When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, there is always outrage and sorrow from the community and the people he or she has served.
The death of NYPD Officer Peter Figoski of West Babylon was no exception. Figoski was killed in the line of duty by Lamont Pride during a botched robbery in Brooklyn nearly two years ago.
When he was sentenced today, Pride got 25 years to life for the officer's death. He was convicted of burglary, aggravated manslaughter, and second-degree murder, although at trial he avoided being convicted of first-degree murder which would have given him the stiffer sentence of life without parole.
Each day of the trial, police officers were in the court showing support for the family of Figoski.
When a police officer is killed, the brotherhood of police officers come together to support the deceased's family. Police officers really are a family, and when one of them is gunned down on the job, it often feels as though a member of the family has been taken.
As such, there is nearly always outrage when the defendant does not get the harshest sentence possible. As many people often point out in a case like this, police officers knowingly put their lives on the line in the interest in our safety, and therefore if their lives are taken, the public should be protected and the killer put away for life.
What do you think of this case? Should the killer have gotten the maximum sentence?
Comments