[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Court: No Immunity For SWAT Team That Hurled A Flash-Bang Grenade In The General Direction Of A Two-Year-Old Child
Source: TechDirt
URL Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2 ... ction-two-year-old-child.shtml
Published: Jul 29, 2019
Author: Tim Cushing
Post Date: 2019-07-31 06:01:55 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5435
Comments: 41

from the nice-to-see-some-stunned-officers-for-a-change dept

It usually takes very extreme behavior from law enforcement officers to punch holes in the qualified immunity shield. Fortunately/unfortunately, there's seems to be no shortage of extremely-badly-behaving law enforcement officers.

In this case, fielded by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Kansas City Police Department was investigating a homicide. Detectives managed to track the victim's cellphone to an apartment. They also managed to track down the suspect by using a combination of phone records and old fashioned police work. They arrested the suspect and applied for a search warrant for his residence.

The warrant request omitted the fact they had heard the targeted phone ringing in an apartment on Winchester Street, rather than the apprehended suspect's residence (the "Bristol residence"). The SWAT team also met prior to the search and were informed the homicide suspect was already in custody.

The SWAT team proceeded to the Bristol residence with a normal search warrant. Once the SWAT team arrived, it decided to do SWAT team things, even though it only had a normal warrant that didn't authorize the things it chose to do.

Here's how it began, according to the Eighth Circuit decision [PDF]:

At 7:00 p.m., the SWAT team, dressed in tactical gear with weapons drawn, approached the front door of the Bristol residence. The front entrance had both an inside wooden door and an outside metal screen door, each of which were “double-keyed,” meaning they required a key to open from both the inside and the outside. Because the warrant did not authorize a “no knock” entry, the SWAT team knocked on the door and announced: “Police, search warrant!” At the time, there were four people inside the residence: the plaintiff, Z.J., a two year old girl; Laverne Charles, age 84; Leona Smith, age 68; and Carla Brown, age 24. Carla grabbed the keys to the door and opened the inside door.

So far, so good. There was no suspect to apprehend so the SWAT team's presence seems a bit extraneous. But the resident was offering to unlock the door to let them in to search the place. But time waits for no one, not even the Fourth Amendment.

She then held up the keys to the door in her hand and jingled them for the SWAT team to see in order to indicate that she was going to open up the door. Before she had the opportunity to open it, the SWAT team knocked out the screen and threw in a flash-bang grenade over Carla’s head into the living room of the house. Carla testified that she would have opened the screen door had she been given the opportunity to do so.

The officers involved in the raid disputed this account. And by "dispute," I mean "basically agreed that's what happened, but with a bunch of exonerative explanations."

Sgt. Rusley claimed waited "five to ten seconds" before starting to pry off the screen door. He claimed the resident refused to open the door and walked away. Feeling the element of surprise had been compromised, he tried to regain it by sailing a flash-bang grenade into the residence. Another officer said roughly the same thing, only varying the narrative by claiming the team couldn't immediately discern what the waving of keys by the resident meant, but that the introduction of a flash-bang grenade would clear up any confusion.

This is what followed the flash-bang grenade's "appearance" on the scene:

The flash-bang grenade caught the living room drapes on fire. The SWAT team had to remove the drapes from the house and place them in the front yard before continuing through the rest of the house. The SWAT team found two-year old Z.J. in the living room. One officer acknowledged Z.J. was “very shaken from the whole situation.” The team placed Carla and Leona in zip tie restraints, but was unable to place restraints on Laverne because of her advanced age and physical condition.

Because the person at the door didn't wave the officers in quickly enough, the officers threw a flash-bang grenade into a room containing a two-year-old. Fortunately, it was only the drapes that caught fire.

Why the flash-bang? Well, habit, apparently. The SWAT team always has them, and pretty much always finds a reason to use them.

As the district court noted, the Board did not have any policy about the use of flash-bang grenades — such as when their use is appropriate and how to use them safely. One officer estimated that in executing search warrants, flash-bang grenades were used 80-90% of the time; another officer estimated that in his experience they were used about 50% of the time; and a third officer estimated they were used about 75% of the time.

The SWAT team members asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, claiming qualified immunity shielded their attempt to set someone's living room on fire during normal warrant service. The court disagrees, finding that flash-bang grenades are rarely justified, especially in situations like these. As the court points out, a flash-bang isn't some sort of supercharged noisemaker: it's a weapon that causes very real damage.

The record evidence shows the flash-bang grenade used here is four times louder than a 12-gauge shotgun blast and emits a light 107 times brighter than the brightest high-beam vehicle headlight. It has a powerful enough concussive effect to break windows and put holes in walls. The flash-bang burns at around 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, creating an obvious and serious risk of burning individuals, damaging property, and starting fires (as occurred here). In some cases, they can even be lethal. And as this case illustrates well, they pose a risk of traumatizing unsuspecting occupants — particularly small children like two-year old Z.J.

The court says there are cases where flash-bang use may be justified. But this case contained zero of those elements.

Whether the use of the flash-bang grenade here was reasonable is not a close question. The SWAT team knew the suspect, Charles, was already in custody. Any potential justification based on the fact Charles was (at the time) suspected of murder is eliminated by the fact the SWAT team knew they would not encounter Charles there. Nor did they have any indication that other people at the residence would pose any threat. In fact, they had no idea who was inside the house because they failed to do any investigation into that question beyond a quick drive-by to check the address. The use of a flash-bang grenade under these facts was not reasonable. “The use of a [flash-bang] grenade must be justified by the particular risk posed in the execution of the warrant.” Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 239 (2d Cir. 2014). Nor was the manner of use reasonable. They threw the flash-bang grenade into the house blindly without knowing whether children, elderly, or other innocent individuals were inside.

In defense of their blind flash-bang toss, the officers claimed there still may have been some danger present in the house. The police may have already had a suspect in custody but the sued officers theorized the homicide could have been part of a larger criminal conspiracy, which could have meant the residence housed even more dangerous criminals. The court has no time for this distended post facto rationalization.

