Southern Baptist leaders issue joint statement on the death of George Floyd

This was my response to a friend’s Facebook post on the SBC statement:

How do they know this was an act of racism already? The feds are investigating that angle and haven’t reached a conclusion yet, nor released any evidence or preliminary findings. This is straight up virtue signaling, and it’s pathetic. Theologians and pastors are supposed to deal in truth, not politically correct assumptions about motive. Will there be a joint statement tomorrow about the rioting?

I’m in agreement with Josh Daws that “Empathy that reinforces unfounded fears is not loving.”

It’s not “for argument’s sake” that we say we don’t yet know whether this incident arose from racism. It’s for justice’s sake and for evidence’s sake: we don’t yet know all the facts, from all the angles, and to this point there is no evidence of racism. The cops are entitled for their side to be heard, which it hasn’t, as well as any other available evidence (such as the autopsy that concluded Mr. Floyd did not die of asphyxiation, contrary to nearly unanimous expectations.) Remember that the 4 cops involved were not all white — they were white, Asian, Latino, and black. (Even if they were all 4 white, we’re not entitled to assume racism.) I’m not arguing for an acquittal in advance (whereas many others, including too many Christians, are arguing for a conviction in advance). I’m arguing for bedrock principles of accuracy, thorough investigation, and due process. If the conclusion is that one or more of those officers were violent racists who intended and caused Floyd’s death, throw the book at them. But you can’t do that in advance, and you can’t ignore rioting just because we all feel sorrow for Floyd and his family.

This is what the SBC should have said (and note that this is not coming from a white person): https://slowtowrite.com/destructive-reactions-to-injustice/

This is not racism like “Ku Klux Klan” whites are racially better than blacks racism. This is “I do not respect black men” racism. The assumption that they are criminals leading to an increase in the response level. The ratcheting up of response to disagreements to physical and then to death for black men when if the accused were white there have likely been de-escalation.

In this case, from the video we know George Floyd exited the car. Then he was handcuffed and was sitting on the curb. They then went to put him in the police car when he collapsed. They then stuff him in the back but then two officers appear to hit him repeatedly. After a bit, they drag him out and put him on the ground and then in the knee-to-neck posture. The officer held that for 5+ minutes until he passed out and then kept him there until the ambulance arrived and the paramedics practically had to peel Floyd from under the cop.

What part of that is justified? Seriously.

It’s human nature to rush to generalizations, and so we have a lot of them being made a bout policing and race…. but these problems have to be addressed one PD at a time. There are many, many PDs all over the country that have no history of excessive force. Many others have devoted enormous amounts of resources to trying to end their UOF problems. Some have seen some success. If I had 30 mins I could probably link to 40 projects, some effective, some not. One good place to start, if you want to dig into it is the increase in de-escalation training over the last decade.

Of course, the cops who followed procedure and used appropriate force, de-escalated, etc., don’t make the news. That’s to be expected, but it does tend to create a false impression of the whole and of what’s actually trending.

[Joeb]

I think Bert is spot on.

Joeb, I don’t point this out for any reason other than to correct my confusion. Bert has not responded on this page… so I am not sure what you meant.

I see this particular issue as being more about policing than racism. Granted, this is affecting black people more disproportionately which is bad, but if all we take away from this is educating our police force on racism, I think we miss the point. We have developed a policing culture where our police are armed, and they are taught to use various levels of force to enforce rules. This invariably leads to situations becoming more violent. We need to find a way to change this culture so that it is one that is focused on de-escalation and the protection of all parties. I would like to see more disarmament of police, which is more typical in many other developed countries. We can’t brush racism under the rug either, but I would like to see the discussion expanded beyond white on black racism to the more broad scope of how to respect all individuals. The fact that someone lost there life because they potentially passed a fake $20 bill is utterly ridiculous no matter how he reacted to the situation. The fact that this was a white cop abusing a black citizen highlights that this behavior is disproportionately impacting our minority groups, but if people understood respect period, we wouldn’t have this issue amongst any groups.

[dgszweda]

I would like to see more disarmament of police, which is more typical in many other developed countries.

And how would the current riots be playing out if the police were disarmed? Note that Floyd was not killed by a gun. Exactly what do you want police to do when the opposition is using greater force against them? And what exactly should the police do when those who commit “ridiculous” crimes that are supposedly unworthy of any force being used against them resist any form of justice? Our sinful human nature tells me that everyone isn’t just going to “make nice.” You also said “no matter how he reacted.” If he had pulled the officer’s weapon, would that have been a good reason to use deadly force? If you think the answer is “no,” I certainly don’t want to live in any society guided by such “principles.”

