A Baffling Inconsistency

I would be dismissed asap as a juror, because in the interview I would simply ask, “What part of this crime is the Court not understanding?”

Lats time I was summoned I ended up among the first 24 potential jurors. The case was a guy who was drunk, stole a car, and wrecked the car. I told the Judge that I don’t drink but I hold accountable those who drink. And before I messed up the THREE-DAY scheduled trial by stating that I believed the guy was guilty, I was quickly excused. Imagine, THREE days milking the parties!!!

Actually, from the experience of a family member (divorce) I learned that the places called COURTS should be renamed to BARNS. Nothing but a milking facility! And I haven’t seen yet a lawyer (or even Judge) who does not have a milking certificate . There may be a non-milker out there, somewhere, but I don’t know were. If you ever find one, let me know…


What is this larger view? Why is the situation the way it is? Are these people inherently bad? What is it?

1 Like

Great and appropriate question.

One “larger view” of the problem is that there are way too many people in this country that are radically against ANY kind of abortion, whatever the situation may be (pregnancy reason). They call themselves “pro-life.” Great! They sound conservative, religious, serious, and very “moralistic.”

BUT…, then, … when it comes to unwarranted wars where thousands of our best troops are killed, or when an irresponsible Government refuses to work a plan to combat Covid-19 properly/timely and thousands die in excess of what it could have been, oh, then they are no longer “pro-lfe.” A metamorphosis takes place, and they become miraculously “pro-death” with a straight face.

I haven’t heard any reaction from them either about Russia paying bounties to kill our troops in Afghanistan - apparently they are OK with that practice and with the complete silence from the US government. Interesting. :thinking:

By the way, I DO NOT support abortion unless for health reasons, or rape. And I am against fake wars (like Iraq) and against silence about the assassination of our troops being paid by the Russian “komrades.”


There might be value to some of you in looking for Kevin Burton’s YouTube videos about early Adventism and the abolitionist movement. Kevin teaches at Southern and is completing a dissertation on the subject. He states that early Adventism was inseparable from the abolitionist movement, citing archival evidence and publications to support the claim. And early Adventists supported, vigorously, equal rights for blacks and whites. He also has some interesting observations about how the church came to move away from these positions.


the larger view as I perceive it (because the two most vociferous “endemic white supremacy” proponents will only narrowly consider (what they) the results of it.

The larger view, then in comparison to the narrow constructs employed to constrict the conversation, would not summarily dismiss black cultural views on paternity, disrespect of law, enabled generational “victimhood” via misplaced/mismanaged programs (some 80 Bn dollars in last 50 yrs, curiously more than 2/3 which were diverted by the liberal minded administrators), refusal of blacks to integrate to some reasonably mutually acceptable compromises on social norms (which results in gentrification as much as flight when considering neighborhoods), comparative over-utilization of state-sponsored abortions-often serial. All of these things-and many more subjects which are not discussed (and the ones who dare suggest they ought are immediately shamed or dismissed as racist) i think should be considered.

The narrow view that melanin alone accounts for racism is a far too narrow-and risible suggestion, but its proponents make that bald faced statement as if it were truth-and any criticism is written off as fragility, proof of racism, or somesuch conversation-terminating detour. Further, suggesting that those lacking melanin cannot help being racist, and that they are inherently committing the highest sin. This is simply a reversal of racism.

I would ask, why do some utilize their opportunity for equality and combine aptitude, ambition, aptitude to accomplish their pursuit of happiness-and others, despite decades of affirmative actions and such seem to squander it?

I’ve also said that equality of result is a front in the social justice war which is nebulous, unending, and ever increasing.

I’ve made no value judgments that anyone is inherently bad, and am suggesting that fully examining the multifactorial wider view be employed by both sides to determine how we can approach a place where finding real solutions becomes a reality. Seems this present view discourages, terminates the discussion.

There are many minds far more capable than I to articulate these concepts-but i do not see them engage much here-or on the street. Chalk it up to the shaming/cancel culture.
The “tolerant” are showing their true intolerance. Truly it appears that white christian conservatives actually have openly sanctioned discrimination practiced against them, constantly. And-recent history shows the left will eats its own if anyone expresses anything not extreme enough. How did we get this hyper-polarized? The bird cannot fly with but one wing.

