Trump tries to smear Martin Gugino, Catholic Peace Activist

[VonDerTann]

I’ve been called worse, including on this site.

 

[RobertAdams]

Who are the animals that would dare speak to you thus ?

 

[TMC]

When you say something like, “you’re wrong, as I suspect you realize, ” you’re basically saying “I don’t like what you said and can’t refute it, so I’ll claim you don’t believe it because then I can claim I don’'t have to refute it.”

LOL, except that I did refute it, and you just refuse to engage on the arguments.

 

[pnewton]

Don’t worry, those of us who didnt go to law school were also able to recognize your approach to socratic questioning.

That struck me as just at tad elitist as well, especially from a lawyer.

I am not from Buffalo, but where I live it does not take a superhuman passivity to avoid excessive force. What it takes is acting on the situation before you. All this talk rioting, stuff thrown and officers killed has zero to do with the situation at hand, which is the person in front of them, his actions, and your response. I have no problem expecting officers here to act within such boundaries, and they do. Those that do not get that are gone as they are in a job that is not suited to them.

 

[VonDerTann]

That actually made me laugh, in a good way. We’re all supposed to be on the same side here at some level. Certainly passions get carried away at times.

 

[commenter]

What it takes is acting on the situation before you. All this talk rioting, stuff thrown and officers killed has zero to do with the situation at hand, which is the person in front of them

Keep in mind the country is filled with people, many of whom are professionals, politicians, etc who refuse to see the killing of a man in Minneapolis as an isolated incident, but everything is national, centuries old. “systemic” is the new buzzword. But they expect police in Buffalo ordered by the liberal Democratic mayor to enforce curfew, to be oblivious to the fact that are a short walk away from where curfew violators assaulted police, assaulted a civilian, vandalized, and broke into stores, looting 12 guns among other things, in the last 3 days.

 

[Donkey]

Martin Gugino was an active volunteer for the the Catholic Worker movement started by Dorothy Day, Servant of God. It seems an fitting way to respond, in keeping with the teaching of Jesus. I still like to think of these forums as Catholic.

No real Catholic agency would promote Gugino’s illegal activities such as breaking curfew and physically confronting a police officer. Gugino should face charges.

 

[pnewton]

Keep in mind the country is filled with people, many of whom are professionals, politicians

I see your point, but it really is a different issue. What you are pointing out is political and more of a strategic issue. Those who make policy have to look at bigger picture. A policeman on the street acts based on tactical consideration, that is, the situation at hand. These two officers should use force only based on the man in front of them, arrest or don’t, and use only force needed to take him into custody.

Does everyone remember the tank that ran over a man in Tiananman Square? While laying in front of a tank was suicidal, there is no question that it took less force than a tank to move him.

 

[pnewton]

No real Catholic agency would promote Gugino’s illegal activities such as breaking curfew and physically confronting a police officer. Gugino should face charges.

Let us look at the Catechism:

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the gospel. (2242)

 

[VonDerTann]

Let’s not forget that the police were shooting the agitator or otherwise ordering him to do something illicit: they were ordered to clear the square. That task was at best allowable and at worst morally neutral. He inserted himself into them doing their job; interfered; and then engaged in risky behavior. As the article I posted noted, nthe police response was appropriate and likewise allowed by their own force continuum.

 

[pnewton]

As the article I posted noted, nthe police response was appropriate and likewise allowed by their own force continuum.

That is interesting. We teach that continuum, but also totality of circumstance which always takes precedence. For example, leg irons aren’t used on a paraplegic, except maybe they are in Buffalo.

 

[LilyM]

Let’s not forget that the police were shooting the agitator or otherwise ordering him to do something illicit: they were ordered to clear the square. That task was at best allowable and at worst morally neutral. He inserted himself into them doing their job; interfered; and then engaged in risky behavior. As the article I posted noted, nthe police response was appropriate and likewise allowed by their own force continuum.

Surely you are aware of the moral distinction between means and ends.

‘Clear the square’ may be a legitimate order (putting aside the extent to.which people have a right to peaceful assembly). It doesnt mean police would be free to do so by any and every means - ramming protestora with their cars, for example, would be wrong regardless.

The question is whether shoving an elderly unarmed gentleman with such force that he falls and cracks his head on the pavement is OK - especially in the absence of any apparent effort to use more appropriate means, for example simply arresting him quickly and quietly if indeed he is resisting a legitimate directive.

 

[VonDerTann]

There is a right to peaceable assembly - but the government can place reasonable restrictions on that assembly. The “clear the sqaure” order was most definitely lawful.

Note it’s peaceable assembly: not “run up to a cop and make threatening gestures in the direction of his gun belt.”

 

[LilyM]

There is a right to peaceable assembly - but the government can place reasonable restrictions on that assembly. The “clear the sqaure” order was most definitely lawful.

As a lawyer I can tell.you you would get a failing grade in any law.class I.ever attended since you have totally neglected to addreaa the main point - which was whether the MEANS were moral and appropriate, not the end.

 

[VonDerTann]

Police didn’t know he was unarmed, only that he acted hostilely. His age is irrelevant: 14 and 15 year olds can be tried as adults, and this man got in the cops’ faces in spite of a lawful clear the square order.

As is happening a lot on this board, armchair strategists are attributing knowledge to the police that the police lacked at the time, and are requiring the police to go through all sorts of hoops (like maybe “asking nicely to stop”) or even to “chill out” when their orders are ignored by agitators.

 

[VonDerTann]

Now we digress to ad hominem attacks.

 

[LilyM]

Police didn’t know he was unarmed, only that he acted hostilely. His age is irrelevant: 14 and 15 year olds can be tried as adults, and this man got in the cops’ faces in spite of a lawful clear the square order.

As is happening a lot on this board, armchair strategists are attributing knowledge to the police that the police lacked at the time, and are requiring the police to go through all sorts of hoops (like maybe “asking nicely to stop”) or even to “chill out” when their orders are ignored by agitators.

In my jurisdiction if you commit an assault on anyone over 65 it is an aggravating factor- just as it is to commit an assault on someone under 16.

As a class, senior citizens are more physically frail for one thing, and for that and other reasons are rightly considered a
more vulnerable group, as are the very young. Assaults on them are rightly voewed as more intolerable.

Police if properly trained will be aware of this, and rightly take extra care with senior citizens as they would with juveniles.

 

[LilyM]

Police didn’t know he was unarmed, only that he acted hostilely. His age is irrelevant: 14 and 15 year olds can be tried as adults, and this man got in the cops’ faces in spite of a lawful clear the square order.

As is happening a lot on this board, armchair strategists are attributing knowledge to the police that the police lacked at the time, and are requiring the police to go through all sorts of hoops (like maybe “asking nicely to stop”) or even to “chill out” when their orders are ignored by agitators.

How.about simply “peacefully arresting” vs “shoving aside”? If he is indeed agitating.

 

[VonDerTann]

That’s lots and lots of armchair strategy, in the peace of your own home, and with full opportunity for reflection, while possessing facts the police on site didn’t have.

 

[pnewton]

In my jurisdiction if you commit an assault on anyone over 65 it is an aggravating factor- just as it is to commit an assault on someone under 16.

Same here. Also, what he did would not even remotely be considered “acting hostile.”