Of course, they had no actual information to support this after-the-fact speculation. More to the point, however, this argument relies on a dangerously flawed premise. The argument that the SWAT team was justified in using a flash-bang grenade because they did not know for certain it was unnecessary is precisely backwards; it makes using that dangerous level of force the default. This type of “flash-bang first, ask questions later” approach runs headlong into the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement officers like the SWAT team members here need an actual justification for using a flash-bang grenade; the mere hypothetical possibility that someone dangerous could be in a house they are entering — without any actual facts to indicate that is true or likely to be true — is not sufficient.

The court finds the argument that knocking and alerting the residents of the home removed the "element of surprise," forcing the SWAT team's grenade-lobbing hand.

The explanation that the flash-bang was used because the SWAT team believed it was “compromised,” meaning “that occupants of the residence knew [the SWAT team officers] were there and that [the officers] no longer had the element of surprise,” is unpersuasive. The search warrant did not authorize the SWAT team to conduct a “no-knock” warrant, and so they knocked on the front door and announced their presence, which obviously defeated the element of surprise. After all, the purpose of the constitutional knock-and-announce requirement is to allow a citizen the chance to come to the door and allow entrance to an officer who is legally entitled to enter.

The court says this is all clearly-established at this point, so no one involved in the SWAT team's flash-bang use will be able to dodge this lawsuit.

Only the plainly incompetent officer announces his presence at a house with no known dangerous people and then decides to throw in a flash-bang grenade because the occupants know he is there.

Sometimes, vague, unsupported beliefs about the dangerousness of the general public aren't enough to allow officers to dodge culpability for their dangerous decisions. This is one of those (rare) cases.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

Where to start with this one...?

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-31   6:07:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

No Immunity For SWAT Team

I guess the city District Attorney should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring these jack-booted thugs to justice and force them to pay for the drapes.

Out of their own pocket, dammit!

misterwhite  posted on  2019-07-31   9:26:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tooconservative (#1)

Where to start with this one...?

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Proverbs 29:2

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Romans 13:1,2

Proverbs 29:2, along with Romans 13:1-2, is a great place to start. It explains all that is going on here.

The swat team, acting under God's authority, has made God look like an idiot. The swat team has dishonored God's authority by acting outside of God's character. The swat team themselves have resisted the ordinance of God!

The court, also under God's authority, has acted to correct the harm the swat team has done, both to God's authority and to His character.

watchman  posted on  2019-07-31   15:41:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: watchman (#3)

The swat team, acting under God's authority, has made God look like an idiot. The swat team has dishonored God's authority by acting outside of God's character. The swat team themselves have resisted the ordinance of God!

The court, also under God's authority, has acted to correct the harm the swat team has done, both to God's authority and to His character.

It doesn't sound like God was involved much to me. Just the usual screwups.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-31   16:47:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative, Deckard, misterwhite, watchman (#1)

Where to start with this one...?

Here might be a good place.

The SWAT team members asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, claiming qualified immunity shielded their attempt to set someone's living room on fire during normal warrant service. The court disagrees, finding that flash-bang grenades are rarely justified, especially in situations like these. As the court points out, a flash-bang isn't some sort of supercharged noisemaker: it's a weapon that causes very real damage.

Whether they were attempting to set someone's living room on fire is an interesting claim.

The Court did note that, "The flash-bang grenade caught the living room drapes on fire. The SWAT team had to remove the drapes from the house and place them in the front yard before continuing through the rest of the house," but it is not apparent that the Court concluded that the SWAT team "attempt[ed] to set someone's house on fire," or that they succeeded in that effort.

This is a civil rights case concerning events that took place in 2010.

Also noted is that Z.J., through her next friend Je'tuan Jones, "sued the SWAT team officers, the detectives, and the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners (“the Board”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the defendants appealed. We affirm as to the SWAT team officers, reverse as to the detectives, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to the Board."

As to Z.J.'s injuries, the Court noted, "The two-year old girl suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) from the blast of the flash-bang grenade." PTSD is a psychiatric disorder.

As for the use of the flash bang grenade, the Court noted, "Law enforcement officers like the SWAT team members here need an actual justification for using a flash-bang grenade; the mere hypothetical possibility that someone dangerous could be in a house they are entering — without any actual facts to indicate that is true or likely to be true — is not sufficient. ... The SWAT team’s use of the flash-bang grenade was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment."

The Court went on, "As the second step of the qualified immunity analysis, we address “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct. ... The “clearly established” requirement of qualified immunity provides officers with ample room for honest mistakes, but the SWAT team officers’ conduct falls outside even this generous standard."

Also stated by the Court:

B. The Detectives

The Appellants argue the detectives were entitled to summary judgment because (1) the information they omitted from the search warrant application was not material; and (2) their decision to use a SWAT team to execute the search warrant was not unreasonable or did not violate clearly established law. We agree the detectives are entitled to summary judgment because there was probable cause to support the search warrant, even considering the omitted information, and because their decision to use a SWAT team, regardless of whether it was reasonable, did not violate clearly established law.

1. Search Warrant

Z.J. argues the detectives unreasonably omitted from the search warrant affidavit that they had heard the victim’s cell phone ringing in the Winchester apartments and argues that if that fact had been included, the affidavit would lack probable cause. We disagree.

[...]

The omission correctly identified by the district court is the fact the detectives heard the victim’s phone ringing in the Winchester apartments. While we do not condone the selective omission of this fact, the affidavit would support probable cause even with its addition.

Also stated by the Court:

2. The Decision to use the SWAT Team

Z.J. argues the detectives’ authorization to use the SWAT team for executing the search warrant was unreasonable because they conducted no pre-search investigation other than a brief drive by the house to confirm the address and had no reason to believe a SWAT team was necessary. We do not decide whether the detectives’ decision violated the Fourth Amendment but instead conclude they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law.

“To establish a constitutional violation under the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from excessive force, the test is whether the amount of force used was objectively reasonable under the particular circumstances.”

Also stated by the Court, regarding the Kansas City Board of Commissioners:

C. The Board

The Appellants argue the district court erred by denying the Board’s motion for summary judgment. The district court concluded there was a genuine dispute of material fact “regarding whether there was a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of routine use of the [flash-bang grenades] by the [SWAT] Team without any regard for the safety of the occupants of the residence,” and “whether the Board was deliberately indifferent to or tacitly authorized this custom and whether this custom was responsible for plaintiff’s injuries.”

We conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of summary judgment to the Board.

[...]

But the Board, as a municipal entity, is not protected by qualified immunity.

The Court also stated,

To establish liability against a municipality for an unconstitutional custom, a plaintiff must show, among other things, “that [he or she] was injured by acts pursuant to the governmental entity’s custom, i.e., that the custom was a moving force behind the constitutional violation.” [citations omitted] Our conclusion that the SWAT team violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights is relevant to the Board’s liability, but it does not “necessarily resolve” it. Showing a constitutional violation is but one of several requirements to establish municipal liability. As a result, we do not have pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the Board’s summary judgment motion. We dismiss this portion of the appeal.

III. Conclusion

We affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to the SWAT team, reverse as to the detectives, and dismiss the appeal as to the Board.

The SWAT team has no qualified immunity because they acted unconstitutionally.

The Detectives have qualified immunity. The Court noted, "the detectives are only responsible for their own decisions. Importantly here, we must judge their conduct “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. While the detectives likely knew the use of a flash-bang grenade was possible, no evidence suggests they directed or were involved in planning its use. The warrant was also not a “no-knock” warrant. Thus, the detectives would have expected the SWAT team officers to knock and announce their presence — and presumably not use a flashbang grenade without justification."

The Board has no legal claim to qualified immunity as it is a municipal entity. However, it must be noted that the SWAT team was found to have operated outside the permissable limits of their job, and the detectives who authorized the no-knock warrant would have expected the SWAT team to knock and not use a flash bang grenade without justification, after knocking. Establishing Board liability may be a challenge.

After nine years, Z.J. can seek damages from the SWAT team.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-31   17:07:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: nolu chan (#5)

As for the use of the flash bang grenade, the Court noted, "Law enforcement officers like the SWAT team members here need an actual justification for using a flash-bang grenade; the mere hypothetical possibility that someone dangerous could be in a house they are entering — without any actual facts to indicate that is true or likely to be true — is not sufficient. ... The SWAT team’s use of the flash-bang grenade was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment."

Flashbangs are very overused. They can only be justified against hardened criminals, not against civilians or kids. The courts have let these SWAT teams run wild for years and it only gets worse.

After nine years, Z.J. can seek damages from the SWAT team.

I'd like to see him ruin them utterly. Take their houses, take their cars, their vacation homes, their pension, their 401Ks, their dogs, etc. Everything other than wife and kids.

Until the courts hand down some meaningful punishment for such irresponsible and reckless LEOs, things won't change.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-07-31   17:50:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)

Flashbangs are very overused. They can only be justified against hardened criminals, not against civilians or kids.

That's not how the Court saw it. While they condemned these particular circumstances, they also stated of the law, as it stood at the time of the incident in 2010:

The Sixth and Ninth Circuit cases cited by the dissent not only had differing facts but were addressing the clarity of the law as it existed in different times. See generally Bing, 456 F.3d 555 (involving a violation occurring in 2002); Boyd, 374 F.3d 773 (involving a violation occurring in 1997). Each case contributed to the growing clarity of the law on when the use of flash-bang grenades is appropriate. But more importantly, disagreement about whether the law was clearly established does not equate to disagreement about the law itself. Under all of the relevant case law, the SWAT team officers’ use of a flash-bang grenade in this situation would be unconstitutional. The court is not aware of, and neither the parties nor the dissent have pointed to, any case law in existence in 2010 under which the SWAT team’s conduct would be constitutional.

Even aside from the consensus in persuasive case law at the time, the SWAT team officers violated clearly established law because it would be obvious to any reasonable officer that the use of the flash-bang grenade under these circumstances was unreasonable. For a right to be clearly established, it is not required that there be “a case directly on point.” al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741. An officer may have fair notice based on the fact his conduct is obviously unlawful, even in the absence of a case addressing the particular violation. See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002); see also Brosseau, 543 U.S. at 199 (“Of course, in an obvious case, [the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard articulated at a high level of generality] can ‘clearly establish’ the answer, even without a body of relevant case law.”); Rokusek v. Jansen, 899 F.3d 544, 548 (8th Cir. 2018). The only potential threat of which the SWAT team was aware was Charles, then a suspect in a murder investigation. But they knew Charles was in custody. They had no reason to believe any accomplices were involved in the murder and present in the residence. Nor did they take any precautions to avoid harming innocent bystanders. And the rationale that they were “compromised” is nonsense because it is undisputed they knocked and announced their presence. Only the plainly incompetent officer announces his presence at a house with no known dangerous people and then decides to throw in a flash-bang grenade because the occupants know he is there.

- - - - - - - - - -

I'd like to see him ruin them utterly. Take their houses, take their cars, their vacation homes, their pension, their 401Ks, their dogs, etc. Everything other than wife and kids.

Z.J. is a her, a two year old girl at the time of the incident.

It is unlikely the Court would grant such an award. The SWAT team members have plenty of time to move to a state where very little can be taken, or they can move their assets. What is really desired by plaintiffs (or their lawyers) is to have municipal liability. Those pockets always run deep. Without that, one may not win the cost of litigation.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-07-31   18:20:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: (#7)

Flashbangs are very overused. They can only be justified against hardened criminals, not against civilians or kids.

Pity the Poor Stormtroopers: Baby Bou-Bou Ambushed Them

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-07-31   19:42:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Tooconservative (#4)

It doesn't sound like God was involved much to me. Just the usual screwups.

Christians believe that God has delegated His authority to man so that order can be maintained in a fallen world.

When the swat team went out they did so as representatives of God...and they have to behave accordingly. Fearless, honorable, truthful. Otherwise people get a wrong impression of God.

The court ruling proves we don't live in a Godless society just yet...getting close but not yet. And that is refreshing to God's people. All people in fact rejoice when order is restored.

watchman  posted on  2019-07-31   20:46:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: watchman (#9)

Christians believe that God has delegated His authority to man so that order can be maintained in a fallen world.

