What if a Police Officer is Wrong...

[Archivist]

I believe scripturally you are required to obey. The verses I quoted did not offer any caveats to submitting to authority. It doesn't say submit to,authority unless,it's an illegal order. As a Christian we are to obey those whom God has allowed to be in charge over us. If an officer orders you to stop filming on your camera you should stop. Its an illegal order, but as a Christian we should stop. As an American we have rights and so I don't think it would be wrong to report the incident to that officers superiors. And I also have no,issue with reminding the officer himself that you have a right to record. But if he insists then stop. Unless you can show me in the bible where it says otherwise I think the word of God supports me on this.

UNLESS the order or law goes against Gods orders or laws. So your example of Nazis and Jews is a good one. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves as the 2nd greatest command. So protecting the Jews in violation of Nazi law would be fine according to scripture.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

We have Romans 13:1 tells us “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." However, is that a reference to the police or to those who actually govern (the president, Congress, governors, state legislatures, judges, mayors, etc)? Remember, in the situation I am bringing up, the governing authorities are saying that you may do something be it film a crime scene or go topless. The police officer, for his or her own reason, is telloing you otherwise. So it is a matter of a police officer, who may or may not qualify as a "governing authority" telling you that you cannot do something that higher governing authorities have said you may do.

 

[Kersh]

There is a big difference in complying with an order to put your shirt on, and turning someone over to be killed.

I agree. I was responding to the poster that said that we can't disobey law that violates our conscience. Putting a shirt on is typically not a matter of conscience. My point is that there comes a time when holy people should disobey, but such situations are rare indeed.

 

[Summerbell]

The members of the Society later posted the following on their website: "Now, ignorance isn’t a crime. Not even ignorance of the law. Not even if you’re a police officer whose job is to enforce the law. And to these officers’ credit, they behaved politely throughout, if grimly, and when proven wrong, they conceded. Their sidearms stayed in their holsters throughout. But we shouldn’t have had to negotiate rights we already have with armed agents of the government. We really shouldn’t."

My question: Much has been said about some police officers overstepping their legal authority. If the law is on your side, if the officer is in the wrong as was the case here, are you required to follow orders from a police officer?

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that ignorance of the law isn't a crime when it comes to police officers. These are the people who are meant to uphold the laws, so shouldn't they know what constitutes a crime and what doesn't? If they don't know what's legal and what isn't, how can they police effectively? I do think police officers who attempt to impose new laws or punish those who don't conform to their personal preferences should face legal consequences. These particular officers should be sanctioned and provided updated education on the law.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

What's more important, God's law or secular law? If they make a law that says we can't pray, for example, wouldn't you defy it? Just like Daniel did?

I know how the law works. No need to talk down to me like that.

That's a pointless distinction. This is the USA--there will be no laws saying that we can't pray.

We have a system for changing bad laws. If some law violates your personal beliefs, use the system to fix the problem. Anything else is defiant grandstanding.

 

[Archivist]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that ignorance of the law isn't a crime when it comes to police officers. These are the people who are meant to uphold the laws, so shouldn't they know what constitutes a crime and what doesn't? If they don't know what's legal and what isn't, how can they police effectively? I do think police officers who attempt to impose new laws or punish those who don't conform to their personal preferences should face legal consequences. These particular officers should be sanctioned and provided updated education on the law.

I would agree with you. The members of the Outdoor Co-Ed Topfree Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society who I was quoting, however, apparently feel otherwise.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

So, not to Godwin the thread, but if the law said you have to turn in any Jews you might know of, so that they can be exterminated, should you obey or not?

We're talking about the real world, not hypotheticals. For any such law to go into effect, both the American government and the American people would have to be vastly different from what actually exists.

If you think that some law goes against your personal beliefs, you have lawful recourse. You may not get your way, but you'll have your say.

 

[Greeble]

The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote. We live in a country where people are beaten, tasered and killed for not following police orders. Lawful and not. Where a child carrying a toy rifle was shot within three seconds for not dropping it - in an open carry state. Where families who call 911 because a loved one is having a mental problem loose that loved one. Perhaps most telling, a man was shot three times while doing what the police told him to.

Theoretically, no, one doesn't have to follow unlawful orders. Morally one shouldn't. But one has to ask oneself "do you feel lucky? Well, do you?"

 

[Archivist]

The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote. We live in a country where people are beaten, tasered and killed for not following police orders. Lawful and not. Where a child carrying a toy rifle was shot within three seconds for not dropping it - in an open carry state. Where families who call 911 because a loved one is having a mental problem loose that loved one. Perhaps most telling, a man was shot three times while doing what the police told him to. Theoretically, no, one doesn't have to follow unlawful orders. Morally one shouldn't. But one has to ask oneself "do you feel lucky? Well, do you?"

Sad but true. Of course, as long as the officers keep getting away with doing these things the problem will continue.

 

[MWood]

Well would it be better to do as told and be judged by 12, than rebel and be carried by 6.

 

[Archivist]

Well would it be better to do as told and be judged by 12, than rebel and be carried by 6.

Sad thing is that the person who ignores an illegal order from a police officer isn't a rebel, he is following the law. The officer is the one ignoring the law.

 

[rjs330]

We have Romans 13:1 tells us “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." However, is that a reference to the police or to those who actually govern (the president, Congress, governors, state legislatures, judges, mayors, etc)? Remember, in the situation I am bringing up, the governing authorities are saying that you may do something be it film a crime scene or go topless. The police officer, for his or her own reason, is telloing you otherwise. So it is a matter of a police officer, who may or may not qualify as a "governing authority" telling you that you cannot do something that higher governing authorities have said you may do.

