An Invitation to a National Conversation on When Civilians Should Impede Police Activity: Can Corrie ten Boom Lead Us to a Consensus?

At first glance, the scenario of civilians impeding police activity seems to be just another insurmountable division in our deeply polarized country. Take for example the shooting death of Renee Good in Minneapolis by an ICE official last week. The sides were clearly defined almost immediately. On the one side was the Administration and on the other side the protesters. Kristi Noem, head of the Department of Homeland Security, assuming the innocence of the ICE agent, declared that he fired the shots in self defense and accused Ms. Good of trying to run over the official with her car. Later, Vice President Vance clearly summarized the Administration’s position. “You have a woman who was trying to obstruct a legitimate law enforcement operation. Nobody debates that. You have a woman who aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator. Nobody debates that. I can believe that her death is a tragedy, while also believing it is a tragedy of her own making, and a tragedy of the far left who has marshaled an entire movement, a lunatic fringe, against our law enforcement officers.”

Many on the other side of the debate reach a totally different conclusion. They argue that the videos show that the ICE agent’s life was not at risk and the woman was not trying to ram her vehicle into him, based on the positioning of the tires. Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz argued against pre-judging the shooting and the need for “a thorough investigation… that will take all factors in, and it will come up with a fair and just conclusion. And we will accept that.”

Over the past few days, the stakes have heightened. Usually in cases where a civilian is killed by a police officer, the Department of Justice conducts a thorough investigation regarding the shooting. Nevertheless, the DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Bianchi issued a statement that the Department of Justice will not be investigating the shooting. To the contrary, the DOJ will be investigating the contacts of the deceased victim. Several senior prosecutors of the DOJ have resigned to protest what is, from their perspective, a total lack of justice!. The heart of this issue is the question whether there are situations that merit actions by civilians that impede police activity. Although in the Minneapolis shooting the answers that are given lie along ideological lines, history shows us a more complicated perspective. At times conservatives have defended civilian interference (examples of pro-lifers who block entrance to abortion clinics). On other occasions it has been more progressive folk who have implemented such interference (MLK pacific marches and sit-ins in the South).

Fifty years ago, the film The Hiding Place had quite an impact on conservatives in the United States. It tells the true story of Corrie ten Boom and her family that hid persecuted Jews from Nazi soldiers and police in German controlled Holland during WWII. The film was produced by World Wide Pictures, a ministry of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The ten Boom family, motivated by their love for the vulnerable, most definitely impeded the police activity of their day. They lied to the police officials. The family remodeled their home to create a “hiding place” where the Jews could take refuge. They developed a system of signals in order to alert the refugees when the Nazi police were nearby. They provided for the needs of the Jews with food, clothes and passage to areas that were safer. In the beginning the ten Booms were not aware of the cruel death that awaited Jews in the gas chambers. They just knew that innocent people were being detained for the crime of “being Jewish”. In the United States, most conservatives, especially evangelicals, defended the actions of the ten Boom family and other thousands in Nazi controlled Europe who were trying to impede the immoral activity of the police and military.

The story of “The Hiding Place” has many similarities with our situation today regarding the protests against ICE officials. Many protesters acknowledge a legitimate role for ICE but they accuse many current ICE agents of going far beyond what is legal. The fact that over 70% of ICE detainees have no criminal record shows that ICE is not prioritizing deporting “the worst of the worst”. There are hundreds of cases where US citizens or foreigners with legal status have been apprehended and/or deported. Before searching a person’s residence, ICE must have the name of a specific criminal and must obtain a judge authorized search warrant, but on hundreds of occasions, they have not done so. Protesters believe they are acting morally when they distribute information about the rights of all people in the United States or when they alert their neighbors regarding the presence of ICE agents in their communities. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans believe the presence of ICE agent has made their cities less safe.

The Holy Scriptures describe and praise many individuals who impeded police activity when it was immoral. Hebrew midwives defended human life by practicing civil disobedience. “The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live.” (Exodus 1:17) Rahab was praised and her life was spared because she provided a hiding place for Joshua’s men. (Joshua 6) The “Wise Men” heeded a vision from God and they disobeyed King Herod’s command. (Matthew 2) Although believers in Scripture are urged to respect human authorities, there are times when these authorities are in conflict with God’s will. The apostolic teaching in these situations is clear, “We must obey God rather than human beings”. (Acts 5:29)

We need a national conversation about when the impeding of police activity is warranted and necessary. May grace and truth guide that discussion!

My Dear Brother Johnson, Thou Shalt Not Lie about the “No Kings” Protests Tomorrow

You, (and I) claim to follow Jesus as our Lord. We should, therefore, live according to his teachings. We should speak the truth in love. We should love our neighbors and seek their wellbeing. If we are mistaken in thoughts or deeds, we should be open to correction, especially from our spiritual siblings.

