Man tells Dallas Police he stabbed woman to death because she said she was HIV-positive after sex

By Robert Wilonsky
[email protected]
4:38 pm on September 7, 2012 | Permalink

Larry Dunn (Dallas County Sheriff’s Department)

“She killed me so I killed her.”

According to a Dallas Police arrest affidavit, that is the reason 36-year-old Larry Dunn offered detectives for stabbing to death Cicely Bolden, who, as we noted this morning, was found Thursday afternoon in her southeast Oak Cliff apartment by her children returning home from school.

Police say the 28-year-old Bolden was found at 3:38 yesterday, undressed from the waist down and stabbed repeatedly in her neck. Officers called to the scene spoke to family and friends, who told them she’d been dating a man named Larry. And, they told officers: Bolden and Larry may have had a “heated disagreement” over the fact Bolden had tested HIV-positive.

Detectives found Dunn, who, police say, agreed to come down to DPD headquarters. Detectives read him his Miranda rights. He said he understood “and was willing to talk about the case,” says the affidavit; which he did, for a camera and microphone. And this, according to the affidavit, is what he said.

He told detectives he’d gone to the apartment to have sex with Bolden, and that after they’d finished she told him she was HIV-positive — and “that it is not that bad.” Bolden told detectives he was “upset” she hadn’t mentioned this before they’d had sex. So, according to the affidavit, “he got up out of bed and walked to the kitchen and got a knife,” and began stabbing her — twice, he told detectives. She put up a brief struggle. Then, she fell to the floor, dead.

“She killed me,” Dunn said, “so I killed her.”

Dunn told detectives he left, and that he burned his clothes. He said he tossed the knife in the dumpster of a Waffle House in Irving, which Dallas Police say they eventually recovered.

Concludes the affidavit: “Suspect Dunn’s statement is consistent with the crime scene.”

Does God know every future event in human history?

Subtitle: Is God in Control?

Is God in Control of Everything That Happens?

Q: Where does it say (teach) in the Bible that God is in absolute control of everything that happens in the world (universe)? What about free will and why should we pray if God is completely in control of every future event?

That is an excellent question, and one that has been debated through the centuries, although perhaps not enough. For us, this is not a “deal breaker,” that is, something we consider non-negotiable in terms of having to agree on it with someone before we can work together with him. Our desire is to know the truth, because if we know it and tell it and live it, we can glorify the God of truth. If you see it differently, no problem. We would ask only that you consider our point of view.

As usual, this relatively brief FAQ is not designed to answer it in depth, but to broach the subject in a way that we hope will cause you to think outside the scope of your previous belief. As always, what Jesus said in John 8:32 is most relevant: knowing the truth will make you free, and conversely, believing error will adversely affect the quality of your life.

The basic belief of most Christians is that God is outside of time, and therefore, once upon a time (biblically, “in the beginning”), before the world began, He saw the future as a present reality, including every single detail of human history, even the socks you are now wearing, or the fact that you would not be wearing any. If that is true, is there any other way your footwear today could have turned out, and did you really have genuine freedom of will in making the sartorial choice you did?

Honest and accurate research will show that the origin of this idea is not biblical, but Hellenistic and Platonic, and I will refer you to two books that go into detail about that. God most certainly does have foreknowledge, but Scripture does not support what we will herein refer to as “absolute foreknowledge,” and the ramifications of this spurious doctrine are far-reaching, and very difficult to reconcile in the human heart. Indeed, this issue most definitely pertains to the quality of one’s life.

Perhaps the thorniest issue to reconcile is that of evil, and the resulting suffering of mankind, the horror and magnitude of which words cannot describe. If God knew that the angel Lucifer would rebel against Him and later, as Satan, wreak havoc upon mankind such as we see all around us (and in our own lives) daily, but still went ahead and created him, how can that not hinder our love for and trust in Him? If God knew that Adam and Eve would disobey Him and bring disaster upon the human race, but still created them anyway, how can He be all good, as He claims to be? And how can we fearlessly put our lives into His hands?