A little research, for instance comparing 1776 to 1619, can broaden the view greatly.
There are many coherent voices-of both colors-who recognize the current return to tribalism (which provided the genesis of racism long before 1619) will yield no results a smidgeon better than what has already transpired. Those exhausted by their Sisyphean tasks ought really re-assess. That might cause some to give up in their criticism of the 1619 lie and simply accede-perhaps that is the goal?

Like is frequently tagged-
“y’all tired yet?”

I pray that brave and open minds step beyond the superficial issues-mere skin deep-and dig deeper.

1 Like

After going through the Sabbath School lesson for August 29, “Developing a Winning Attitude,” I suggest we all read Matthew 15:21-28, and EGWhite’s commentary in Desire of Ages chapter 43, pp. 299-403 “Barriers Broken down.” It’s the story of the Canaanite woman pleading with Jesus to heal her demon-possessed daughter, who Jesus appears to treat like a dog. In today’s terms is this not a call to affirm “Black lives matter”?

Welcome, Edwin (my middle name!). Which black lives are you speaking of?

Are you saying that lawyers appeal only to emotions? That’s the worst indictment of your profession yet. It seems that trials have degenerated from a search for truth and justice to a debating contest with the judge as referee and the people whose lives hang in the balance ignored, unless they can pay a lot of money. As an insider, do you see this as the way things should be, an unavoidable evil, or something that can and should be fixed?

1 Like

Good trial lawyers present the case knowing very well what the members of the jury truly are.

And so they willingly orgiastically benefit themselves of the fat of the land and the misfortunes of others whilst pretending to protect rights but in fact are pandering to the hand that overpays them…they put on their sharksin suits, polished crocs and slithering tongues.

Thanks for the honest disclosure-and obviating that ethics, morality, lawfulness are inconsequential to and a nuisance in the performance of your craft.

To think, then-that most politicians are first lawyers suggests we have incurable malignant metastatic cancer of the soul of the very nation of laws we pretend to be. Baffling, frightening, tragic, and absolute nadir of immoral and duplicitous self-serving deceit.

Fix your own house before you posture pompously that you have right to meddle in anothers is a suggestion by an old book which I pray you take to heart.

Anyone else believe that a law degree ought preclude anyone from preaching-or legislating?


I’m still trying to figure out why this qualifies him, in your mind, for death, because they way you say it intimates loud and clear that it’s exactly what you think, Allen. “He was a bit shady so no big deal that they killed him.”

Strong work, Allen. I’d suggest that if you don’t really think the way I described that you contemplate long and hard about your phraseology, at the very least, and perhaps even better, think about what it is inside you that would cause you to thoughtlessly phrase it in the manner you did.


Good afternoon,

Thanks for your response. Because it is longer and less on topic, I won’t be able to respond to everything, but I will address the relevant points -

“In answer to your question, “was there only one taser on site amongst the police officers who were there?” yes, more than one police officer had a Taser. In fact, two of the three officers employed their Tasers without effect. This can occur when a subject is under the influence of a drug such as crystal meth or PCP, though we don’t know this was in his system. We do know that the two Tasers didn’t incapacitate him.” - Why smear the victim by even bringing up the possibility of drug use? Also, according reports there were 4 officers on the scene. Which means there were two more opportunities to use non-lethal force that were not exhausted. I would say every opportunity to use non-lethal force should be exhausted before we draw guns, regardless of the circumstances. (This is part of a larger principle which I think is where we differ and I’ll get to later on, and why I think we differ.)

“Had he actually grabbed his weapon? It would now appear so, since one of the officers can be heard screaming, “Drop the knife!” The Wisconsin justice dept has confirmed that there was a knife, so your statement “This fact is in dispute” is in fact now falsified.” - So your recitation of the events is not accurate here, and there is some confusion. It seems the yelling of drop the knife did not happen when he went to the car, but in the scuffle before. (Also it’s disputed whether that was actually said and the audio is not exactly clear.) There is a dispute between the WI Justice Dept and Blake’s lawyer on whether there was a knife in the car. Forgive me if I don’t trust the WI Justice Dept. However, my argument does not rest on whether there was a knife in the car or not. Even if there was I argue that the lethal use of force was unjustified.