Well, that lets us off the hook. We can blame God for all the bad stuff because He is bad at oversight. As you know, God is terrible at supervising things and is often taken advantage of by wily or stupid humans.

I'm not sure the bible really says what you're advocating. You get much of that from the opinions in letters written by Paul and some OT bits. Jesus did not say these things in the way you suggest. These doctrines are not taught in the Gospels, at least not in the way you suggest.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-01   0:04:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#10)

Well, that lets us off the hook.

These doctrines are not taught in the Gospels

Just the opposite...it puts us "on the hook". God demands a full accounting. We are totally responsible for all that God entrusts to us.

As for the Gospels, I wonder, do you really believe the Gospels any more than the rest of the Bible?

watchman  posted on  2019-08-01   6:49:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: watchman (#11) (Edited)

As for the Gospels, I wonder, do you really believe the Gospels any more than the rest of the Bible?

I think the Gospels are the heart of Christian belief and teaching. I don't compare the epistles or the prophecies to the centrality of the Gospels.

The Gospels were the Good News. Not the epistles or the prophecy.

In modern times, we tend to weight every verse as being of equal importance. Christians even do this with the Old Testament. "Well, scripture is scripture." But the truth is that some passages of scripture are very important.

Romans 1:1-7:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 9:1-18:

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Both passages are scripture. Yet I think you would hold chapter 9 in much higher esteem and authority than you would with chapter 1. Romans 1 is an ordinary salutation that prefaces an instructional epistle written by an apostle to a church he established or who considered his opinions authoritative due to his reputation. OTOH, Romans 9 and its interpretation is foundational to almost any systematic theology of the Bible.

Not all scripture was created equal. Nor were these accounts written as holy scripture when you judge them fairly. The Gospels were recollections of eyewitnesses and family members and friends to attest to the historicity of Jesus and the character of his ministry and teachings and miracles and resurrection and ascension. The epistles were, generally, written by apostles who had established remote churches that fell into controversy with the letters being intended to settle those local church disputes using the authority of the founder of the church (Paul) who was also the apostle who had personally converted some or most of the leaders of those churches years before.

So: yes, the Gospels are the core of the New Testament and always have been. Without them, you have nothing. Yet in ancient times, it was the Gospels which brought people into the church and were always the Good News, long before any of these epistles were written by an apostle and subsequently published for general reading by other churches. No one ever called the epistles or the Revelation any kind of Good News.

Before any epistles or a Revelation was ever written or even considered, the Gospels were already in circulation pretty widely in the region.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-01   7:26:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Tooconservative (#12) (Edited)

Not all scripture was created equal. Nor were these accounts written as holy scripture when you judge them fairly.

So: yes, the Gospels are the core of the New Testament and always have been.

I would love to discuss the canonicity of Scripture with you and we could have a great debate!

But what I need to know first is this: are you a Christian? Are you Jewish? (I need to know your spiritual condition...)

The Gospels might be condensed into this verse:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Do you believe this verse from the Gospels? Because in believing this verse, believing in Christ, that He died for your sins, was buried and rose again...that is the Gospel. Do you believe this, Tooconservative?

watchman  posted on  2019-08-01   8:44:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: watchman (#13) (Edited)

I don't get into extensive online theological debates any more. I think they usually do far more harm than good. My previous comment contained what I wanted to say about not all scripture being created equal.

Not to worry. I have tons of opinions you wouldn't like if I posted them. If I did post them, I wouldn't change your mind. And your counter-arguments would not change mine.

I think Christians who consider online forums to be a way to convert the heathen or fellowship with other Christians are entirely misguided. This idea is quietly pervasive but it is one of the most destructive things to Christianity in the modern era. The Internet is not a constructive medium for religion; it's the opposite. Online religion is just a disaster.

OTOH, if you want to discuss the formation of the canon, the Pauline canon that Marcion created which led rather directly to the creation of the official NT canon, etc. then that always interests me. I especially like manuscript issues and ancient heresies.

The Gospels might be condensed into this verse: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Until the last century or so, the vast majority of humans never had a chance to hear about Jesus. This includes nearly all of Asia, Africa and the Americas. So they couldn't become "whosoevers". Since they were unable to qualify as a "whosoever", then hell is a fitting and just eternal destination for them. Right?

John 3:16 is quite often the only scripture that many younger Christians can recite. It is handy to proselytize with if your target convert has some Christian background but I don't think that Peter and Paul had to resort to quoting John in order to win converts. People seem to think that somehow the diminishing appeal and results they have with easy-believerism just means they need to repeat John 3:16 more often or use the Romans Road To Salvation more effectively. Which doesn't seem to work. I think the modern reliance on John 3:16 as a scriptural superweapon can be mostly attributed to the televised Billy Graham crusades. It was the start of the ecumenical easy-believerism whose outworking we now see across the evangelical landscape as the old Prot churches just die off with the WW II/Korean War generation.

This very modern idea that the entire Bible can be condensed into a single verse is fundamentally flawed. And the more reliance placed on its primacy as the Swiss Army Knife verse of the Bible, the more the churches shrink and the numbers of unbelievers grow. Not a coincidence IMO. I think even the Ten Commandments are more persuasive to unbelievers than That Verse.

Do you believe this verse from the Gospels? Because in believing this verse, believing in Christ, that He died for your sins, was buried and rose again...that is the Gospel. Do you believe this, Tooconservative?

I'm not a Catholic. And you aren't a priest.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-01   10:04:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite (#14)

I don't get into extensive online theological debates any more.

I think Christians who consider online forums to be a way to convert the heathen or fellowship with other Christians are entirely misguided.

I have never had an extensive online theological debate with anyone, except maybe my interactions with Pinguinite awhile back.

Tooconservative, you realize you are on a Christian based forum don't you? You asked an open ended question about "where to start" with the swat team incident. I responded with Scripture...that's what Christians do.

So when you responded to the Scripture and Christian belief with "that lets us off the hook" or "we can blame God for all the bad stuff" I or someone else is going to press in and challenge that comment. A Christian is going find out where you are coming from...esp. when you are on a Christian's forum!

As for converting heathen on forums, I have no idea how successful that is. However, I will share the Gospel anytime I can.

And you still haven't answered my question. Do you believe the Gospel? Do you believe Christ when he says you must be born again? (You don't have to answer here on the forum...but you should at least answer that question to your self)

watchman  posted on  2019-08-01   11:46:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: watchman (#15)

As I said, I don't get into theological discussions any more.

I've had this attitude since I stopped going to church some years back. I came to realize that I was dissatisfied with the church I was attending and I couldn't seem to find or even imagine a church that was any better. They seem to descend rather quickly into another soap opera of drama and cliquishness. Perhaps this is why the shallow megachurches offering easy-believerism have prospered.

There's no payoff for online personal religious discussions. None.

However, I have a longtime interest in the Bible itself, its origins, the manuscripts underlying the translations, the history of various translations, the conditions of the era, the picture it paints of ancient Israel within the Roman empire at the time of Christ.

Without the New Testament, there is no Christianity. Hence my interest. And yet I find virtually no one who has any interest at all in these issues. To them, the Bible just is, as though it fell in modern form like a meteorite from outer space. Modern Christians have almost no curiosity about the Bible. They have a similar lack of interest in theology or why they believe what they believe.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-01   12:20:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Deckard, Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#8)

[Tooconservative #6] Flashbangs are very overused. They can only be justified against hardened criminals, not against civilians or kids.

[Deckard #8, responding to nolu chan #7, addressed to nobody] Pity the Poor Stormtroopers: Baby Bou-Bou Ambushed Them

It was clear from the outset that you were trying to conflate the thread incident with the incident at the link provided in #8. Shame on you.

[Article] Because the person at the door didn't wave the officers in quickly enough, the officers threw a flash-bang grenade into a room containing a two-year-old.

Please provide the support for the claim that the child was in the room.

[Article quoting Court Opinion] At the time, there were four people inside the residence: the plaintiff, Z.J., a two year old girl; Laverne Charles, age 84; Leona Smith, age 68; and Carla Brown, age 24. Carla grabbed the keys to the door and opened the inside door.

Being in the residence does not connote being in the room where the event took place. How do does the lowlife propaganda author know she was not playing alone in the basement?

How do you or the lowlife propagandist explain the lack of reported physical injuries by anybody?

Where were the people, including Z.J., in the residence? How many were in the attic and how many were in the basement?

Court: No Immunity For SWAT Team That Hurled A Flash-Bang Grenade In The General Direction Of A Two-Year-Old Child

If two-year old Z.J. was in the basement or attic, how did the SWAT team member throw it in the general direction of the two year old?

Inquiring minds want to know the source of the propagandistic title. What isthe basis for the bullshit?

nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-01   14:30:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Tooconservative, goldilucky (#16)

Hence my interest. And yet I find virtually no one who has any interest at all in these issues.

This is more common than you think. With you it might be manuscripts, with someone else it might be Greek or Hebrew. Goldilucky has an interest in Biblical and prophetic geography. People have different interests...that's just how people are and it's a good thing.

I do have one last question: (why) have you had a lifelong interest in Bible manuscripts, etc? And feel free to ignore the question! You get the last word...I will not reply.

watchman  posted on  2019-08-01   14:42:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Tooconservative (#18) (Edited)

Hence my interest.

Wait. Sorry! I reread your comment. You answered my last question. Thanks.

watchman  posted on  2019-08-01   14:47:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu chan, Deckard (#17)

Please provide the support for the claim that the child was in the room.

Please provide support for your implied counter-claim that the child was not in the room.

The child was injured by the flashbang, something that can readily be seen in the photo of the injury to the face. The photo is consistent with reports that about 20% of her upper lip on one side was destroyed and that her face was burned. And the flashbang set the living room curtains on fire so the child had to be in the living room where the flashbang went off.

I notice that in the appeals court's review (linked above), there are no such nutty assertions that the infant was not even in the room. That isn't even mentioned and it would be if there was a dispute over such a fundamental fact like the location of the flashbang detonation relative to the child's location. But these defendants merely assert qualified immunity as their get-out-of-jail-free card.

And we can't ignore that the SWAT team knew the perp was already in custody and they also knew that he almost certainly acted alone. So they had no reason to expect an armed resistance from those in the residence. This was a search for evidence at a place that the perp had gotten tossed out of months prior to the police attack on the three women and the infant.

The perp had had two jobs recently before the crime. At one job, he listed his newer address, where he moved after getting booted out of his old place. The job he got prior to that, he listed the address of the place where the women and infant were at.

There was no sufficient cause to believe that the police would find the evidence (murder victim's cellphone) at that address. No search warrant should have been issued based on an older job application. The detectives are a disgrace and so is the judge who authorized that search warrant.

You're arguing some very weak points there. There's a good reason why such argument was not made by the defense team in the case. At least, I haven't seen it yet.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-01   15:18:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: watchman (#18)

I do have one last question: (why) have you had a lifelong interest in Bible manuscripts, etc?

Classic garden-variety curiosity, no doubt.

Sort of a why-do-we-believe-authoritatively-the-things-we-claim-to-believe. And where-exactly-did-we-get-the-books-that-comprise-the-bible.

I find fascinating, for instance, the info I've found on the early development of the version of the Bible that was done in Antioch, a very ambitious early church. They started with the Gospels and started adding books. They had a serious professional publishing enterprise. This was all many decades before the Council of Hippo produced our canon list. It's unfortunate we don't have even more info from the era. I also like how they can trace Hebraisms and Jewish scripture quotes to versions extant at the time of Jesus. Just more of the how-do-we-know-what-we-know along with what-is-the-quality-of-the-evidence. I even like reading about the typical scarcity of ancient writing materials like papyrus and vellum and the economics of the ancient book publishing industry scattered around the old Roman empire of the era.

In a word, curiosity.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-01   15:30:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: watchman, Tooconservative (#15)

In my view (in case anyone cares what I think)...

The stories in the Bible, particularly related to the creation in Genesis, is likely ascribed a divine origin *because* of its antiquity. The stories were created as a natural consequence of children, in those oldest days, simply asking questions of their parents about the world and our place in it, the same as they do today. Only back then, parents had little more clue than their children did.