Some sincere and well-meaning Christians would tell us that we must trust that God’s “ways are higher than our ways” (a verse usually taken grossly out of its context in Isaiah 55:7-11); that “all things work together for good” (a very poor KJV translation of Romans 8:28—the NIV is accurate and thus far more satisfying in terms of reality); that we must “take it on faith,” etc. Whoa—take what on faith? Biblically, “faith” is trust in an understandable promise.

Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

The Word of God has “everything we need for life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3), and His words make sense. On the contrary, superstition (“an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear”) calls for one to believe nonsense. At the bottom line, what is at stake in regard to this issue is whether or not God is love, and lovable.

Once upon a time (biblically: “in the beginning”), when God was all by Himself, He sovereignly chose to relate to mankind as His Word subsequently declares He does, that is, in a “linear” relationship, experiencing time passing with us. His perspective is definitely far beyond our own (“With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day”— 2 Pet. 3:8), that is, He sees the big picture that we as temporal beings cannot, but He makes it clear that He relates to us according to how we see time.

We can understand that from statements such as what He said to Abraham in Genesis 22:12, “Now I know that you fear God.…” If words have meanings, up until that moment God did not absolutely know what Abraham, a free will being, would choose to do. If a person has genuine free will, then his choices cannot be absolutely known in advance of his decisions to make those choices, even by God—unless, of course, He says differently in His Word, which He does not.

Did God have a pretty good idea of what Abraham would do? Certainly. Couldn’t a good parent fairly accurately predict what his child would do in a given situation? Multiply that probability as much as God is bigger than we are, and you can begin to see how He can be so accurate in His predictions.

No doubt you agree that God knows everything that can be known. The question is whether or not He can absolutely know the future. Consider this: God knows every detail of the past and every detail of the present, including the thoughts, words, and deeds of every human being, and of Satan and his evil spirit minions. That knowledge, combined with His knowledge of His own will and His own ability, make Him able to predict the future with amazing accuracy. However, when it comes to biblical prophecy, we must distinguish between what is conditional and what is unconditional. God cannot lie, and when He makes an unconditional statement about what will happen in the future, He does so knowing that He has the wherewithal to bring it to pass without overstepping the free will of any human being (which is also something that, by His nature, God cannot do). [For further study read “The Conditional Nature of Prophecy.”]

When they first hear that God does not have absolute foreknowledge, many people jump to the conclusion that this idea makes Him look smaller and less capable. Hopefully their “hang time” on that jump is minimal, because the truth is that it makes Him look much bigger and far more impressive.

Think about it. Who would be more capable and worthy of recognition, a football coach who somehow knew ahead of time each play the opposition would run, or the coach who knew the game and his own plays and the opposing team so well that he could skillfully adjust to whatever came at him, and come out victorious? Obviously, the latter. Ditto for God.

Bobby Fischer was once the world’s greatest chess player. Suppose you sat down to play him in his prime? Any doubt of the outcome? Would Bobby need to know what your moves were before you did? Nope. Why not? Because it wouldn’t matter at all what you did, he’d have a hundred contingency plans for each move you made. After all, he’s Bobby Fischer, the world’s greatest chess player. Ditto for the world’s greatest God! He will ultimately prevail over the Devil, and all those who have made the free will choice to believe His Word will live happily ever after with Him and the Lord Jesus.

Let us not fall into the trap of putting our trust in the static, pagan concept of a bored deity mindlessly watching his pre-planned scenario unfold, and maybe having to wonder what cosmic tragedy he has assigned to us. No, we who have made Jesus Christ our Lord can lay our very lives in the hands of the God whose fathomless love surrounds us and whose limitless resourcefulness are at our disposal. Our heavenly Father and our Lord Jesus stand with us in the trenches of life, and they are never caught off guard by the circumstances coming at us, but always ready to show us the next thought to think, word to speak, and step to take.