“I have watched the videos over and over in slow motion. It is apparent to me that Blake wasn’t trying to enter and sit in the car. Rather, he was reaching down toward the floorboard.” - So have I, and it actually led me to a conclusion that I hadn’t thought of on my cursory viewings. When Blake opens the car door, the police officer grabs his shirt. It is the grabbing of his shirt that cause Blake to bend down, imo. Or at least it could have - we’ll never know because not even two seconds pass between when the cop grabs Blake’s shirt and starts shooting. This leads me to 2 conclusions - 1. We don’t know if Blake was reaching for his knife and 2. the fact that the cop is already restraining Blake by holding his shirt means that there were other options for him other than to discharge his weapon.

“Once a suspect who is resisting arrest with violence arms himself with a deadly weapon, everything changes, and lethal force is authorized.” - As a legal matter I don’t disagree with this. I have two points in response though. One, I don’t think that should be the standard. If I grab a knife and I’m thirty feet away and not advancing that shouldn’t be a justified shooting for example. Second, we don’t know that Blake armed himself. At best he had knife when they first approached him and he scuffled with them ad either dropped it or was walking away from them with it. That means there were several ways out of the situation without shooting him, including letting him get in his car and drive away. (Because if he had the knife in his hand when he was walking away, what was he going to the car to get? Another knife?)

“You ask, “why can’t the police wait and see what happens before they decide to try to kill somebody?!” First, I would point out that the police weren’t “deciding” to kill somebody.” - Regardless of the circumstances, if you fire your weapon, you have made the decision to use lethal force. The police officer was never in a situation where he just had to fire.

The action taken was by necessity one which happened in a split second. “Wait and see?” This could only come from someone who has had no training in dealing with a violent assailant." - And this is second place where the overarching issues raises its head. I think we train police officers wrong. I’ll get back to this in a little bit.

“You would be surprised how quickly an armed and desperate individual can spin around and wound or kill.” - I actually wouldn’t be. But Blake wasn’t armed and again this is the third place where the overarching issue comes up. I’ll deal with it next.

“There must have been a good reason why all three had their weapons out. But now, what about just assuming a wait and see stance? The wait and see event had occurred. Blake had a weapon in hand… The police are trained to fire at least two shots, and more are acceptable until the attacker is incapacitated. Remember, the police have the absolute right to self defense. They have a duty to go home at the end of the day.” - First, we don’t know Blake had a weapon in hand and it is likely that he actually did not. Second, this is the main problem I have with police training. I think if you create a culture where police believe it is their duty to go home at the end of the day, you create a culture where citizens who have done nothing worthy of death have lethal force used against them. What if we taught cops that they should do everything they can to make sure everyone goes home and that if it is a choice between a cop and a citizen, then they should put the citizen first? That’s the culture of firemen. It’s the culture of healthcare workers. Why not police? The problem with giving police the duty to go home is that we then leave it up to them to decide whether they are in that situation or not. And we already know that they will feel that way more around people of color than around White people. Hence more unarmed Black people get shot while White guys can fight cops and grab their guns and tasers and yet somehow never get shot.

“It is very easy to second guess the event, but the fact that the perp was black is irrelevant and should not color our interpretation. My reaction would be the same no matter the race of the assailant. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that you are motivated to make something out of this event that is not justified.” - I guess you could be right about this. But as I mention in the piece. This seems to happen to Black people a lot. So much that you have to start getting suspicious that something else is going on here. And when people’s lives are on the line, I don’t think you get to tell them their suspicions are unwarranted. By the way, like you, race wouldn’t color my interpretation here either. If Jacob Blake were White I would say his shooting was unjustified. The thing is that if Jacob Blake was White, I also don’t think he would’ve been shot.