But since "I don't know" is never a satisfactory answer for young children, parents instead invented stories. The story of the 6-day creation could be just one of those stories about how the earth came to be, and the story also would address an obvious question of why it was okay to kill animals for food if it's not okay to kill other people -- something we would expect a child a farming culture to ask, even today and no less thousands of years ago.

Well, those children grew up and had their own children who asked the same questions. Naturally, the new parents would give the same answers they were given, but revising the details to make literary improvements. Lather, rinse and repeat over a number of generations, and eventually, after writing is invented, a refined story of creation is then in print. A few generations after that, the written form created by a long deceased ancestor is ascribed divine status simply because it was written by someone long ago, and it was also about the only writing in existence. Such written stories then would be considered as authoritative as encyclopedias were before the internet came into existence.

Fast forward to the printing press and someone puts all stories about God in one book -- minus a few that don't look right -- and we then have something that is conveniently considered the "Word of God". Your one stop shop for all divine truth.

That is my theory.

There are actually 2 separate stories of creation in the Bible. The 6-day version runs from Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3. But if you start reading from Gen 2:4 (I think that's the verse but I'm pulling from old memory), it reads like a completely different story, though of course it's considered compatible with the 6-day version, and a subset of it, though... read in a vacuum, it could be construed as an independent story of creation.

The story of Noah's flood, is, I believe, also in the lore of non-biblical literature. That would certainly be reasonable given the OT premise that all current people are descendants of Noah so all people on the planet from Noah on forward would reasonably have access to that story. But an alternative theory is that the story of Noah's flood stems from the flooding of the Black sea when a natural land dam blocking the Mediterranean sea catastrophically gave way flooding the black sea in weeks. Certainly people experiencing but surviving that, very possibly with the aid of their boats and rafts, without any geographical knowledge of why, would similarly have invented stories to explain it happened because God was angry (but of course, what other reason would God have to do such a thing?). Over generations the story would be embellished to say the flood swept over the whole earth, and indeed it's even possible for some who survived to have done so only because they boarded a raft with their livestock only to see all their former land slip beneath the waters, until weeks later when they finally make landfall, which would certainly look a lot like the flood waters receded when no such receding of water even occurred.

That the Black sea has a fresh water and salt water boundary at a certain depth is evidence of such an event, and the dead sea is, today, some 1000 feet below sea level affirming such geologic conditions exist is also evidence to that being a plausible scenario.

So... combine this scenario with the incredible power of the human mind to believe what it wants and you have what I consider a plausible explanation for at least the Jewish faith, but the same could be said for most other major faiths, if not all.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-08-01   16:41:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: nolu chan (#17)

Please provide the support for the claim that the child was in the room.

According to the article above, "The SWAT team found two-year old Z.J. in the living room. One officer acknowledged Z.J. was “very shaken from the whole situation.”

misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-01   19:38:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Tooconservative (#20)

The child was injured by the flashbang, something that can readily be seen in the photo of the injury to the face. The photo is consistent with reports that about 20% of her upper lip on one side was destroyed and that her face was burned.

Isn't that a different case involving a flash-bang going off in a playpen?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-01   19:39:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Tooconservative, Deckard, A K A Stone (#20)

Please provide support for your implied counter-claim that the child was not in the room.

I did not actually make a counter-claim, I asked Please provide the support for the claim that the child was in the room. And I asked, If two-year old Z.J. was in the basement or attic, how did the SWAT team member throw it in the general direction of the two year old? Inquiring minds want to know the source of the propagandistic title. What is the basis for the bullshit?

Providing support as in clear documentation is no problem. I asked questions to which I most certainly knew the answers, so I knew beyond a doubt that the thread title was bullshit. And thank you for confirming that the link in #8 was provided to conflate Z.J. with Honey Bou Bou, and it fooled you.

The child was injured by the flashbang, something that can readily be seen in the photo of the injury to the face. The photo is consistent with reports that about 20% of her upper lip on one side was destroyed and that her face was burned.

Honey Bou Bou was injured in 2014 in Georgia and was, in total, awarded $3.6M by 2016.

The thread article is about a 2010 incident in Missouri, and the 2-year old girl was not physically injured. Nor was she in the room. Nor was the elderly grandma or her caretaker in the room. Nor was a flashbang thrown in the general direction of the two-year old.

I notice that in the appeals court's review (linked above), there are no such nutty assertions that the infant was not even in the room.

And I noticed that there was no report of physical injury to anyone and no assertion that more than one person was in the room. There was no nutty claim that she was in the room where the flashbang went off.

That isn't even mentioned and it would be if there was a dispute over such a fundamental fact like the location of the flashbang detonation relative to the child's location.

No, you are just wrong. Such is not necessarily repeated in an appellate opinion where it is not particularly relevant to the legal issue in the appeal. There were no physical injuries to mention as Z.J was in the basement, as documented by the trial court.

You're arguing some very weak points there. There's a good reason why such argument was not made by the defense team in the case. At least, I haven't seen it yet.

Like the author of the thread article, and Deckard, you did not look. I looked. The points I made are rock solid. Z.J. was in the basement and Grandma and her caretaker were upstairs.

It took me a couple of minutes using the google to find the documentsd at Justia, a free public online source. Nothing was thrown in the general direction of two-year old Z.J. Grandma, the caretaker, and Z.J. were not in the room.

Z.J. a minor, by and through her next friend Je'taun Jones v. KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, et al., MOWD 4:15-CV-00621-FJG, (2 Aug 2016), Doc 92, ORDER

At 2:

At the time the SWAT team executed the search warrant, Je’taun and Lemondray Jones (owners of the home) were at work. Plaintiff Z. J. was home and in the care of her adult cousin, Carla Brown (hereinafter “Brown”). Two other adults were in the home as well, Z.J’s grandmother, Laverne Charles (hereinafter “Charles”) who was upstairs in a hospital bed, and Leona Smith (hereinafter Smith), who was caring for Charles upstairs.

When the SWAT team arrived at the home, they made contact with Brown who had looked out the window to see officers already attempting to open the outer door. The house had two doors, an outer door and inner door. Brown shook the keys at officers to signify that they did not need to break the door. At this time, the grandmother and her caregiver were upstairs. Z.J. who was two at the time was playing alone in the basement.

