Disabled US Vet taken down by New Scamdemic Gestapo


Allowing this to be done to a disabled man is worse than doing it. If you see such things, you should call upon all bystanders to come to the aid and defense of the innocent.

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

8 thoughts on “Disabled US Vet taken down by New Scamdemic Gestapo”

  1. Catholic Chivalry is not dead, but it is quite dormant at the moment. When I see things like this my blood boils. I do not know what I would do confronted with the same situation? Pray for courage!

  2. This incident constitutes a challenge in terms of self-defence. Now, the unjust law enforcement personnel are armed and trained and can abuse their lethal force at any moment. So, what are the options bystanders have to help the unjustly persecuted disabled veteran? What level of force would be proportional and just according to Catholic moral theology, and primarily, to Divine Law (5th Commandment)? Since the unlawfully-acting police and security guards can always respond with overwhelming force and kill or at least seriously injure anyone around, who would try to dissuade them or prize the assaulted individual away from them, what does this imply for the rights and obligations of those who can help? Can they – if they are armed – use arms to kill or at least incapacitate the wrongdoers, who are, as they are members of police and/or security forces, armed and trained to kill, even though, they are not (at the moment) trying to kill the persecuted person, but can surely do so, as they obviously have the capacity? If dealing with law-breakers, who are armed and are actually members of law enforcement, authorized to use lethal force, but who are evidently acting contrary to the Divine, natural and the valid civil law, what is just and proportional self-defense against them?

    1. If the people are sovereign, according to the constitution of their nation, then it follows that the police in using unjust force and not desisting when the people demand this, that even bystanders who are citizens can use lethal force against the police. This would not be the case, however, in a monarchy or other form of government.

      1. Thank you for your quick and clear answer. Now, what are the options for the faithful in political systems, whose forms of government do not recognize people as sovereign? What can they do within the precincts of Divine Law and natural law as subjects to a monarch or even slaves to a (technocratic) dictatorship? Does the example of Moses in the Book of Exodus, Chapter 2, Verses 11-12 (Douay-Rheims) apply in such a situation? As follows (http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/02002.htm):

        “In those days after Moses was grown up, he went out to his brethren: and saw their affliction, and an Egyptian striking one of the Hebrews his brethren. And when he had looked about this way and that way, and saw no one there, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.”

        Have a Blessed Christmas in the Octave and a Blessed New Year.

      2. Mosen was a High Court Official and adopted son of the Pharo, he had the jurisdictional power to put criminals to death. He acted, however, not for the right motives but out of an excess of anger. He is not to be imitated in that. However, if you live in a democracy or republic which repudiates the sovereignty of God and monarch, then the people are sovereign or can exercise sovreignty, according to the principle of subsidiarity.

  3. Thank you for another edifying and sound comment. The example of Holy Patriarch Moses in this case truly warns us against acting out of an excess of anger. I assume that with this statement you are reiterating the official Catholic exegesis of this part of Holy Scripture.

    Now, this leads me to another thought: could the use of lethal force by the bystanders against the abusive law enforcement personnel in the case of the abovementioned veteran also constitute excessive use of force and acting out of an excess of anger, akin to Moses? After all, the Egyptian could have beaten the Isreaelite to death, whereas the policemen were clearly not pointing firearms at the disabled veteran, but were acting on the basis of (wrongly applied, abused) rules of engagement.

    1. Obviously the resort to the use of force must be proportional to the need and in view of the consequences to human persons and to the order of law.

Comments are closed.