He needed killing

Agreed.

Do I ever wish I could hug my children right now.

Did this really need posting? You didn't take a controversial stand, and you just made me sick.

Tag this under "Rod Abuses Blogging Privelege."

I live in Modesto. We have a tremendous problem with methamphetamine here and I bet the tests will show that this man was yet another user of this particularly hideous drug. His actions sound like meth rage.

Meth labs are big business here. Producers rent a rural home or move a mobile home onto agricultural property and make meth. When they're finished, they quietly leave, after dumping the very toxic by-products onto the soil. The owner of the land is required to pay for the cleanup and that's a big financial hit for a farmer.

Living in or near a meth lab means being exposed to very high levels of extremely toxic stuff and whenever there's a bust, usually several children are found living in the lab. It's not unheard of that everyone living in the lab dies when the place explodes during the making of meth.

Today I'm ashamed to call this place my home.

How long before someone suggests that a conceal-carry law would have prevented this senseless crime?

Yes. Well. I keep a loaded gun in my car, in defiance of California law.

So take it out and shoot the guy. You don't have a loaded gun in your car? Get one. (Please go to the range and learn how to handle it.)

It's a culture of death, no matter how you look at it.

Evil does exist. And there may have been demons, but if so, they were in that man.

Unjust killing (murder) is against God's law. Killing in self-defence or to protect a an innocent victim of violence is not. Simple as that.

What those police officers did was entirely justified. No ifs, ands or buts about it. What happened was a tragedy, to be sure, but it had to be done.

I just wish they'd gotten there a little bit sooner.

"Lord God in Heaven, take that little boy back to Your side. And bless the officers and bystanders who tried to protect that little boy. They're going to need all the help they can get when they try to deal with this. Please, Lord, lend them Your strength and let them know of Your comfort."

I'm going to go hug my kids now.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Needed killing? Congratulations? Is this how a Christian writes this story?

Any murder of a child is a profoundly grievous event, but the child is not brought back by killing the insane man who killed him. I would have shot the father myself. I just would profoundly regret taking even a murderer's life.

You wrote a couple years ago that your own pursuit of justice allowed you to turn wrath into an idol. Please remember what you understood when you wrote those words.

Not sure. Luckily, new meth use is slowly going down. I think that humanity has finally found a drug so bad, that makes you (shallow, I suppose, but whatever it takes) /look/ so bad, so quick, that even the most shortsighted, thrillseeking teen is starting to think twice before trying it.

Still around, of course, and mostly too late for those already on it.

The man DID NOT "need killing." He needed to be stopped and, unfortunately, killing is what it took to do that.

It might sound like semantics, but it's not. It's the difference between what's left of our civilization and giving ourselves over to barbarism.

-- The Mighty Favog

Rod blogs on a story about some evil SOB who stomps and kicks a toddler to death, and what are the most insightful comments?
-- "...you [Rod] just made me sick."
-- "...hardly a Christian sentiment."
-- "Is this how a Christian writes this story?"

It is hard to fathom how Rod, rather than the man who stomps a child to death, becomes the focus of rebuke here. But it is all too frequent on this blog site.

Recognizing, pointing out, rueing and denouncing evil is an even greater evil. It is vital that the condemnation of any sin, anywhere, anytime, of any type, be condemned in turn. For "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Are you virginal white, Rod? Are you stainless? Have you ever committed a sin? Are you infallible? If not, then just who in the "H" do you think you are criticizing someone who booted a child to death? Shut the "F" up you hypocritical SOB!

My sympathies Rod. You probably have the most morally barren commentariat on the web.
---------
P.S. For those compromised in moral logic, my above use of the phrase "evil SOB" is not worse than kicking a child to death.

Vengence belongs to God; but protecting the common good belongs to us all.

Try as I might, I can't find anything to celebrate in this story. It's a tragedy. If only the police had managed to kill the man before he stomped his toddler to death -- then there would be some good out of this tragic tale. As it is, I can find nothing good about this event.

Come on, Rob. The man was a sinner, just like you, just like me. The fact that his sin was "meth" and yours is "porn" or "envy" or "pride" does not make him deserving of death and you righteous. Yep, stomping a child is plain evil, but so is all sin, from the eyes of God.

Try again.

"Yep, stomping a child is plain evil, but so is all sin, from the eyes of God."

Come on is right.

Sin kills the soul of the sinner.

This guy was killing (and killed) a child.

He may very well have deserved to die.

Peter Singer of Princeton has argued that one should be allowed to kill newborns with impunity.

What I dont get is that rod and many of his readers believe that there are many interactions people have with the angelic or the demonic.
How is he so sure that there wasnt "demons in the boy"?