Z.J. a minor, by and through her next friend Je'taun Jones v. KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, et al., MOWD 4:15-CV-00621-FJG, (29 Sep 2017), Doc 159, ORDER

At 6:

Officer Evans testified that he knocked and announced “Police, search warrant!” When the search warrant was executed, there were four occupants of the home: the plaintiff, two year old Z.J., twenty-four year old Carla Brown (Z.J.’s cousin and caretaker) Z.J’s eighty-four year old grandmother, Laverne Charles and sixty-eight year old Leona Smith, who was caring for Mrs. Charles upstairs.

At 7:

The FBG was thrown over Carla Brown’s head and into the living room. Carla Brown screamed, grabbed her ears and dropped to the floor. Plaintiff Z.J. was first seen by Officer Evans in the main floor living room, at the bottom of the stairs going up. She was upset and by herself.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-01   19:46:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: watchman (#18) (Edited)

My interest in bible manuscripts take me back to the time I was little (7 years old). Growing up from an agnostic belief family, I decided not to grow up to be like them but to pursue the truth of why I was here. I would question myself as to what was my purpose in life on this planet besides the daily doldrums of work etc. There had to be an answer. And I found mine through scripture and the belief in its every word. Some would refer to this kind of belief system as "dangerous" in these times. But then when I think about what Jesus had told his disciples and speaking to the future generations like ours; that we would also be tried and tortured for our belief in Jesus and His Father's words. It brought comfort to me. For we are truly the last generation to witness these events and prophetic events to befall upon us all. God is showing us these signs in the heavens (sky and earth) but we're just not paying attention at all. Only 10% of the population are truly aware of what is happening to our Earth. And it is not global-warming nor climate change.

goldilucky  posted on  2019-08-01   19:46:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#24)

Isn't that a different case involving a flash-bang going off in a playpen?

Apparently.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-02   1:50:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Pinguinite (#22)

But since "I don't know" is never a satisfactory answer for young children, parents instead invented stories. The story of the 6-day creation could be just one of those stories about how the earth came to be, and the story also would address an obvious question of why it was okay to kill animals for food if it's not okay to kill other people -- something we would expect a child a farming culture to ask, even today and no less thousands of years ago.

Well, those children grew up and had their own children who asked the same questions. Naturally, the new parents would give the same answers they were given, but revising the details to make literary improvements. Lather, rinse and repeat over a number of generations, and eventually, after writing is invented, a refined story of creation is then in print.

Various similar Flood stories are found around the world. Some think these are historical echoes of the collapse of glacial dams in the vicinity of modern Ukraine at the end of the last ice age. There is some physical evidence for this major flooding at the end of the ice age.

There are also some similar creation accounts in local legend and texts that are non-Jewish. And we should keep in mind that the Jews were relying on oral tradition during this ancient era. Oral history has some major problems with accuracy over time, problems that written history does not have. So when we are told that "such-and-such is what the ancient Jews believed", I think we have very little evidence and that this is just some crap that ethnologists and anthropologists and Zionists and bunch of other wannabe's and grifters are peddling to get fame/money. Whatever you buy, you are going to get more of.

There are elements of creation stories similar to the Jewish creation story in Genesis in the Mideast region. Based on rather sketchy dating methods, modern scholars allege that Mesopotamian creation legends influenced the form and the narratives of Jewish creation stories. I kinda doubt this and I doubt that the Jewish creation stories are entirely Jewish.

There is simply too much that is unknown and unknowable about the ancient era. What we know factually about ancient times is probably a lot less than what remains unknown.

That the Black sea has a fresh water and salt water boundary at a certain depth is evidence of such an event, and the dead sea is, today, some 1000 feet below sea level affirming such geologic conditions exist is also evidence to that being a plausible scenario.

There are landlocked places in Africa that are up to a bit over 500' below sea level. Here's a list of places on land with elevations below sea level. Death Valley, for instance, is about -300'. Israel/Jordan have the Dead Sea at about -1400'. The Caspian Sea is about -100'. The Black Sea has a two-way exchange of water with the Mediterranean with a bottom layer of salt water flowing into the Black Sea beneath a larger layer of fresh water flowing outward from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. However, the Black Sea has varied wildly over the millennia. Sometimes, it has no connection at all to the Mediterranean. And it does go a few thousand feet deep in some places, meaning at various times it could have been a 1000' below sea level. But in the modern era, the last ten thousand years or so, it appears to be at sea level, usually connected to the Mediterranean via the Turkish Straits with an modest outflow of fresh water of about 72 cu. miles per year. But there are no locks in the Turkish Straits so ships just sail through the Straits and therefore the Black Sea is presently at sea level. But that is not a stable situation and during past ice ages, it almost certainly was dry land, perhaps with a few little lakes and with much of it below sea level. The Black Sea area is a very interesting and you have to wonder how much ancient history is hidden there on the submerged modern lake bed. Certainly, there were advanced ancient civilizations in the region in Turkey and Ukraine and other countries.

Montana, 15K years ago: Glacial Lake Missoula Flood

HugeFloods.com, Missoula Lake and northwest flooding

There are legends and geology to support the idea that the Black Sea had some similarly violent flooding in ancient times and that there were times when the Black Sea was well below sea level because the level of the world's oceans was so much lower during the various ice ages.

The surprise is not that there are legends of massive and violent flooding in ancient times from all over the world. Given what we know about ice dams forming and then bursting as an ice age comes to an end, the only surprise would be if we didn't have such legends. Because there were some really big-ass floods at the end of the last ice age and undoubtedly at the end of each one preceding it.

When glaciers cover a continent and are 2 miles thick, you're gonna get big flooding when they finally melt. Not some gentle increase in river levels. Violent stuff, would scare the crap out of the natives, right down to their great-great-...-great-great-grandchildren. And so we have legends of the Great Flood(s) from all over the world. It would only be surprising if we didn't have such legendary accounts.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-08-02   3:57:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: goldilucky (#26)

Only 10% of the population are truly aware of what is happening to our Earth.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

That's it, I believe ...they received not the love of the truth. That's the key. One has to love the truth! To crave it! To yearn for it!