“Now, in answer to the final challenge, you stated, “I’ll condemn the destruction of property when you condemn the unwarranted destruction of Black lives by police officers and agents of the state.” I will condemn the unwarranted destruction of black lives by police officers. I will go even further and condemn the unwarranted destruction of anyone. The operative word is “UNWARRANTED”. We will see how the investigation comes out in this case, but it would be unwarranted to jump to the conclusion, as you did, that the event was an act of racial injustice. Now it’s your turn. Please condemn the looting and property destruction taking place by the opportunists hiding behind the “moral” shield of outrage and protest.” - I also “condemn the looting and property destruction taking place by opportunists hiding behind the “moral” shield of outrage and protest.” However, I find those “opportunists” are often White people who are not from the areas where they are protesting, and people like Kyle Rittenhouse who use the moral outrage of looting as an excuse to go shoot people. What I won’t condemn are Black people and organizations who are expressing their rage and pain regarding over-policing and police brutality that has been going on since police were invented.

“There are of course events where racial motivation and unwarranted police violence occur. Rodney King’s beating was a clear example. The Selma bridge was another. But when one seizes upon far more questionable events as a pretext to express outrage, you weaken the argument.” - The fact that the only examples you are willing to cite are from 60 and 30 years ago says something about you. What about Jonathan Crawford? Walter Scott? Tamir Rice? Oscar Grant? Akai Gurley? Jonathan Ferrell? LaQuan MacDonald? Do you even know who any of these people are? I’ll be candid - your opinion doesn’t hold much weight to me until you do.

God Bless,

Dr. Jason Hines


Good afternoon,

Thanks for reading. What I have found in the 17 years I have been doing this (and by this I mean speaking out about racism) is that there is no tact you can take that will convince someone who doesn’t want to hear. Hence why I said I’m over trying to make people care. If you look at my history in just this space you’ll see that I have used several different modes of expression, and if you count everyone who writes about this issue on Spectrum you’ll see even more modes of engagement. And in the comment section you will literally see the same people arguing against it regardless of the mode. And then there are well-meaning people like you, who genuinely believe that if I would just say it differently those other people will hear. I am engaging on this one, because I decided this is one where I felt like going to the mat. But in truth, I normally ignore the regular commenters because they’ve already proven they’re beyond reaching, at least by anyone other than the Holy Spirit.

God Bless,

Dr. Jason Hines


Good afternoon,

I want to say this as clearly as I can - To raise the issue of black on black crime in Chicago, or aborted black babies, or single parenthood, is the dumbest thing someone can say in response to the issue of the state-sanctioned use of lethal force on unarmed people of color. I have said this “in print” before but I’ll say it again. If you raise this issue you show your ignorance of what Black people are doing in their communities. Go get educated before you argue that Black people don’t care about these things when there are a myriad of organizations dedicated to these issues in our communities. Hey what do you know? It looks like Black people can walk and chew gum at the same time… wow…

I don’t recall ever saying that I want people to have a “lasting wealth” on this planet. Please find the quote and put it in context before you malign me in this way. Thanks.

I actually want what you say you want (but do nothing about I’m sure) - I want equality of opportunity. I just happen to know that it doesn’t exist for Black people in several places - including the opportunity to walk away from an encounter with police without being shot for no justifiable reason.

As always, thanks for reading.

God Bless,

Dr. Jason Hines


Why the snark-and malignation?
How exactly do you know i do “nothing about” or that I am ignorant of the issues?
Nice, too, slipping in the “state sanctioned” intentional murder of black people.
I would hope that you, of all people, would be able to carry on a conversation
where these tactics are not employed.
My hope is apparently, as baseless as your assumption that black people are targeted for state sanctioned killing simply for being black.

Why is it that some successful, educated black folk believe that they exclusively know the only cause is lack of melanin-and willfully ignore the setup behind the annual dozen or so, seldom innocent or clean-handed shootings of black men in America?
Again, if your risk of dying at the hands of a bruh is a hundred fold or more times greater than your dying at the hands of a police man (white or not), why are you so railing against the (however visceral and horrific) relatively minuscule risk?

Is it because of the mere skin deep relative melanin content?If so, I suggest your position is inherently far more racist than anyone has dared accuse you of.

I’ll find the quote you don’t recall-but it was a few weeks ago in a now locked thread.
It stuck in my mind- I penned a response on paper, but since I dont have web access for 5 days a week, I failed to post it in response to you prior to thread closure.