There are two books in particular that I found to be extremely enlightening about this whole matter. One is The God Who Risks, by John Sanders, and the other is God of the Possible, by Greg Boyd. In closing, I’d like to share with you a review of Boyd’s book that I did shortly after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. I titled it “Choose Your Own Adventure,” and I believe that it will give you much food for thought.

The incredible events of September 11, 2001 thrust into the world’s collective consciousness the age-old question: “If there is a God, and if He is a loving God, how could He have allowed such a horrifically evil occurrence?” Corollary to that question are many other equally heart-bending inquiries such as: “Is what happened on September 11 somehow a part of a sovereign God’s plan for mankind?” Or: “Do you mean to tell me that God knew exactly what was going to happen and did nothing to stop it?”

The problem of evil, that is, how evil can co-exist with a God who says He is love, is not only one that often tragically affects us personally, but it is also one that has turned countless people away from the Creator, who longs for them to know Him for who He truly is. Given the Christian Church’s traditional answers to the above questions, I think it is safe to assume that even millions of Christians are plagued with doubt as to whether some God-ordained tragedy may befall them. If knowing the truth makes one free, then believing something contrary to God’s Word, especially about such a vital issue as this, could put people in great bondage.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 holocaust, I think we have a golden opportunity to set before people God’s answers to their questions, if we are willing to re-evaluate some “sacred Christian cows” and ask, “Where’s the beef?!” I believe that Greg Boyd’s book, God of The Possible, can help us understand and articulate those answers. The fact that it is only 169 pages of good-sized print helped me get started on it, and what I found was a book loaded with Scripture, a rock-solid biblical exposition of a subject it seems has been too often ignored in favor of the unscriptural Platonic, Augustinian tradition. The latter may well have left the majority of the Christian populace with an almost fatalistic worldview that significantly dilutes their resolve to pray, to share their faith, and to realize the far-reaching importance of their own choices.

In his Introduction, Boyd asks such penetrating questions as:

If every choice you’ve ever made was certain an eternity before you made it, were you really free when you made each choice? Could you have chosen differently if it was eternally certain you’d make the choice you did? If God foreknew that Adolf Hitler would send six million Jews to their deaths, why did he go ahead and create a man like that? [We might now add Osama bin Laden].

How is God not responsible for the behavior of evil people he “unleashes” on the world if, in fact, he is absolutely certain of what they will do once “unleashed”? If God is eternally certain that various individuals will end up being eternally damned, why does he go ahead and create them? And then try to get them to accept his grace throughout their lives—as though there were genuine hope for them? If the future is exhaustively settled in God’s mind, as the classical view holds, why does the Bible repeatedly describe God changing his mind? Why does the Bible say that God frequently alters his plans, cancels prophecies in the light of changing circumstances, and speaks about the future as a “maybe,” a “perhaps,” or a “possibility”? Why does Scripture describe God as expressing uncertainty about the future, being disappointed in the way things turn out, and even occasionally regretting the outcome of his own decisions?

Boyd says it was questions like those that led him on a 17-year search in the Bible. The thesis he sets forth in God of The Possible is that, to some extent, God knows the future as definitely this way and definitely not that way, but that to some extent, He knows it as possibly this way and possibly not that way. He calls this the “open view” of God, or of the future, much of which is settled ahead of time either by God’s predestining will or by existing earthly causes, and much of which is yet open to be decided by free will agents. He shows that the issue at stake is not about whether God is omniscient or has foreknowledge – He is and He does.

Rather, the issue is about the nature of the reality that God perfectly knows, that is, what is the content of the reality of the future. If God does not foreknow future actions by free will beings whom He chose to create that way, it is not because His knowledge is in any sense incomplete. It is because there is, in the open view, nothing definite there for God to know. Boyd states:

“One is not ascribing ignorance to God by insisting that he doesn’t foreknow future free actions if indeed free actions do not exist to be known until free agents create them… Those who oppose the open view of God on the grounds that it compromises God’s omniscience are simply misguided.”