And what percentage of that 10% are Christians?

Anyway, thanks for sharing a little about how you became a Christian. Made my day.

watchman  posted on  2019-08-02   12:50:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: goldilucky, watchman (#26)

For we are truly the last generation to witness these events and prophetic events to befall upon us all. God is showing us these signs in the heavens (sky and earth) but we're just not paying attention at all. Only 10% of the population are truly aware of what is happening to our Earth. And it is not global-warming nor climate change.

All Israel will be saved"

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-02   14:36:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: watchman (#29)

I'm not a Christian.

goldilucky  posted on  2019-08-02   15:03:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: goldilucky (#31)

I'm not a Christian.

Please explain your belief, then.

watchman  posted on  2019-08-02   15:57:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A K A Stone (#30)

All Israel will be saved"

Is it your belief that there is a separate plan of salvation for Israel, apart from faith in Christ's work on the cross?

watchman  posted on  2019-08-02   17:48:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: watchman (#33)

I just quoted revelation. Knowing goldilucky isn't to fond of Jews.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-02   17:54:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: goldilucky (#31)

And I found mine through scripture and the belief in its every word.

I'm not a Christian.

Then you lied when you said you believed every word of scripture. Apparently you think Jesus is a liar.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-02   17:56:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: A K A Stone (#35)

I believe every word in the bible; literally. Jesus is not a liar and He was no Christian. He was a Hebrew Israelite. The bible (especially the Book of Exodus Deuteronomy and Leviticus) were meant to be for the Hebrew Israelites to teach to the Gentiles. Christianity derived from Roman law. And much of Christianity (Roman law) rebuked the Law of the books of the bible and including Jesus. Jesus was betrayed by his own people who actually directed He be killed by the Romans so that His people would have no blood on their hands. Not only did those people who ordered His execution have blood on their hands but also the Roman soldiers who partook in His execution.

goldilucky  posted on  2019-08-02   19:05:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: goldilucky (#36)

Christianity derived from Roman law.

So when Jesus said that he was the only way. That was Roman law? Goofy.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-02   21:34:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)

When Jesus said the only way was through Him (Jesus), he NEVER referred to any religious denomination because none of them upheld the law of His Father. Jesus repeatedly stated that His Father's law was superior to the law of man. The only way through Jesus was through Him and not a man-made structured church such as the Sanhedrin nor the Roman Church as both were arrogant and crooked in their ways. Note here that I referred to both. The Sanhedrin were responsible for conspiring to kill Jesus for blasphemy so they used the Romans as the means to get rid of Him. Although Pontius Pilate found Jesus without fault, he was weak in that he turned to the Jews to decide who should be executed and who should be free. We all know that it was Barnabas (charged with murder) who the Jews set free but they demanded to Governor that Jesus should die.

goldilucky  posted on  2019-08-02   21:59:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: misterwhite (#23)

According to the article above, "The SWAT team found two-year old Z.J. in the living room. One officer acknowledged Z.J. was “very shaken from the whole situation.”

The thread article delved into fiction without checking out the trial court documents which tell the story. Z.J. was in the basement. Grandma and her caretaker were upstairs. It's another case of creative yellow journalism.

Z.J. a minor, by and through her next friend Je'taun Jones v. KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, et al., MOWD 4:15-CV-00621-FJG, (2 Aug 2016), Doc 92, ORDER

At 2:

At the time the SWAT team executed the search warrant, Je’taun and Lemondray Jones (owners of the home) were at work. Plaintiff Z. J. was home and in the care of her adult cousin, Carla Brown (hereinafter “Brown”). Two other adults were in the home as well, Z.J’s grandmother, Laverne Charles (hereinafter “Charles”) who was upstairs in a hospital bed, and Leona Smith (hereinafter Smith), who was caring for Charles upstairs.

When the SWAT team arrived at the home, they made contact with Brown who had looked out the window to see officers already attempting to open the outer door. The house had two doors, an outer door and inner door. Brown shook the keys at officers to signify that they did not need to break the door. At this time, the grandmother and her caregiver were upstairs. Z.J. who was two at the time was playing alone in the basement.

Z.J. a minor, by and through her next friend Je'taun Jones v. KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, et al., MOWD 4:15-CV-00621-FJG, (29 Sep 2017), Doc 159, ORDER

At 6:

Officer Evans testified that he knocked and announced “Police, search warrant!” When the search warrant was executed, there were four occupants of the home: the plaintiff, two year old Z.J., twenty-four year old Carla Brown (Z.J.’s cousin and caretaker) Z.J’s eighty-four year old grandmother, Laverne Charles and sixty-eight year old Leona Smith, who was caring for Mrs. Charles upstairs.

At 7:

The FBG was thrown over Carla Brown’s head and into the living room. Carla Brown screamed, grabbed her ears and dropped to the floor. Plaintiff Z.J. was first seen by Officer Evans in the main floor living room, at the bottom of the stairs going up. She was upset and by herself.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-05   16:18:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: misterwhite (#24)

[Tooconservative #20] The child was injured by the flashbang, something that can readily be seen in the photo of the injury to the face. The photo is consistent with reports that about 20% of her upper lip on one side was destroyed and that her face was burned.

[misterwhite #24] Isn't that a different case involving a flash-bang going off in a playpen?

Correctamundo, misterwhite.

Honey Bou Bou was injured in 2014 in Georgia and was, in total, awarded $3.6M by 2016.

The Z.J. thread article is about a 2010 incident in Missouri, and the 2-year old girl was not physically injured. Nor was she in the room. Nor was the elderly grandma or her caretaker in the room. Nor was a flashbang thrown in the general direction of the two-year old, who was in the basement.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-05   16:19:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: nolu chan (#40) (Edited)

Honey Bou Bou was injured in 2014 in Georgia

They were living in her brother's drug house. The nephew was selling meth from that drug house and had been arrested the year before for aggravated assault involving an AK-47.

Of course you send in SWAT.

It could have just as easily been a rival drug dealer, breaking in looking for cash and drugs. He kills everyone and Deckard would say, "That's what happens when you live in a drug house."

misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-06   10:02:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com