You have made many assertions about the upcoming protests and I believe your affirmations are dead wrong. You say these peaceful protesters “hate America”. You have called them “terrorists”. You are called by God to be a peacemaker, yet you have stoked the flames of anger. You have not offered a shred of evidence for your accusations. Of course, I cannot know what is in the heart of every protester (neither can you). Nevertheless, the act of peacefully criticizing one’s political leaders does not mean hatred for your country. Quite the contrary! You and I should be able to agree that the Biblical prophets, John the Baptist, and even Jesus himself loved their neighbors and their enemies even as they denounced the sins of political leaders of their days. Criticism that is “constructive” must be accurate and provided to bring about repentance and growth. This kind of constructive criticism is genuine patriotism, not the “cheap patriotism” that is adulation and bowing down to a president. Peaceful protest is an appropriate application of the First Amendment.

I respectfully submit for your consideration some of your actions that I consider to be immoral and likely illegal.

I (and most of the protesters) think you are practicing hypocrisy. You say you cannot swear in Adelita Grijalva who was elected to her seat in a special election in Arizona because the House of Representatives is not “in session”. Nevertheless, earlier this year you swore in two Republicans who were elected in special elections in Florida when the House was not in session. There is no nice way to say this: you are a hypocrite. It seems that the real reason for not swearing her in is that you don’t want Grijalva’s vote to force the Epstein files to be made public. The names and identities of the sex traffickers and pedophiles should be made known to the public. Which side are you on?
According to our Constitution, the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive branches are co-equal and are to be checks and balances on each other. But you have allowed the president to roll over congressional responsibilities. Here are two examples.
You have allowed the president to overturn funding that had already been approved by Congress (USAID, New York’s transportation projects) without even raising a whimper.
According to our Constitution, wars are declared by Congress. Nevertheless, Trump is carrying out war actions against Venezuela, and he has not even met with Congress’ “Gang of Eight” to let them know or to get their approval.
You label protesters as “terrorists”. The first “no kings” protests earlier this year were overwhelmingly peaceful. What evidence do you have that show that these protesters are terrorists? Would you admit that some of their criticisms are valid?
You sent the House of Representatives home for vacations a week early and you have kept them “on break” for additional weeks (even though the Senate is “in session”). It sure seems you have no interest in finding a mutually agreed upon solution to the government shutdown. You have demanded that Democrats approve the Continuing Resolution so that you can have “more time” to negotiate the ACA extensions past the end of the year “sunset”. You have known for months that you needed 60 senators to approve the resolution. Why should citizens believe that you would use a time extension and act in good faith?

Speaker Johnson, as the Scriptures say, “Thou shalt not lie” and “Repent and find forgiveness.”

Is Trump’s Deployment of the National Guard Illegal? Read His Own Words

We are in the midst of a heated, although necessary, national debate regarding the freedom of speech and assembly in our country. Five days ago, thousands of Americans protested the ICE raids in Los Angeles, California and neighboring cities. Although largely peaceful, there were some acts of violence, and arrests were made. The LAPD, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and California Governor Gavin Newsom all affirmed that the situation was under control. Nevertheless, President Trump called up and deployed 2000 members of the National Guard to Los Angeles. On Sunday, Governor Newsom requested the president to withdraw this deployment because the presence of federal troops was counterproductive and increased the unrest. The president refused to do so. In fact, yesterday he deployed an additional 2000 National Guardsmen plus 700 Marines. Our national debate involves the legality of the right to assemble and to express dissent plus the calling up of the National Guard (and Marines).

The First Amendment to the Constitution is quite clear regarding the freedoms of speech and assembly. It affirms “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Of course, if a gathering of people turns violent, the police are responsible for restoring order.

During his first term in office, Trump faced similar circumstances in which people protested the killing of George Floyd. In an ABC News town hall on September 15, 2020, President Trump was asked how he would restore law and order to our nation. Trump’s answer was quite clear. “Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws. We can’t move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection but there’s no reason to ever do that, even in the Portland (Oregon) case. We can’t call in the National Guard unless we’re requested by a governor.” (Trump’s political and military advisors had told him not to break the law, especially in light of the need to first obtain a governor’s request for deployment. In addition, the National Guard, by law, cannot make arrests.)

In the current debate, according to his own words, Trump is breaking the law.

—————

Update as of June 13 according to th New York Times:

A federal judge issued an order late Thursday blocking President Trump from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles, and ordered the administration to return control of the forces to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The administration quickly filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which temporarily stopped the ruling from taking effect while it considers the case.

The restraining order from District Judge Charles R. Breyer, which would have taken effect Friday at noon Pacific time, delivered a sharp rebuke to President Trump’s effort to deploy thousands of troops on the streets of an American city, a move that has contributed to nearly a week of political rancor and protests across the country.

“His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Judge Breyer wrote of Mr. Trump’s orders.