ALEX WAS 15 YRS OLD & WEIGHED 37 LBS WHEN HE DIED

ALEX RADITA

News agencies have covered the case of Alex Radita, a teen whose death has led to a murder charge. Alex was 15 years of age and weighed 37 lbs when he died. His parents, Emil, and Rodica are charged with first-degree murder. Their faith life factors into the neglect. It's an awful story. 

You can read about it at the following sites but be warned, this story contains content some readers may find disturbing. Discretion is strongly advised.

CBC Calgary

Calgary Herald News

Global News Radita Trial

In view of the case history, Ray Ferris, my friend, an occasional commentator here, veteran MCFD employee, advisor to and advocate for parents has written this letter to the Editor of the Times Colonist.

EMIL & RODICA

"Mr. and Mrs. Radita are not the only ones who should be in the dock over the death of their son. From early court records, it was obvious that the mother was incapable of rational thought.  She insisted her son was not ill and all they needed to do was to pray. She tried to encourage the boy to resist the doctors when they gave him insulin shots. Because they only spoke Rumanian to each other she was difficult to supervise. She repeatedly tried to sabotage his treatment. In the face of such invincible ignorance the only thing that could guarantee the boy’s survival was permanent removal from the parents. The social workers should have known that but they tap danced around the evidence and there were repeated dangerous episodes until the inevitable happened.

37 LBS @ 15TH B-DAY PARTY, TRIES TO SMILE

    This is typical of how the child protection workers fail in their mandate. When they encounter a case with compelling evidence, they cannot make up their minds until it is too late. The next day they are removing children and keeping them in care for years based only on hearsay, presumption, and unreliable so-called expert witnesses. I would also put the director in the dock, because it is the directors who authorize all the bad decisions."

THE 6TH COMMANDMENT & THE SNIPER, DOCTOR-ASSISTED SUICIDE, DEATH PENALTY, TERRORIST KILLING & MUCH MORE

"Thou shalt not kill," does not mean what it says. The Sixth Commandment should not be one's default argument when opposing doctor-assisted suicide, euthanasia, abortion and capital punishment, or when advocating pacifism and vegetarianism. The 1611 King James Version of Exodus 20:13, which says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," is an inaccurate translation. That translation is too comprehensive for the language originally used. The term "kill" means to put to death and such a prohibition would condemn the taking of any life, human or animal. This Sixth commandment was never intended as a complete moratorium on "putting to death" or on "putting a human to death." When the Ten Commandments were first scribed in Hebrew, of two possible verbs, one was selected that best expressed the proscription against the unjustified taking of an innocent human life, which is murder. "You shall not murder." In seventeenth century England, when the KJV was translated, the words 'kill' and 'murder' were used synonymously. Since then, most translations have adjusted to the linguistic and historical reality, that the Commandment was a prohibition against murder. Appreciative of that distinction, an effective debater is compelled to deliver unambiguous, reasoned argument that this commandment against murder pertains to abortion or doctor-assisted suicide or capital punishment. I am not saying that this cannot be done, but that the use of the Sixth commandment as support must be unmistakably understood. That begs the question "What is murder?"

I have already proposed that it is the unjustified physical act of taking an innocent human life. "You shall not murder." Assess the following cases using that definition. A family must decide whether to remove a loved one from life support, knowing that the patient's body cannot survive apart from that intervention and that with the family's permission, the patient's heart will stop beating. The sniper is involved in a fire-fight and pops off enemy gunners one after another. Then in entering a local home, he confronts a family of seven, five of them children, kills them all, because they may be enemy sympathizers.  Aerial assaults by Coalition forces light up an urban target with 'collateral damage' to civilians who lie lifeless in the street. A homeowner wakes up to an intruder, seizes a heavy object and pounds the trespasser to death. A woman drinks wine at a dinner, and later drives home and loses control of her vehicle, striking and killing an elderly couple as they cross the road. It is exceptionally challenging to examine the degrees of blameworthiness, yet the terms 'unjustified' and 'innocent' inform us that we must be discerning about the nuances.  

