Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Paul Martinez73 said:Another way to protect property is through self-defense. A person whose possession is being interfered with has the right to defend that property using force against whoever is taking it or disturbing them. It's a reaction meant to stop the interference, though one must be careful not to cross the line of what constitutes reasonable self-defense.

This right is tied to the following conditions that must be met:

– the interference with possession must be unlawful,

– permitted self-defense must be taken within 30 days, or specifically within one year,

– if it is necessary because legal assistance would arrive too late,

– the danger of interference must be immediate,

– and only if the force used isn't greater than what the circumstances justify.

☕

Nice attempt at cherry-picking the fine print, but the law is surprisingly straightforward here.

Permissible Self-Defense

Section 27.

(1) Anyone entitled to possessory protection may defend their property using force against anyone who unlawfully deprives them of possession or disturbs their possession, provided it is necessary because judicial assistance would arrive too late and the danger is imminent—but only if the force used is not greater than what is reasonable under the circumstances (permissible self-defense).

Since there was zero actual danger involved, this section doesn't apply—which means your little theory just falls apart.

urbanhawk17 said:The absolute worst part is how religious communities just do whatever they want, and almost always, they get away with it without facing any consequences at all.

Take what happened yesterday. This guy spent a whole week announcing he was going to hold Holy Mass, yet there wasn't a single law enforcement officer in sight to stop him. What really kills me is that if you dare criticize his decision, suddenly you're the idiot, the jerk, or some kind of monster.

Then you've got that supposedly "honorable" nun who came back from Italy, wandered around a bit, went to a spiritual retreat or whatever... all while hiding the fact she’d even been in Italy so she wouldn't have to deal with a 14-day quarantine. The reaction? Oh, she's our saintly sister, no harm done. I guess if anyone else had pulled that, they would have been crucified.

Or look at those people taking communion from the same spoon over in Mexico.

And honestly, the list goes on.

Most of this crowd are older priests who think they're untouchable just because they've been around long enough to feel entitled to everything.

When you call out this kind of behavior, people act like you're attacking everything—the church, God, faith, science. They'll even claim you're a secret FBI informant.

I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again: all these government bans and mandates regarding coronavirus control are purely political decisions. The same goes for the concessions being made to the Church; those are political moves too. So, I guess we shouldn't look for objective cause-and-effect relationships where they don't exist. The Church has always held a privileged status in society, both before and during the pandemic, and it likely will afterward. The government, especially the Republican administration, isn't going to make waves here because, honestly, 1) they don't really care, and 2) they know new elections are coming down the road eventually.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Nice attempt at cherry-picking the fine print, but the law is surprisingly straightforward here.

Permissible Self-Defense

Section 27.

(1) Anyone entitled to possessory protection may defend their property using force against anyone who unlawfully deprives them of possession or disturbs their possession, provided it is necessary because judicial assistance would arrive too late and the danger is imminent—but only if the force used is not greater than what is reasonable under the circumstances (permissible self-defense).

Since there was zero actual danger involved, this section doesn't apply—which means your little theory just falls apart.

So you're just quoting the exact same thing I am? The difference is I gave you an actual attorney's interpretation while you just regurgitated the literal statute.
How are you supposed to know if there was "danger"? If a thief breaks into your house, are you going to stop and interview him first to see if he looks threatening?

Amy Nelson4 said:I think the police aren't allowed to intervene inside religious facilities (just look back at those veteran protests in Times Square).
On top of that, once a Holy Mass has started, you aren't supposed to interrupt it.

Is that why today's outdoor Mass in front of the church wasn't stopped, even though the Police are usually so quick to disperse similar gatherings elsewhere?

don't do that—you're testing my patience🤦

https://www.facebook.com/11461576203206 ... 182829879/

I completely agree that everyone needs to exercise restraint during this time, without exception. But what about the performance of these Roma in the link, whose actions went almost entirely unnoticed compared to yesterday's Mass? I try to imagine what would happen if a few dozen people gathered in a neighborhood, ignored social distancing, set fire to containers, and harassed or filmed officials... I just can't see them getting the same outcome...

Joseph Clark37 said:Is that why today's outdoor Mass in front of the church wasn't stopped, even though the Police are usually so quick to disperse similar gatherings elsewhere?

The mass was held inside the church, not outdoors.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:So, after checking with three different banks, I finally got official confirmation: you aren't allowed to go into the church and start filming.

It's just tourists with their cameras everywhere.

I mean, they really should establish some capacity levels first and then create a proper classification system.
You've got churches that are listed as historical landmarks, churches located right in the middle of tourist hubs, and then, way down at the bottom, you have your standard local parish churches.
You probably think that because you can snap photos inside St. Patrick's Cathedral, you can just barge into any random church you feel like. Honestly, it’s kind of exhausting dealing with people who see the world in such black and white.

Amy Nelson4 said:The mass was held inside the church, not outdoors.

Actually, it was held outside right in front of the church this morning. People were gathered close together. Back in Kasun, they usually scatter us with the Police when we try to group up even a little bit... but there aren't any issues here.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/article/...a/2174495.aspx

Joseph Clark37 said:Actually, it was held outside right in front of the church this morning. People were gathered close together. Back in Kasun, they usually scatter us with the Police when we try to group up even a little bit... but there aren't any issues here.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/article/...a/2174495.aspx

Is the priest actually inside the church or out there with everyone? I mean, you do realize the priest is the one leading the Holy Mass, not some guy with a gun, right?

Amy Nelson4 said:Is the priest actually inside the church or out there with everyone? I mean, you do realize the priest is the one leading the Holy Mass, not some guy with a gun, right?

