed of human beings, and as such is fallible.

    I think Rollyn made a key point about the prosecutor having to convince
    the jury; an incompetent attorney on either side can make a big
    difference in the outcome.  It has been alluded that the prosecutors in
    the Rodney King case did a poor job by relying exclusively on the video
    alone and not really trying to refute the case that the defense was
    making for itself.  Since police almost always get off scot free in
    brutality cases, this laxness may have been a crucial mistake on their
    part.  
    
    In any case, even though our legal system may be founded on excellent
    principles, that doesn't mean that every individual verdict that it
    renders serves justice.

    -- Mike

Note 396.17

>    I also agree with your implication that poverty breeds crime, both
>    material, and particularly, spiritual poverty, imho.

Agreed.  Spiritual poverty spans the economic spectrum.  And it has
come to me that it is really quite funny that so many think in terms of
lifting the poor out of the bondage of poverty, but never (except in
the radical teachings of Jesus) in terms of lifting the wealthy out of
the bondage of wealth.  Such thinking defies the American paradigm that
great wealth is the result of industriousness and deserving effort, and
is a sign of Divine favor.

As far as the legal system goes, the rich seldom go to jail.  Leona Helmsley,
Patty Hearst, and even Jim Bakker are notable exceptions.

I've heard that up to 25% of all homeless people hold down full-time jobs.
And something I heard repeatedly since the explosion of rage in Los Angeles
is that there are more American Black males in jail than there are in school,
and that the average life expectancy of the American Black male of lower than
males in Bangladesh.

If these things are true, something is terribly wrong.

Peace,
Richard

    Re.25

          Yes Richard there are some sickening stats indeed. 

         The leading cause of death among Black males between 18 - 35
         is homicide.

         I have also heard the other stats you mentioned quoted
         several times before.

         I have heard it said that we are at risk of "losing" an
        entire generation of young Black men to crime, violence and
        poverty.  

                                                               Mike

     RE: .25

> As far as the legal system goes, the rich seldom go to jail.  Leona Helmsley,
> Patty Hearst, and even Jim Bakker are notable exceptions.

     It's instructive to reflect on what the three individuals above share;
     their  crimes  were  well  publicized.   IMO,  the above could be more
     accurately reworded to, "As far as the legal system goes, the rich  do
     not  go  to jail unless their crimes are well publicized." But this is
     very cynical, and I would be very happy indeed to find out that  I  am
     wrong about this.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin