OT A Sad Day For Tampa Bay

OceanGoingGal wrote:The other is in critical condition in Tampa General Hospital not doing well.
Laura

Tielman wrote:

OceanGoingGal wrote:The other is in critical condition in Tampa General Hospital not doing well.
Laura

According to the news, he has died and his relatives are proceeding with Organ donation. Hopefully something good (organ donation) can come from this tragedy.

Rustyolddude wrote:Both officers had family, the first officers wife was 9 months pregnant and gave birth shortly after he was killed. I can't begin to imagine the emotional burden she is under.

The perp is a repeat offender, passing thru the revolving door of justice allegedly having been arrested 42 times, put on probation at least 10 times and violated said probation numerous times.

I can only hope he meets the same fate as cop killer Angilo Freeland: When Polk county Sheriff Grady Judd was questioned about the number of shots fired at Freeland (68 bullets striking Freeland) he said "I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."

OceanGoingGal wrote:


I live in polk County. In the short amount of time I have been here I have come to admire Sheriff Grady Judd. He is dedicated to keeping the people of Polk County safe. Here is another quote from Sheriff Judd that made the news after the killing of an officer and his K9 companion Diogi
POLK COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF GRADY JUDD

An illegal alien in Polk County Florida who got pulled over in a routine
Traffic stop ended up ‘executing’ the deputy who stopped him.
The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at
Close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.
A state wide manhunt ensued.
The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun..
After he shot at them, SWAT team officers open fired and hit the guy 68 times.

Now here’s the kicker.
Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they shot the
Poor undocumented immigrant 68 times.
Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel:

‘Because that’s all the ammunition we had.’



Laura

sleepycarol wrote:
I know I will get flamed over this but ----- an eye for an eye.

In ancient Palestine, offenses against one's honor were met with an escalating response. If someone stole one of your sheep, the manly thing to do was to go and kill five of his cows. If some careless bozo trampled a row of your corn with his ox-cart, you might go and set fire to his field. In other words, "teach 'em a lesson."

The eye-for-an-eye ethic put a lid on this escalating violence, insisting that punishment or restitution be proportional to the actual, demonstrable harm done, and that it not be determined by the rage of the party offended. For example, Leviticus 24:18 says, "And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast." The eye-for-an-eye principle placed rational limits on retribution and punishment -- a true step of moral progress.

Now suppose a government enacts a law: "stealing a silver spoon shall be punished by 10 years in prison." You may recall from your grade-school history lessons that, in colonial America, this crime was punishable by death. The Judaeo-Christian tradition condemns such laws: its severity exceeds the "eye-for-an-eye" guideline. A silver spoon is simply not worth 10 years of any person's life. To enact such a law is to break a higher law that demands fairness and respect for human life.

GETTING PRACTICAL
But what about deterrence? Does the Judaeo-Christian tradition allow governments to threaten harshness in order to prevent crime? In a limited sense, yes. Deuteronomy 19, another of the "eye for an eye" passages in Scripture, says, "And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you." Governments may inspire fear by verbal threats of harshness; however, the actual punishment delivered to any individual must still abide by the "eye for an eye" limit.

The "eye for an eye" principle forbids us from visiting excessive severity upon an individual in order to `send a message' to the larger society. Primitive societies administered such symbolic punishments freely. The Romans "made examples" of criminals to deter crime -- hence their use of public crucifixion. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, however, takes the flesh-and-blood individual very, very seriously. Whenever a society treats a living person as an abstract symbol or as the embodiment of some larger generalized evil, Christianity cries foul.

What about the notion that `crime should not pay?' If a thief is caught stealing $100, shouldn't he do more than simply pay it back? Thievery presents no risk if there are no further consequences. The Scriptures affirm that crime should not pay and that recompense for malicious harm must not merely be on a one-for-one basis. (There's no contradiction here: the precise one-for-one payback of the "eye-for-en-eye" principle applies to personal duels and to non-malicious property damage.) Indeed, when Zaccheus came to Jesus in repentance, he promised to pay back those he had cheated by a ratio of 4-to-1; and Jesus clearly approved (Luke 19:8, 9).