We aren't discussing the priest or who is leading the service. We are talking about large groups of people gathered at an inappropriate distance from one another. Why is it that in this specific instance, one set of rules applies to them, while everyone else follows different ones?...

Paul Martinez73 said:So you're just quoting the exact same thing I am? The difference is I gave you an actual attorney's interpretation while you just regurgitated the literal statute.
How are you supposed to know if there was "danger"? If a thief breaks into your house, are you going to stop and interview him first to see if he looks threatening?

Whether it’s a thief breaking into a home or a fifty-pound journalist walking into a church, the law treats them exactly the same.

I honestly don't know how you can write such absolute nonsense; it's truly pathetic...

I wonder if Hildr and the ork with all those stunts might actually prove they were right all along...

Even though nobody is disputing that yesterday's Holy Mass was a total mess and should have been handled differently under current guidelines.
The only issue is that the people attacking us for defending the right to hold Mass claim the reporter did everything perfectly. She trespassed onto private property and filmed inside the church, breaking the law just because someone else supposedly broke a rule inside. All of it just to manufacture a scandal.

When the people in power break the law, it’s fine, but when she films them, suddenly it's necessary.

Yesterday the issue was that people were indoors, which isn't the same as being outdoors, so today the problem is that they're outside but not keeping their distance.

Trying to argue with certain people is completely pointless; you'd have better luck spray-painting a wall in Wilson and trying to reason with it.

Amanda Evans2 said:Whether it’s a thief breaking into a home or a fifty-pound journalist walking into a church, the law treats them exactly the same.

I honestly don't know how you can write such absolute nonsense; it's truly pathetic...

The sheer absurdity of what you're willing to report. Apparently, the law is determined by body weight now...🤣

brightpilot6 said:Who knows? I might have even officiated at your baptism.

Back in the nineties, we were baptizing adults en masse; we practically needed a tanker truck to handle all that water.

🤣

Paul Martinez73 said:The sheer absurdity of what you're willing to report. Apparently, the law is determined by body weight now...🤣

No, that’s not how it works—it all comes down to whatever interpretation some lawyer of yours decides to cook up...

A thief breaking into your private residence and a journalist acting out in a church are fundamentally the same thing. You still haven't actually addressed my point: whether or not the property owner was the one who resorted to force... you've avoided that part entirely...

Paul Martinez73 said:I wonder if Hildr and the ork with all those stunts might actually prove they were right all along...

Even though nobody is disputing that yesterday's Holy Mass was a total mess and should have been handled differently under current guidelines.
The only issue is that the people attacking us for defending the right to hold Mass claim the reporter did everything perfectly. She trespassed onto private property and filmed inside the church, breaking the law just because someone else supposedly broke a rule inside. All of it just to manufacture a scandal.

When the people in power break the law, it’s fine, but when she films them, suddenly it's necessary.

Yesterday the issue was that people were indoors, which isn't the same as being outdoors, so today the problem is that they're outside but not keeping their distance.

Trying to argue with certain people is completely pointless; you'd have better luck spray-painting a wall in Wilson and trying to reason with it.

First of all, cut the crap.

Secondly, there are clear rules during this period that everyone is supposed to follow. Holding Holy Mass, or any other large gatherings, is prohibited. Whether indoors or outdoors. After that first incident with that rude peasant and the priest, the authorities should have simply approached the Church and said: either you deal with him, or we will (the government). If the Church doesn't handle it, next time he gets handcuffed, arrested, and jailed. That peasant is spitting on everyone following these measures and her actions are encouraging others to break the rules. Jail. Period.
Look at this gathering in front of the church this morning. A large number of people staying at an inappropriate distance. What part of that isn't clear? If it's banned in all other situations and contexts, then they have no business doing that this morning either. Intervene and disperse them. Anyone who refuses gets detained.

It's the same thing with those Romani people who should have all been dispersed. Anyone who refuses should be thrown in jail for unauthorized filming and obstructing officials in the line of duty.

The Church (in this specific case, one priest), national minorities, or anyone else has no right to act out during these emergency circumstances, and there should be no tolerance for any double standards.

It’s funny how things work, isn't it? When it comes time to snap a photo, suddenly everything is strictly private property. But the moment there's a need for restoration, it magically transforms into a cultural treasure that belongs to all of us.

Amanda Evans2 said:No, that’s not how it works—it all comes down to whatever interpretation some lawyer of yours decides to cook up...

A thief breaking into your private residence and a journalist acting out in a church are fundamentally the same thing. You still haven't actually addressed my point: whether or not the property owner was the one who resorted to force... you've avoided that part entirely...

Didn't you notice that the property defender was waving Božanić's power of attorney? Everything is perfectly clear there; Paul Martinez73's lawyer already looked into it.

Joseph Clark37 said:First of all, cut the crap.

Secondly, there are clear rules during this period that everyone is supposed to follow. Holding Holy Mass, or any other large gatherings, is prohibited. Whether indoors or outdoors. After that first incident with that rude peasant and the priest, the authorities should have simply approached the Church and said: either you deal with him, or we will (the government). If the Church doesn't handle it, next time he gets handcuffed, arrested, and jailed. That peasant is spitting on everyone following these measures and her actions are encouraging others to break the rules. Jail. Period.
Look at this gathering in front of the church this morning. A large number of people staying at an inappropriate distance. What part of that isn't clear? If it's banned in all other situations and contexts, then they have no business doing that this morning either. Intervene and disperse them. Anyone who refuses gets detained.

It's the same thing with those Romani people who should have all been dispersed. Anyone who refuses should be thrown in jail for unauthorized filming and obstructing officials in the line of duty.

The Church (in this specific case, one priest), national minorities, or anyone else has no right to act out during these emergency circumstances, and there should be no tolerance for any double standards.

🤣