As to the book’s title and its thesis, Boyd says that:

“…the classical tradition became misguided when, under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy, it defined God’s perfection in static, timeless terms…Given this definition of divine perfection, there was no way to conceive of God as entertaining real possibilities…It followed for classical theology that reality must be eternally and exhaustively settled…This view is misguided on biblical, theological, and practical grounds…God is the God of the possible and not simply a God of eternally static certainties. Practically, a God of eternally static certainties is incapable of interacting with humans in a relevant way. The God of the possible, by contrast, is a God who can work with us to truly change what might have been to what should be.”

In conjunction, he writes:

“God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty that he does not need to micromanage everything. He could if he wanted to, but this would demean his sovereignty. So he chooses to leave some of the future open to possibilities, allowing them to be resolved by free agents. It takes a greater God to steer a world populated with free agents than it does to steer a world of preprogrammed automatons…The God of the possible creates the “Choose Your Own Adventure” structure of world history and of our lives, within which the possibilities of human free choice are actualized…A God who knows all possibilities, experiences novelty, and is willing to engage in an appropriate element of risk is more exalted than a God who faces an eternally settled future.”

And I have to say, “Amen.”

Boyd’s work is divided into four chapters, the first being “The Classical View of Divine Foreknowledge.” Here he explains how the influence of Greek philosophy has resulted in most Christians having come to believe that once upon a time God saw as present reality every single future event of human “history” exactly as it would occur, even down to the garish neckties that too many TV personalities apparently have no choice but to wear (those are my words, not his, in case you hadn’t guessed). He shows that the biblical material used to support the classical tradition that the future is exhaustively settled does not, in fact, prove it. It proves only that some of the future is settled.

In Chapter One, Boyd sets forth some key sections of Scripture used by defenders of the classical view of foreknowledge to prove their point, and offers another explanation of them, one more consistent with the whole of Scripture and with the reality of human existence. He examines the five categories of divine foreknowledge in the Bible, that is: the chosen people, individuals, Christ’s ministry, the elect, and the end times. In this chapter, Boyd also looks at Settled Aspects of the Future, Foreknowing Predictable Characters, Foreknown Life Plans, Prophecies of Kingdoms and Judgments, The Foreordained Messiah and the Predestined Church, and in its conclusion he writes:

“God decrees whatever he wishes to decree [based upon knowing His own ability to pull it off]. He controls whatever he chooses to control. He is never caught off guard or at a loss of options. He anticipates and ingeniously outmaneuvers his opponents. Hence, all who align themselves with him can have total confidence that he will ultimately achieve his objectives for creation.”

Chapter Two is titled, “The God Who Faces a Partially Open Future.” Boyd argues that the Bible passages showing a partially open future should be taken as literally as those showing a partially settled future. The subtitles in Chapter Two are: God Regrets How Things Turn Out (and includes Does Regret Imply Lack of Wisdom?); God Confronts the Unexpected; God Gets Frustrated; God Tests People to Know Their Character; God Speaks in Terms of What May or May Not Be; Hastening the Lord’s Return; Jeremiah 18 and the Flexible Potter; Reversed Divine Intentions. In its conclusion, he states:

“The fact that verses as explicit as these [the many that he has covered in the chapter] aren’t allowed to communicate that God really changes his mind or experiences regret or unexpected disappointment testifies to the truth that the classical exegesis of these passages is driven by philosophy rather than by the texts.”