How many here believe that holding an excorcism for a child is ok, even though some have ended in death?

white lie=outright lie=stealing=assault=murder= BS

Never cared for "a sin is a sin is a sin" the impact and consequence of each is far different.

This is an excellent example of the Texan maxim "Some people need killin'. This guy certainly did, and most certainly was

Katherine,

It may have been through an overheated since of religiosity on the part of the baby killer. He was quoted as asking the first responder for a knife because the baby had "demons" in him, which is a religious concept and the impetus for some of Texas' most notorious child killings.

Crazy folk can warp and twist quicker than lightning.

Black Belt?

Wow Sig, you're HOT!

(Oops! Did I say that out loud?)

I think I know you well enough by now, Irenaeus, to recognize when you are being hyperbolic, so in the same tone and spirit: gee, slander much, or only when you want to paint millions of people with the same brush?

And apparantly, Iraneus, being pro-life means your concern ends upon birth or when it involves actual human beings.

i am told in the movie the passion of the christ that satan's minions were little children. is this true? is it suggesting that demons come to inhabit the weak or those with a weakness (addiction, depression, etc.)? what does the disturbed man have to do with abortion? i don't understand.

Trick question? I thought it was a direct question, followed by your direct (if somewhat...loquacious) response.

As far as Daniel's remark goes...

To say that libs are pro-choice and anti-death penalty is opinion, and one probably not far off the mark generally speaking.

To say that pro-life (anti-abortion) advocates hate (or don't love and care for) children lucky enough to be born is libel.

Not very good libel. Really kind of lame (and hackneyed) to tell the truth. But libelous nonetheless, imo.

I'm a lib in the room who's anti-abortion AND anti-death-penalty.

It jusr seems to me -- even apart from any religious convictions I have on those matters -- than any "solution" to a problem that leaves someone dead isn't much of a solution at all.

In the case of abortion, there are possible solutions where no one has to die. The expectant mother can be assisted by government programs and by churches, crisis-pregnancy centers and other private initiatives. If she chooses to keep her child, there are programs to assist her in that as well -- though not enough.

And I know this is a radical concept, but the father also could, like, step up, be a man and take 50 percent responsibility in supporting and raising that child.

Then, there always is the option of adoption. Back in the "bad old days," we somehow recognized that option, and there was an entire infrastructure -- usually private -- for caring for young women in a tough spot who were willing to agree to adoption.

Sometimes, there isn't a solution that leaves no one dead . . . like in the case of "just war" (which Iraq ain't). That would be called an unavoidable tragedy, if not a catastrophe.

Likewise, in the case of the California maniac, it looks like the only way to stop the madman (albeit too late) was for the cops to take him out. No one ought to rejoice in that, or to say he "needed" killing.

Obviously, what he "needed" was help. He didn't get it. He killed his kid, and the cops had to end the threat in whatever way they could. It was a lose-lose situation.

But the minute we start thinking that someone "needed killing" in order for some greater good to occur -- that killing is a necessity, a good thing in itself, instead of a profound FAILURE of some sort -- we surrender yet another part of our soul to the barbarian within. And we surrender yet another piece of our incredibly fragile society to the barbarians at the gate.

Who would be us.

It is insufficient to be against the death penalty only because we might screw up in X number of convictions. We must be against the death penalty in all but the most extreme and desperate circumstances -- as in, that's the only reasonable and possible way to remove the threat of the evildoer . . . circumstances that are exceedingly rare, indeed -- because the life of even the worst murderer has worth and possesses some inherent dignity.

And when we violate that dignity, we violate our own and coarsen our society just that much more.

I will be the first to admit that there are some evil, violent SOBs who I think "deserve" killing in the worst way. That's emotion talking. Not only that, telling me to kill is the part of myself that has a hell of a lot in common with the evil SOB I so hate.

Giving in to that -- deciding that, yes, some people "need killing" -- is no virtue. It's a horrible vice.

-- The Mighty Favog

"Is there anyone here who would honestly say, "There but for the grace of God go I?""
I would say it. Sure.
Posted by: Max Schadenfreude | June 16, 2008 4:30 PM

Seriously? As in the grace of God is what keeps you from stomping babies to death?

If this had happened in Texas, someone owning a concealed weapon would have come along, aimed at the father, and shot the child.

If this had happened in Texas, someone owning a concealed weapon would have come along, aimed at the father, and shot the child.
Posted by: Rob | June 16, 2008 10:09 PM

I think we're better shots than that.