Further, as I have stated, this Sixth commandment was not a complete moratorium on "putting a human to death." Capital punishment and military defense that takes life, is not automatically censured by this commandment. As unpalatable as it sounds, not all killing is murder. Of the two Hebrew words, transliterated as ratsakh and mut, the first, "לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃," meaning "murder" and other meaning "put to death," the first is never used in scripture with reference to war or to punishment of a murderer.  It may be appropriate to say then, not all killing is wrong. God created humankind in his own image and according to his likeness, that is, possessing certain capacities that distinguish the species from all other creatures. This speaks to the sanctity of human life. Notably, the Biblical account of creation portrays earliest humanity aware of God, at peace with God and at peace with one another for only a brief time. Within the first family, antagonism arose early and one brother's life was taken by another. When considering blameworthiness and culpability, this story demonstrates the fragility of some judgments. The offending brother was not put to death but was sent away, suggesting that the offence was not regarded as "murder," but rather as a death incurred through violence fueled by anger and jealousy and pride. God made that distinction. Similar distinction was in evidence among Hebrews when God made provision for unintentional manslayers (manslaughter), to be able to flee to cities of refuge, where they could remain alive, not pursued or arrested but far from their families, which was their punishment.

This is a comment on social justice using the scripture as the primary resource. Consequently, referring to bad behaviour as "sin," is both understandable and suitable. God saw that humanity had become sinful and evil, "lawless" one might say, so he legislated these guidelines - commandments to modify human behaviour. There are two Greek words as well (phoneuo, apokteino) that mean respectively, “murder” and “killing,” and are used in the New Testament. Since not all killing is wrong, but all murder is wrong, scripture acknowledges the right of the state (government) to take the life of the evildoer, i.e. capital punishment. Killing that is done during times of war and is done at the command of superiors is not regarded in scripture as 'murder.' Therefore, like it or not, there are exemptions for taking a human life, as long as it complies with God's law and will.

As morally exhausting as this is, when Jesus was here, his teaching aimed at revealing the true intention for life in God's kingdom. We might all agree that murder is the unjustified taking of an innocent human life, only to be floored by higher New Testament standard. Of course God condemns the observable physical act of murder, yet the entire truth is that God can look into the human heart to see something there that he regards as murder. Any thought or feeling of deep-seated hatred or malice against someone constitutes murder to God. When we contain hatred in our hearts for another person, we commit the sin of murder in God's eyes (1 John 3:13-16). The referenced section pertains to Christians who have already said they trust in Jesus and therefore their lives should give evidence of righteousness at work. It doesn't even have to be visible outwardly. God sees it.

DAY FOUR IN THE SURREY SIX MURDER CASE

Day Four, Thursday Oct 3rd, 2013 in the Surrey Six Murder trial is accounted by journalist Kim Bolan in an article entitled, 'Landlord inspected 1505 six days before the Surrey Six murders'. The suite was a rental and prosecution submits it was a stash house for a drug gang.

She writes: The owner of suite 1505 in Surrey’s Balmoral Tower testified Thursday that he kicked out a suspected drug dealer but then let the tenant’s friend and her boyfriend move in. Ceasar Tiojanco told Justice Catherine Wedge that he evicted tenant Sean Corbett in early 2007 after the building managers told him Corbett had a grow-op in another apartment. “Since the manager notified me about the involvement in illegal activity, I told him he has to move out,” Tiojanco testified on day four of the Surrey Six murder trial. “And then he introduced me to Desiree who he said is a good person and would be good to take over the tenancy and I agreed.” Six people, including innocent bystanders Ed Schellenberg and Chris Mohan, were shot to death in Tiojanco’s suite on Oct. 19, 2007."

THE SURREY SIX TRIAL - ATTENTION TO THE INNOCENTS

A CTV Image of Mohan and Schellenberg

THE SURREY SIX TRIAL

The murder trial begins today, six years after the crime. Six years is a long time to wait. It’s a long time for the families of two innocent men to wait for justice to prevail within our system of law. The case is popularized as the Surrey Six because six victims were found dead in an apartment suite. Four of the victims, Edward Narong, 22, Corey Lal, 21, his brother Michael Lal, 26, and Ryan Bartolomeo, 19 were the intended targets in a drug related turf war. Christopher Mohan was 22-year-old student who lived nearby and 55 year old Ed Shellenberg was doing routine furnace work in the building. They were in the wrong place when evil went down.