Chapter Three is “What Practical Difference Does the Open View Make?” and it is terrific. Among other things, Boyd talks about Rational Minds and Transformed Hearts, The Clarity of God’s Word, Possibility Living, The Urgency of Prayer, and Resolving the problem of Evil. Here are some quotes:

“The extent to which the Word of God is incoherent to us is the extent to which it is of no benefit to us…A person’s mental picture of God is the most important feature of his or her belief system [and] determines how we relate to God, for better or for worse. Most of the time we are unaware of our deepest beliefs about God. We may think we believe one thing about God, repeating teachings we have been given, when, in fact, at a deeper level, our picture of God does not actually reflect these teachings. And since our hearts always respond to what we really believe, not what we think we believe on a theoretical level, our lives frequently don’t reflect what we say we believe.”

He goes on to say that if God experiences no true possibilities,

“it directly suggests that possibilities are not real, for God’s knowledge, not ours, reflects reality as it really is. If we believe that possibilities are not real, we will be more inclined to accept things that we could, and should, revolt against…Conversely, if we believe in the reality of possibilities, for even God faces them, we will be more inclined to take a proactive stance. Knowing that what transpires in the future is not a foregone conclusion but is significantly up to us to decide, we will be more inclined to assume responsibility for our future…[We] will be more inclined to adventurously and passionately envisage and pursue what could be instead of resigning ourselves to what supposedly was settled an eternity ago about what will be.”

“The bottom line is that life is all about possibilities. We are thinking, feeling, willing, personal beings only because we, like God, are beings who can reflect on and choose between possibilities. We are fully alive when we passionately seize them, adventurously explore them, and define ourselves by actualizing them…The picture of God as the “God of the possible” creates a people who do not wait for an eternally settled future to happen.”

Regarding prayer, Boyd writes that, in his experience, many Christians do not pray as passionately as they should, but rather do so out of obedience and without the sense of urgency that Scripture attaches to prayer. He thinks too many interpret the cliché “God is in control” to mean that “God controls everything,” thus leaving them with the obvious question: “What real difference could prayer possibly make?” He says that:

“the common cliché that ‘prayer changes us, not God,’ does not reflect either the purpose or the urgency that God’s Word gives to petitionary prayer.”

He states that prayer is a chief means [obedience is another] by which humans participate with God in determining the future and that the will of God “be done on earth as it is heaven.” Listen to this insight:

“Prayer is also part of what makes us morally responsible agents. Because God wants us to be empowered, because He wants us to communicate with him, and because he wants us to learn dependency on him, he graciously grants us the ability to significantly affect him. This is the power of petitionary prayer. God displays his beautiful sovereignty by deciding not to always unilaterally decide matters. He enlists our input, not because he needs it, but because he desires to have an authentic, dynamic relationship with us as real, empowered persons.”

Regarding the power of prayer and the problem of evil, Boyd waxes both logical and inspirational:

“When we rid ourselves of any lingering suspicion that evil somehow fits into the eternal purposes of God, we are more inclined to do something about it. Jesus spent his entire ministry revolting against the evil he confronted. He never suggested that any of the physical or spiritual afflictions he confronted somehow fit into his Father’s plan. Rather, he confronted these things as coming from the Devil and carried out the Father’s plan by healing people and delivering them. We who are Christ’s disciples should follow our Master’s lead. We are to pray that the Father’s will would be done (Matt. 6:10), not accept things as though his will was already being done!”

Chapter Four, 42 pages, consists of 18 most pertinent questions and answers, questions you may have after reading this review of Boyd’s book. It is full of enlightening and comforting insight. The last question addresses his experience that most people who honestly examine the evidence for the open view and then choose to reject it do so not because the evidence is weak but because they fear its implications. The question is:

“If God isn’t in control of everything, the world feels unsafe. If the future is open and things can happen outside of God’s will, what guarantee is there that there is a point to a person’s suffering? Maybe it’s all just bad luck.”

Here are some excerpts from his answer:

“How is the scariness of a view relevant to the question of whether or not it is true?”