Posted by: Zoetius | June 16, 2008 10:20 PM

Okay, so the 'There but for the grace of God go I' is false humility, or what? Because I've never particularly understood what was meant by that.

Not long ago I witnessed a scene of child beating by the walls of an Orthodox Church. A very fidgeted boy and his father were standing near the road, suddenly the boy decided to run to the other side and almost got under car, it was a miracle that he didn't. It made such an impression on his father that he rushed to the boy and started to beat him like a football. Can you imagine a big man with all his strength kicking an 8 years old boy like mad. It was a shocking picture, i thought he would kill him. A minute later they both were crying and embracing each other, they stood embraced and motionless for a very long time.
It seems the boy was ok, because he stopped sobbing and even smiled. This isn't normal of course and I wonder if anyone was with a gun was near had he a moral right to shoot father?

"Okay, so the 'There but for the grace of God go I' is false humility, or what? Because I've never particularly understood what was meant by that."

I'd say that it means that all of us have the potential for that kind of evil within us, and that it is only grace which prevents us from becoming so. This assumes that we must cooperate with God's grace for it to have this effect. It also assumes that we look at ourselves honestly. As one of the ascetic fathers said, a greater miracle than raising the dead is a man seeing himself as he really is.

This is the 63rd posting at the bottom of the heap. So I'm pretty sure that if you actually read this. But Rod if you read this, I want to tell you that I can't believe that you and the other posters all missed the most important subtext of this tragic story. And that is the tragedy of the untreated mentally ill. Perhaps that deranged man was high on meth. But perhaps he was merely deranged. Anyone who claims that demons possessing child has been captured by something that he or she cannot control. And in those kinds of people live on our streets every day and our society has made the implicit decision that they are not worthy of support or treatment.

If that man was seriously mentally ill, his aberrant manifestations would have been apparent to others a long time ago. But probably nobody invested the time or effort to get him into treatment or there were not sufficient resources available to have him treated. So because our society devalues the mentally ill to a level in which they are driven to the streets, we have one dear little child dead and one dead crazy guy.

And to all of the gun nuts out there, yes it's a lot easier to carry a concealed weapon and shoot a crazed person than it is to contribute to his welfare. So about the homeless mentally ill in our cities, yeah shoot them all and let God sort them out.

SteveM, good point - to admit the possibility that this tragedy was the result of mental illness would be to admit the possibility that we ourselves could do something like this.

Safer for our individual self images to believe that the man was 'evil' or a crazed drug addict.

And if, as in a news story on ABC yesterday ("Disposable Heroes"), you're a "mentally unstable veteran (former snipers for the Army in Iraq, no less) recruited for a questionable drug trial" by the VA for a drug linked to violent psychotic behavior and suicide, do you still "deserve" to be shot? Or is it a matter of protecting the innocent?

And, in that theoretical, Rod, who deserves to be killed?

If memory serves, didn't Orwell base his appeal to transcendent morality on this very thing -- kicking a baby in the stomach? Why is it wrong to kick a baby in the stomach? If after all the arguments back and forth and the seemingly infinite regression thereof you answer, "It just is," you've admitted at least one example of a transcendent moral law.

**Malachi Martin's Hostage to the Devil suggests that there is an external force and source of evil such that it's not simply that "all of us have the potential for that kind of evil within us," if by "within us" is meant that the potential for such evil truly and really resides in each and every person's life/soul/human nature, as opposed to each of us having the potential for that external force/source to come "within us" and make us evil and do evil.**

This is true as far as it goes, but I don't think one can draw a definite line between where strictly human evil leaves off and demonic evil begins, as I doubt that line is in the same place for everyone.

"Seriously? As in the grace of God is what keeps you from stomping babies to death?"

No John. Rather by the Grace of God I haven't lost my mind, by drugs or disease, such that I would become a homicidal maniac.

There's something seemingly random about mental illness. I've suffered from depression. The good news there? Becoming a homicidal maniac would have required me to get out of bed, and THAT just wasn't going to happen! ;-)

If there's one thing we can rest assured of, it is that this man was a homicidal maniac.

Sorry, Max. We are sure of nothing, and will remain in speculation mode since the man is dead. The reported comments of witnesses described a man bent on a task that could have started in many ways, none of which require him to be mentally ill, enraged or even hating the child. One hopes that people who knew him, and witnessed his behaviors that might have led to the beating, will step forward, but that will only narrow the scope of our speculation. We can rest assured of nothing.

Rob, what's the purpose of a human/demonic evil distinction, if not to absolve a human of an evil act because its source was demonic? Either a human is fully accountable for actions that cannot be explained by uncontrolable sources (physical causes of dementia like body chemistry or tumors), or we reinstitute religious courts whose purpose is to prove supernatural intervention.