Like I said earlier police are an arm of the governing authorities. They are given their authority by the governing authorities. As we all know even the govenors err when enforcing law. But that doesn't mean we don't submit. Note the scripture does not differentiate between laws and authorities. We are to,submit to the authorities even if They are wrong. Again it doesn't mean you can't point out Their error to them or report their error to their superiors. But once you've done so, just submit for God has placed them over you. To fight them puts you in the place of fighting against God. God placed flawed individuals in authority over you. They are not infallible, but that is irrelevant as the scripture does not offer that as an excuse to not submit. Remember the scripture that exhorts us to live peacably with all men. Just do as asked and if They are wrong handle it through the proper government authorities that govern them.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

The avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote. We live in a country where people are beaten, tasered and killed for not following police orders. Lawful and not. Where a child carrying a toy rifle was shot within three seconds for not dropping it - in an open carry state. Where families who call 911 because a loved one is having a mental problem loose that loved one. Perhaps most telling, a man was shot three times while doing what the police told him to.

Theoretically, no, one doesn't have to follow unlawful orders. Morally one shouldn't. But one has to ask oneself "do you feel lucky? Well, do you?"

Please don't fall into the media narrative of out of control police. The media lives to overhype this stuff. They make it sound like police are on a rampage and Willy, nilly going after people. Utter hogwash. Are you aware that there are over 62,000,000 police contacts a year? That is contacts where police stop someone either traffic or other stops. You have a .00004% chance of getting shot by one.

As tragic as an unjustified death is, it remains an extremely rare event. It would be nice if it never happens, but that's just not possible. Its about as rare as could be and police methods are changing all,the time to continue to lower the chances.

Don't buy into the media's false narrative or the bogus narrative provided by the people with an agenda.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Don't buy into the media's false narrative or the bogus narrative provided by the people with an agenda.

You say narrative, I say problem.

 

[Greeble]

You say narrative, I say problem.

And tho more often police don't have to take responsibility the more often it will happen.

 

[Kersh]

We're talking about the real world, not hypotheticals. For any such law to go into effect, both the American government and the American people would have to be vastly different from what actually exists.

If you think that some law goes against your personal beliefs, you have lawful recourse. You may not get your way, but you'll have your say.

It's not a hypothetical. It was a very real concern for many Europeans in the 1930s and 40s. Should we wait until it gets that bad before we decide to violate the law rather than our beliefs? For example, consider the draft dodgers of the 1960s who believed that it would violate their moral values to participate in the Vietnam War. Were they justified, or should they have violated their own moral views in order to fight?

Though I have expressed strong disagreement with him, I actually agree with Archivist in part. That is, I think that we would agree that there comes a time and a place for disobedience. Where we disagree is in where we draw the line. It seems that he would draw the line at conduct by police that is illegal (or perhaps immoral, as well?). I would say that that point comes only when we are asked to choose between God's expectations and our government's. Fortunately, in 21st Century America it rarely comes to that, but I do wonder if that time is coming.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

It's not a hypothetical. It was a very real concern for many Europeans in the 1930s and 40s. Should we wait until it gets that bad before we decide to violate the law rather than our beliefs? For example, consider the draft dodgers of the 1960s who believed that it would violate their moral values to participate in the Vietnam War. Were they justified, or should they have violated their own moral views in order to fight?

Nice Godwin. This isn't 1930s Europe, and the US will probably never have another draft.

 

[Kersh]

Nice Godwin. This isn't 1930s Europe, and the US will probably never have another draft.

I already acknowledged that it was a Godwin, but that doesn't make the point any less valid. As far as the draft is concerned, last time I checked 18 year olds (now, not just limited to boys) are still required to register. If the draft is an impossibility, then that seems like a huge waste of time. The point is that there are indeed situations in which a person has to choose whether to obey God or the government. Fortunately, for the vast majority of us in America at this particular point in history, this is somewhat hypothetical. But, both examples I gave are relatively recent in the scope of human history, and it is naive to think that these types of issues will never arise in the future.

But, at the end of the day, if the government tells you that you must do x, where x is contrary to your moral convictions or if the government tells you that you must not do y, where y is compelled by your moral convictions, which do you obey?

 

[MWood]

Sad thing is that the person who ignores an illegal order from a police officer isn't a rebel, he is following the law. The officer is the one ignoring the law.

If you will go back and check, you will find there is a law requiring you to obey all orders of the police. This has been on the books for several tens of years.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I already acknowledged that it was a Godwin, but that doesn't make the point any less valid.

Kinda does.

As far as the draft is concerned, last time I checked 18 year olds (now, not just limited to boys) are still required to register. If the draft is an impossibility, then that seems like a huge waste of time.

It is a waste of time for military action. The American people won't put up with a draft anymore for anything less than a direct invasion or a nuclear strike against the US. Even then, the number of people who volunteer to sign up would make a draft mostly pointless.

it is naive to think that these types of issues will never arise in the future

You can see the future? I can't. That's why I'm talking about the here and now. Everything else is a hypothetical.

But, at the end of the day, if the government tells you that you must do x, where x is contrary to your moral convictions or if the government tells you that you must not do y, where y is compelled by your moral convictions, which do you obey?

You do what the law of the land says for you to do while trying to remedy the issue through the methods provided by law. Otherwise, there's no point to having rule of law.

 

[Archivist]

If you will go back and check, you will find there is a law requiring you to obey all orders of the police. This has been on the books for several tens of years.

The law where I live says you must obey all legal orders from police. This thread is about illegal orders.