Good question, huh? He believes that the open view simply articulates what we already believe at a core level, based upon how we act. Boyd wonders how believing that a string of robberies and beatings in your neighborhood was ordained by an all-controlling God helps you to cope with the fear that it might happen to you? You still know at the core of your being that the world is just as scary with your belief as without it. He submits that such a belief makes the world an even scarier place, because:

“If God has decided this, there is nothing you can do about it. If God is the sort of God who is capable of ordaining such evils, then you can’t trust God’s character. You have nothing to hang on to.”

“If God chooses not to control all things, however, then there is something you can do about it. As a morally responsible free person, you can make choices that maximize your safety and minimize your vulnerability against other free people who have chosen evil. The world is perhaps still scary, but less so than if the Creator himself had the kind of character that made him willing to ordain child kidnappings and the power to ensure that what he ordains will certainly be accomplished.”

Boyd closes his book with an appendix expositing 19 passages of Scripture that support the open view of God and of the future. What he has found is very compelling.

Do I think everyone currently residing on terra firma (earth) could benefit from reading this book? Yesss! We see in Scripture that because Jesus walked with total trust in his heavenly Father and carried out his part of The Plan, God could reciprocate and keep His Word, both to Jesus and to all those who call upon his name. Hey, that’s you, right? So keep calling, by aggressively and passionately praying and obeying.

Closing note: There has never been a better time to get into people’s hands our book, Don’t Blame God! Have you read it lately? It expands upon much of what you just read, and it really helps people to love and trust God. In conjunction with that our teaching on, You Are the Only You God Has, is extremely relevant to this whole issue, and it is a real winner.

DP: ‘Super Cop’ Laing’s blazing gunfights
Shot 3 times, police sting specialist survives
BY HG HELPS Editor-at-Large [email protected]