Max, I get and respect your POV. I regret any implied contradiction there.

The examples don't need to be torn apart (folk wisdom is valid, if difficult to refine to its valid sources), but the principle behind them does. It is the crux of my challenge to the usage, and my quite sincere suggestion that religious courts would have to be established. Imagine a world where superficial evidence was all that was needed to blame a thing on demonic intervention. Psychology would be replaced by demonology, cognitive and chemical therapies by exorcism.

I suspect you and I would both not hesitate to stop a child from being killed, nor would we use restraint if it proved ineffective. Our difference is in thought, not intended deed. I'm quite content with that. :-)

And to all of the gun nuts out there, yes it's a lot easier to carry a concealed weapon and shoot a crazed person than it is to contribute to his welfare.

I can't very well contribute to his welfare while he's beating a baby to death. If saying that if I had been there I would have shot him makes me a "gun nut," well, I guess it does.

I don't have to carry it concealed, by the way. I'm perfectly willing to carry it in the open.

Something went terribly wrong in this man's life. We don't yet know what it was, and we may never know. I'm not responsible for all that stuff. But if I had showed up on the scene I might have been able to minimize the harm by saving the baby. Wish I'd been there, early on.

My publisher and I had a long conversation on this incident today. He's the son of Holocaust survivors who beat him, and I come a background where family members have killed each other. My only brother killed our Dad on Christmas two years ago, and was no-billed by the grand jury and demanded an extra share of the estate.

Try wrapping your mind around that one if it ever happens to you.

My publisher and I both have noticed that people who grow up in conditions of craziness like those we grew up in tend to go in one of three directions. They get as far away from it as they can as soon as they can and eventually (usually) find themselves free. Or they develop facades and personalities and quirks that allow them to function most of the time although there can be those occasional outbursts of rage, provoked or unprovoked. And when that third option doesn't work for them, when they get "called" on their disassociative personalities or hypocrisies or secret vices or when the "jig is up" on them in some way, explosive violence ensues.

This isn't a slick theory. It's just how one other person and I try to understand our own experiences in our own families. Neither of us has a feeling of "there but for the grace go I," but both of us believe that a commitment to kindness, hesed in his case, Christian charity in mine, without expectation of much in return, helps us stay integrated.

Now, if your mama beat you with the mazuzzah, that doesn't mean you have a right to smack your kid with the matzo grill. There is never, ever the right to do to that kid what the father did here. But if you really want to stop this kind of event, it isn't necessary to be a psychotherapist.

Just be kind.

Not squishy-headed bleeding heart, kind. Don't push some damaged adult who only knows how to damage some innocent.

Shoot him if he's beating his child to death, maybe, but on a day to day level, if you are dealing with--and I have the impression the conservative, the rules are made for me mindset tends to be associated with the psychopathic multiple murderer or the parent who kills a child or child who kills a parent, but that isn't a statement about conservatism--if you're dealing with someone whose defenses are breaking down, don't destroy that person completely. Don't be spiteful. Don't be mean. Don't put in the emotional dagger and twist. Don't be the one who pushes the madman over the edge. The life you save may be some baby you never know.

There's so much referencing to God and Christianity here about this tragedy. It is a tragedy from any perspective. One has to wonder how many of the righteous would have reacted to the slaughter of innocents because of God's command in Numbers 31?

Rod states that this sick man deserved killing. Yet he subscribes to life at conception because of his Christian faith. His Christian faith says God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That God killed David and Bathseba's baby for the sins of the parents.

The Christian God through Moses ordered the slaughter of thousands of women and babies who were prisoners of war. The only ones not slaughtered were virgins and those were divided amongst the soldiers and priests to do what they wanted with them.

Think about Numbers 31. Consider thousands of women and children prisoners of war huddled together, thousands and thousands according to the Bible. Imagine the soldiers ordered to slaughter all but the virgins. Keep in mind this wasn't a situation of pulling the soldiers back and then calling the bombers. This was knives and spears one on one looking them in the eye butchery.

The concept of virginity puts a special kink in it I think. Who decided that thirteen year old girl was still a virgin and how?

One man stomping a baby and Rod gets righteous. What would have been his reaction to God in Numbers 31?

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

To put things into perspective consider this.

35And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

Thirty two thousand virgins spared death to become the property of soldiers and priests. If the virgin girls were half of the children then we can do a little math and suppose Rod's God made His men of God slaughter sixty to ninety thousand innocents?

harvey lacey:

God has His good days and His bad days, too.