FRiend, let me first say that my original comment was in no way anything other than a poke at your use use of the word “retribution” in describing police responsibilities.
I used a dictionary definition of “retribution” and none of the synonyms, IMO, define the role of government/police.
I think your usage of the word is intended to mean the carrying out of their duties, which is fine. But I now have two questions to ask.
1) Are you saying that only police have the right to apprehend a criminal? What is citizens arrest? If a home intruder is told at gunpoint by the owner to lie down on the floor with his hands and feet spread until police arrive, and the perp complies, is the home owner now acting outside of the law? Can a citizen no longer act to stop a crime if he sees one? Ok, that was more than one question but you get the point.
2) Where do you think the authority for police to do more than a citizen is derived from? For me, thanswer comes from here:
Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
I am not a Biblical expert, but verse 3 and 4 tell me two things. 1) that I should not have to fear authority if I am doing good, and 2) that that authority is God’s servant.
When the ruler becomes the terror, then he is no longer a servant of God. But now I am digressing toward a peeve of mine...
Fregards,
However, after the loss, his personal actions to regain them are curbed, and assigned to officialdom. Furthermore, penalties for unlawful deprivation is also no longer within the purview of the individual.
Beyond question, law enforcement is part of that process.
Being quite familiar with Romans 13, I've personally given law officers pocket copies of The New Testament for the specific purpose of highlighting their commission as ministers of God, as correctly translated in the AV:
"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 10:4).
This Scripture clearly supports my point: the ordinary individual citizen does not have a Scriptural authority to exercise the earthly judgment/punishment allocated to the civil authorities which God has permitted to rule in one's locality -- as long as it is done for our good and not for evil.
In this case, for the Burger King incident described, it sounds that very likely the shooter took upon himself a responsibility that was not his, once the assailant was leaving the scene. It certainly sounded like an act of revenge rather than an act of defense. God has arrogated that to His Own sphere of delegation:
"For we know Him that hath said, 'Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense,' saith the Lord. And again, 'The Lord shall judge His people.' " (Heb. 10:30)
(Seeking the righteous application of Biblical knowledge--)