Sunday, September 09, 2012

This is the 28th in a series of close encounters with death by Jamaicans, some of them in prominent positions of the society.
RUGGED former crime-fighter Isaiah Laing has been shot in combat three times, fired at 60 times and has recovered close to 400 illegal guns in the 20 years that he spent in the Jamaica Constabulary Force and even in the 16 years since he left.
LAING… at one time I was sure that Natty Chris would kill me (Photo: Lionel Rookwood)
1/1
As he spoke with the Jamaica Observer late last week, the current chief executive officer of Supreme Promotions — host of the popular annual Boxing Day reggae show, Sting, said he wouldn’t change a thing about his experiences taking on some of Jamaica’s most ruthless criminals .
Laing, a cousin of prime minister Portia Simpson Miller, has a log of his 20 most memorable gunfights with some of the island’s notorious criminals, among them Christopher ‘Natty Chris’ Henry, the former Arnett Gardens (Concrete Jungle) badman who died violently during a fight with the police some years ago.
Once known as the man who ‘cooled’ Jungle because of his determination to frighten away gunmen in South St Andrew, Laing, 55, admitted to being shot at by ‘Natty Chris’ 19 different times, before other police personnel got the wanted man in an area called Top Jungle.
The former detective sergeant of police who served the force from 1976 to 1996, when then Commissioner Colonel Trevor MacMillan (now deceased) did not renew his contract, got his first taste of a gun’s business end a mere five months after he graduated from the police academy.
The former Marley Hill Primary and St Catherine High School student was shot by a gunman along Matthews Lane in West Kingston while he was stationed at Denham Town.
He had been on foot patrol with two soldiers one evening, but changed his patrol routine when he found that the gunmen were timing the security forces’ trek through the streets and would commit crimes once they had passed.
“I went up Matthews Lane and sent the two soldiers up Rose Lane and one of them would meet me back at Matthews Lane. I walked halfway up Matthews Lane, turned back and when I was coming down, walking against the wall, as I reached a point and started peeing around a wall, my eyes and a gunman’s eyes made four… he was doing the same thing — peeping around the corner. So I couldn’t do anything but grab him. He had a brown paper bag in his hand and I heard ‘blum’ and felt my hand got a bullet. I was so frightened. One soldier was behind me, but he was not seeing me. It was when he heard the gunshot he realised that something was happening. I had to pull my .38 gun and shoot the gunman. That marked the beginning of ‘Laing’,” the entertainment promoter said.
His reputation grew after that incident and his number — 3380 — was soon recited by wrongdoers.
“Every evening when they saw me coming they started running and shouting ‘3380 a come’,” Laing said.
It was a time when at least one policeman at Denham Town was being killed by criminals each year.
In 1978, following that shooting, he became a detective, working through the Criminal Investigation Branch.
Respect for him as a fearsome opponent of criminal activity rose, as he worked out of volatile areas like West Kingston and the Admiral Town station in South St Andrew.
On Friday, February 9, 1991, he almost got shot in friendly fire, after his three-member patrol team went into Riverton City to support other law enforcers trying to capture notorious gangster, Nathaniel Natty Morgan.
“There was a helicopter overhead looking out for ‘Natty’ Morgan. Some people told us that one of Natty Morgan’s gang members went into the water, so we were going up the river with an M16 weapon. Like bad luck, when we were approaching a big tree, we just saw the gunman emerge from the water with a straw in his mouth. As he came up we had a shoot-out and he was shot and killed.
“The water turned red right away, so the police in the helicopter started firing at the three of us. I had to suck onto the tree and pull the other policemen beside me to escape the shots.
“It was as if what happened the next day was destined to happen,” Laing said as he recounted the incident that saw him spending over three months at the Kingston Public Hospital, when he fell victim to a colleague’s bullets.
“It was a very, very dangerous situation the next day at Kencot, because I wasn’t even supposed to be there. I worked right through into Saturday morning and while I was on the road patrolling, I heard police control calling for Matilda’s Corner (police station) and I decided to assist due to the shortage of personnel.
“When I drove down to Parade Square, Superintendent OD Smith was there addressing the men. He asked if I was coming on the raid and I said yes. I had just left the West Kingston area and went to Half-Way-Tree and deemed as the man with the experience with raids, so Smith asked me to address the men.
“I told them about the things that should not happen on a raid, like preventing crossfiring, and when we went on the location, that’s exactly what happened — I was shot in crossfire.
“A gunman ran from a policeman over the other side and came across where we were. I saw the man, went towards him and when I turned my back the policeman just came behind me and shoot. I watched a lot of cowboy shows and when I saw cowboys fly I didn’t know that it could be real. I flew that day. The M16 lifted me up and pitched me at the edge of the gully which was about 15 feet deep. If I had fallen in it my neck would have been broken, so I held onto the bank. I was shot through my hip and when they took me to hospital I lost eight pints of blood and suffered from internal bleeding,” he disclosed.
In a strange twist, two years after that shooting incident, Laing was again at the wrong end of a gun — the feared Desert Eagle. It was fired, incidentally, by a man who had cared for him while he was recuperating from his earlier wounds while at the Kingston Public Hospital (KPH).
Devon Morrison, who had worked in the early 1990s as a senior porter at the KPH and with whom Laing developed a good relationship over the three-and-a-half months he had lain there, had turned dirty, becoming Jamaica’s most wanted man in 1993.
He was charged with murder but escaped police custody when 12 of his armed cronies took him out of the KPH where he had gone for treatment.
“We had gone after him twice before, but he ran away. He was wanted for numerous murders, including an incident in Hannah Town when he burnt down a house with some children in it.
It was only after Morrison had been killed in a Bull Bay, St Andrew, shootout in which Laing was involved did the former cop find out that he was the same man who had helped look after him in hospital.
Morrison, cornered by police in a room, fired a shot at Laing’s head that cut across his forehead, leaving a permanent scar. “He shot at me from point-black range. I heard ‘budum’ and felt my hand full of blood when I touched my forehead. Everybody thought I was dead when I reached hospital. They took me to Medical Associates Hospital, where I was visited by government ministers including KD Knight, Peter Phillips, and Arnold Bertram. When KD Knight saw me he said ‘Jesus Christ, a God save you,'” Laing stated.
Morrison was cut down in that same room by the police party.
Laing tagged Natty Chris, who originated from Tel Aviv in Central Kingston, as the most dangerous criminal that he had ever faced.
Natty Chris, he said, shot at him 19 times and came very close once to claiming the policeman’s scalp.
“At one time I was sure that Natty Chris would kill me. One Sunday morning I was patrolling through Jungle with four soldiers in an army vehicle and a police vehicle with four of us.
“When we reached on Penso Street, we saw two boys get up off the sidewalk. They got up with two 9mm and ran up to Park Lane, so I came out of the car, running after them up the pathway onto Seiveright Pathway. When I reached close to the intersection I saw a red light. Natty Chris was there around the corner and knew that I was coming. He barely pushed out his head and shot. The shots splintered a stone and got into my eyes, so I could barely see.
“I shot back and we eventually went back to the station. Later on that day, I saw about 15 girls outside the station, one of them saying ‘a lie, a lie.’ Natty Chris told them that he had killed me. I thought I was dead, too, and he would have killed me if he had waited until I reached up to the intersection. He feared me so much that he wouldn’t give me the chance to come near him. One of his accomplices, Little Boogie, he told me when we arrested him that every time Natty Chris heard my name his belly rolled,” Laing said.
As his reputation grew, Laing’s presence allowed for more open activities to occur in the Arnett Gardens, Jones Town, Trench Town, Admiral Town and Wilton Gardens areas.
“When I went to Admiral Town station, every bus, taxi, bread van had to stop at Admiral Town. No vehicle drove through Jungle. “When you walked on Penn Street, grass was in the road. I went there and changed that. Vehicles started to go through Jones Town soon after I went there. For the first six months, I walked the entire Arnett Gardens and Jones Town. We didn’t even have a vehicle at the station that time. I learned every crevice and corner. Every time the boys ran, you don’t run them down, you just programme where they exit.
“So when I am walking I usually send someone to the exit. When they run they have guns, so once they run it will be shooting and they are not running from you unless they are wanted.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/-Super-Cop–Laing-s-blazing-gunfights_12485193#ixzz25z8abfqg