I really like what Goodson has to say about the extreme divergence of thought as to why the relative cop on black violence is disproportionately maximized, while any crime by blacks is almost justified, perhaps enabled, and utterly disregarded by many.

Our current tack is going to only return us to a racially roiled troubled water-except the wind will be from the opposite reach. Not peace-perhaps vengeance?

I am neither inclined to suggest you are ignorant, or that you post dumbest things-anymore than I’ll allow you to so charge me without answering, if I can. Can we agree on this premise?

Good afternoon,

I will reply to this when you can restate my argument properly. In at least two places you make an unqualified assumption that I did not state. But I will say this - it is the dumbest response to this issue to raise the issues you raise repeatedly. I have already said why. I am not saying you are dumb. You may just not know that these arguments are red herrings and offensive. I would suggest not using them in the future if you want to be taken seriously.

God Bless,

Dr. Jason Hines


Last night, just an hour south of the events of Kenosha, during a traffic stop in Chicago by two police officers, a suspect refused to exit the vehicle and scuffled with the cops. He reached/moved into the back seat and shot both officers, one with life threatening injuries. They couldn’t see what he was reaching for before being shot.

The Chicago Sun Times this morning stated "The officers broke the windows after the suspect, who appeared to have moved from the front seat to the back seat, refused to get out of the car, Brown said, and a struggle ensued.

During the struggle, the suspect shot both officers. A third officer arrived and returned fire, hitting the suspect, the superintendent said.

Brown said the injured officers were “wearing body cams and it’s being reviewed.”

This is an excellent example of what can happen with such an incident. It happens fast and is unpredictable. Being a police officer confronting violent offenders is extremely dangerous and can be life threatening. This situation is not unlike the Blake incident at all. As Blake reached down to the floorboard, the police officer’s view was blocked by Blake’s body. Whatever he was reaching for could have presented a clear and present danger. The fact that the suspect was already violent showed mal-intent.

We don’t yet know the race of the perp or of the officers in Chicago, and it is irrelevant. But if the officers had shot first and they had been white while the suspect was black, we would have more riots. The opportunists would be outraged once again, happy to have one more pretext to justify their rage. Do you suppose that this incident will get even 1% of the coverage that the Blake event received? Why? Is there an agenda at work here?

1 Like

Good afternoon,

How long does the list have to be for you to call it long? I think it’s long at one. How about you? Recently in Spectrum I created a list that, including Jacob Blake, now stands at 29. Is that not long enough for you? That list only goes back about 5 or 6 years. What about the list that goes back 70 years to Jim Crow. Is that list long enough for you?

I stand up for these people because Jesus died for them - sins and all. It saddens me that more Christians don’t feel the same. And I don’t even know how to address the fact that you feel you would’ve shot Jacob Blake too, but I see other people already talked about that.

I have replied enough on this thread so I will address a question you asked me somewhere else here as well. If I were a defense attorney for the officer I would dismiss a juror for a statement like that. However, if I were a defense attorney for the officer I would also encourage him to take plea so the case doesn’t go to trial. If he refused I would recuse myself as counsel.

Go with God my friend.

Dr. Jason Hines


Cops do life-threatening work. I wouldn’t do it - hence why I’m not a cop. If someone is going to get injured I’d rather it be agents of the state than citizens who may be doing nothing to justify lethal force. Also, please stop stating as fact things that are in question - such as whether Jacob Blake was reaching for anything on the floorboard or whether he was bent over because the officer was pulling on his shirt when he shot him.

God bless,

Dr. Jason Hines


Your rebuttal here shows me it’s of little use to try and argue this with you. You already have your mind made up. It seems like battlelines are being drawn more distinctly and boldly each time this subject is hashed out here on spectrum.

I wondered myself why seven shots, until it was explained to be that when the line is passed which necessitates the police use lethal force, it is to be just that lethal. Jason, you say the police should have just stood by and let him leave. And wait for him to possibly have a gun and shoot a cop?? I’m sure glad you are not a chief of police.

It seems like nothing Bart said would give you pause to reconsider and change your mind on anything here… It’s made up and can’t be confused with any facts. You should apply for a job as a reporter for CNN.