These last few days of rioting, burning, looting, and even some killing have expressed in a way far more eloquent than anything the NRA could say why the average law-abiding citizen needs an AR-15 with 30 round magazines, and training to use them effectively. When even the armed police are called back by our leaders and prevented from protecting us, we have no choice but to do it ourselves. If you think there are too many “paramilitary militias” operating now, just wait until our police back down from enforcing the law. You’ll see them come out of the woodwork then. Is that what you really want? If our police go to a mode where they are unarmed (and essentially powerless), we will even more need to arm ourselves. Evil doesn’t go away just because we cease resisting it.

(And by the way, while I haven’t lived in Europe like you, I’ve been there many times for extended periods, and seen exactly how the police in Germany operate. The average beat cop doesn’t usually carry, but they don’t waste any time calling in the armed units in when necessary, and the armed units I have seen are armed with submachine guns or automatic rifles and full riot gear, not pistols. You also commonly see armed military-looking (not sure if police or actual military) units patrolling in Frankfurt Airport, also with automatic weapons. I only saw that here in the U.S. for a period shortly after 9-11.)

According to Romans 13, government bears the sword. And there’s a reason for that — there would be constant lawlessness without the threat of force. Of course, government should always do so justly, and we should demand that as citizens. If the investigation shows that Floyd was killed unjustly, the police officer should get the book thrown at him, and rightly so. However, we cannot just hope for a utopian society by backing down and insisting that our law enforcement officers not have the means to carry out their jobs to enforce the law and ensure a peaceful society.

[dcbii]

dgszweda wrote:

I would like to see more disarmament of police, which is more typical in many other developed countries.

And how would the current riots be playing out if the police were disarmed? Note that Floyd was not killed by a gun. Exactly what do you want police to do when the opposition is using greater force against them? And what exactly should the police do when those who commit “ridiculous” crimes that are supposedly unworthy of any force being used against them resist any form of justice? Our sinful human nature tells me that everyone isn’t just going to “make nice.” You also said “no matter how he reacted.” If he had pulled the officer’s weapon, would that have been a good reason to use deadly force? If you think the answer is “no,” I certainly don’t want to live in any society guided by such “principles.”

These last few days of rioting, burning, looting, and even some killing have expressed in a way far more eloquent than anything the NRA could say why the average law-abiding citizen needs an AR-15 with 30 round magazines, and training to use them effectively. When even the armed police are called back by our leaders and prevented from protecting us, we have no choice but to do it ourselves. If you think there are too many “paramilitary militias” operating now, just wait until our police back down from enforcing the law. You’ll see them come out of the woodwork then. Is that what you really want? If our police go to a mode where they are unarmed (and essentially powerless), we will even more need to arm ourselves. Evil doesn’t go away just because we cease resisting it.

(And by the way, while I haven’t lived in Europe like you, I’ve been there many times for extended periods, and seen exactly how the police in Germany operate. The average beat cop doesn’t usually carry, but they don’t waste any time calling in the armed units in when necessary, and the armed units I have seen are armed with submachine guns or automatic rifles and full riot gear, not pistols. You also commonly see armed military-looking (not sure if police or actual military) units patrolling in Frankfurt Airport, also with automatic weapons. I only saw that here in the U.S. for a period shortly after 9-11.)

According to Romans 13, government bears the sword. And there’s a reason for that — there would be constant lawlessness without the threat of force. Of course, government should always do so justly, and we should demand that as citizens. If the investigation shows that Floyd was killed unjustly, the police officer should get the book thrown at him, and rightly so. However, we cannot just hope for a utopian society by backing down and insisting that our law enforcement officers not have the means to carry out their jobs to enforce the law and ensure a peaceful society.

I didn’t say every police officer or law enforcement in general should not carry a weapon, just that not all of them need to carry a weapon. This is very common in many countries. We do not need to shoot everyone.

[dgszweda]

I didn’t say every police officer or law enforcement in general should not carry a weapon, just that not all of them need to carry a weapon. This is very common in many countries. We do not need to shoot everyone.

Because all police armed == “shoot everyone.” That was certainly convincing…

[dcbii]

dgszweda wrote:

I didn’t say every police officer or law enforcement in general should not carry a weapon, just that not all of them need to carry a weapon. This is very common in many countries. We do not need to shoot everyone.

Because all police armed == “shoot everyone.” That was certainly convincing…

About as convincing as your argument. Not every officer needs to carry a firearm. And safety is not ensured by every officer carrying a firearm.