ICE, Killing, Justice, and Christianity

FireDragon76 said:

You mention Aquinas, but Aquinas also wrote that an unjust law is no law at all.

A man was shot multiple times on the ground after being disarmed. The question, "Is this unjust?" isn't hard to figure out.

Click to expand...

The question isn’t hard because the question is premature. Your moral conclusion assumes facts not yet demonstrated—namely, that the use of force was unjust under the relevant standards and that Pretti posed no continuing threat. Moral judgment requires truthful description, not incomplete narrative framing.

And it was not Aquinas who said “lex esse non videtur quae iusta non fuerit.” He credited Augustine for saying that (De Libero Arbitrio I.5). Moreover, Aquinas is in agreement with me on this, for he said that laws can be unjust in two ways: either by opposition to human good or to divine law. With respect to the former, laws are unjust if they are ordered to the ruler’s private interests, if they exceed the power committed to the ruler, or if they are imposed unequally on the subjects (even with a view to the common good).

But even then, Aquinas said that “such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disorder”—nisi forte propter vitandum scandalum vel turbationem—“for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Matthew 5:40-41.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 96, a. 4.

Aquinas doesn’t teach that any perceived injustice voids authority, but rather only grave injustice contrary to the common good or divine law, and even then the factual predicate must be established. Again, if your claim is that a grave injustice occurred sufficient to nullify lawful authority, you need to specify the concrete facts and standards by which that judgment is made.

John Bauer said:

The question isn’t hard because the question is premature. Your moral conclusion assumes facts not yet demonstrated—namely, that the use of force was unjust under the relevant standards and that Pretti posed no continuing threat. Moral judgment requires truthful description, not incomplete narrative framing.

Click to expand...

"Continuing threat" is too vague a standard for the use of deadly force. Threat to whom? Merely a threat to "Law and order" isn't a good enough reason to kill a man.

FireDragon76 said:

"Continuing threat" is too vague a standard for the use of deadly force. Threat to whom? Merely a threat to "Law and order" isn't a good enough reason to kill a man.

Click to expand...

A threat to (a) himself, (b) the officers, and/or (c) bystanders.

All Becomes New said:

Debate rarely changes anyone's mind and I'm not interested in it for that reason. I am open to discussion, but you have not actually indicated trying to see where I am coming from.

Click to expand...

Debate rarely changes the participants’ minds, but it often changes the audience’s minds. I am interested in it for that reason.

At the end,
Matthew 22:21
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

ICE = measures from Caesar. They found it necessary to drive the illegal immigrants out. They employed ICE to do the job, it however doesn't seem to be well trained to deal with civilians.

To me, it's not an uncommon scene in the US. It's just another "I can't breach" occurred. It happened in the past, it's happening now and will happen in the future. It somehow fits the pattern that "people define their society". In the US culture everyone carries a gun, policing is under high pressure and mistakes are inevitable.