met wake up dem seh yenchino hab baby a country

FIRST MI DID HEAR SHE DUE SEPT 5 THEN SINCE WEEK MI HEAR SHE SEH 4 WEEKS LEF..DI BABY NUH WASTE NO TIME…CONGRATULATIONS IF THIS IS SO

Zimbabwe’s school fees in Maize and Sweet Potato format

Masvingo(ZimEye)Parents have condemned some teachers in Masvingo who are allegedly demanding buckets of sweet potatoes and maize from pupils who failed to pay school fees.Parents with children at Shumbayaonda and Muchenurwa Primary Schools revealed that teachers were demanding buckets of maize and potatoes from children who failed to pay school fees.

Recently, the government directed all schools and teachers not to demand payment of fees in kind from students.

A pupil at Muchenurwa Primary School revealed that their school authority has ordered pupils who failed to raise school fees to pay with sweet potatoes and maize ‘as fees’.

Mr John Hakurabwi from Mapanzure irrigation scheme complained that the teachers were ripping them off.

“They are ripping us off, these teachers.They now demand maize and sweet potatoes from parents, if we fail to pay fees and incentives which they also expect us to pay for them to come to work, yet they are being paid by the government,” said Hakurabwi.

Masvingo provincial education director Ms Clara Dube condemned teachers and school authorities for ripping off parents and students.She also said that it was illegal for teachers to demand fees in kind from pupils.

“But I must point out that the government does not allow the payment in kind of incentives or fees from students.We even encouraged boarding schools not to get things in kind from pupils to avoid causes of food poisoning,” said Ms Dube. (ZimEye, Zimbabwe)