Posted on 08/31/2002 9:15:32 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Police watched store robbery, court files say
BY JIM BROOKS
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
North Little Rock police knew hours ahead of time that a convicted robber and kidnapper planned to hold up a convenience store Feb. 8 and watched as the robbery occurred, court records reveal.
But police never told the store clerk and waited until the armed man left the business before attempting to arrest him, the files show.
Investigators were tipped off about the robbery of the E-Z Mart at 3600 MacArthur Drive by a confidential informant who dropped the robber off a short distance from the store while police staked out the business. Police knew the informant would be driving the robber to the store, the records say.
Police confronted Willie Roy Lowery, 32, as he walked from the store, but Lowery bolted and hid for three hours in a nearby drainage ditch before he was arrested.
The clerk, Aaron Black, was not injured in the robbery. Black declined a request for an interview.
Black’s mother, who declined to give her name, said her son told her that police explained their timely presence at the convenience store by saying they were in the area investigating reports of cars being broken into at a nearby business. (Police lying to civilians!?> Say it ain't so!)
"It sounds like they [police] put my son’s life in danger," she said when told about the court filing. (No Mam, They DID put your son's life in danger.)
North Little Rock Police Chief Danny Bradley said that, after speaking with prosecutors handling the case, he would not release details or answer specific questions about the incident until a forthcoming trial is concluded. But the chief said police have to consider multiple factors in determining the safest way to apprehend a suspect.
"A lot of times, you make the decision to allow the person to leave before trying to make an apprehension," he said. "I can say that as a matter of policy... the safety of the public is our primary concern."
Efforts to reach criminal justice experts at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, as well as at the Criminal Justice Institute in Little Rock, were unsuccessful.
The circumstances surrounding the robbery emerged in court documents filed by prosecutors who were attempting to keep the identity of the informant a secret from Lowery’s defense attorney.
The informant issue surfaced during a July 24 jury trial that had to be rescheduled. Pulaski County Circuit Judge John Langston set an Aug. 12 hearing on defense attorney Herb Wright’s motion to force the state to name the informant. Four days later, Langston ruled in favor of the defense.
In a response to the defense motion, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Melanie Martin outlined the testimony expected at Lowery’s coming trial: "A confidential informant gave the officers a tip on the evening of Feb. 7 that the defendant would be robbing the store sometime that evening," Martin wrote. "This led to the store being surrounded by officers at the time of the offense.
"The facts would reveal that this confidential informant dropped the defendant off approximately fifty yards from the store and then drove off. The confidential informant was not detained by the police, nor was he arrested and charged with being an accomplice."
Lowery was on parole at the time of the robbery. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison in June 1987 after being convicted of aggravated robbery, felony theft and kidnapping, but was paroled less than 11 years later. In September 1998, he was returned to prison after his parole was revoked, but he again was released on parole in July 2001. After his arrest in the E-Z Mart robbery, Lowery was returned to prison. His trial date on aggravated-robbery and theft charges is set for Sept. 10 in Langston’s court.
A trial on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm is set for Oct. 31 in the same court.
The robbery occurred about 3:30 a.m. on Feb. 8 and was captured on the store’s video cameras.
A police report in the case said a robber entered the store wearing a hood over his head, threatened Black with a handgun and demanded money. The robber took a packing knife from Black and forced him to walk from the store at gunpoint, court records reveal.
"After exiting the store with the clerk, the defendant [Lowery ] was surrounded by officers and told to stop," Martin wrote in the court document. "He fled from the police, and during the pursuit dropped the money, cigarettes and his jacket."
North Little Rock police arrested Lowery several hours later after he emerged from a drainage culvert near the convenience store. Lowery did not have a gun when he was arrested, but he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm based on his statement to detectives.
Martin and Wright declined to speak about the impending case.
Kim Fowler, a spokesman for E-Z Mart corporate offices in Texarkana, Texas, said the company works closely with law enforcement officials in every community.
"We trust that they know what they’re doing," she said. "We have faith in their ability to serve and protect."UN FREAKING BELIVABLE!
Dale Sides, director of loss prevention for the company, said he knows of several situations in which police staked out a robbery without notifying the clerk.
"This is really not uncommon," he said. "In fact, clerks are probably better off not knowing."
Sides said if a clerk is aware of an impending robbery and knows police are watching, he might act nervously or impulsively and put himself in more danger.
"He might have false hope knowing that officers are just outside and might do something to endanger himself," Sides said. "Our No. 1 priority is the safety of our employees."
North Little Rock Alderman Tony Vestal declined to comment on the police’s handling of the robbery.
"I knew that the robbery occurred, but I didn’t know about the exact circumstances," said Vestal, who represents the ward in which the robbery occurred.
"Without having all the information, I wouldn’t want to make a judgment one way or the other on how the police handled it."
Arresting him for the fact that he was identified as an individual who was conspiring to commit armed robbery, and being the fact that he'd be a felon in possession of a handgun would do the trick. If they wanted to go for the jackpot, they could have replaced the clerk with an undercover cop.
I still don't see the ACLU connection, and I especially don't see the "milita nutcase" connection. Are you saying that you are an opponent of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution by your remark? Are you saying that those who constitute the militia, which are ALL US male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, are nutcases?
On parole, no less. There was absolutely no reason to risk the clerks life.
99 out of 100 ideologues would claim that it is unconstitutional to deprive a proven felon of his right to own the tools to overthrow the tyrannical U.S. Government by violent means.
I'm sure you know this, but according to the Supreme Court the cops are under no obligation to protect anyone. They just have to take a report and investigate the crime, and make arrests. They don't have to protect anyone or prevent any crime if they don't want to.
For me, that's a compelling reason to carry heat. I don't because where I live it would make me a criminal to carry without a permit, and only .0004% (yes, .0004%!) of the citizenry have such a permit.
Too big??? Is there a size limit on convenience store clerks now?
Ditto for department store security, which I used to be.
A few years ago, convenience store clerk was listed as the most dangerous job in America, because more men were murdered on the job, than any other occupation. I think convenience store clerk and livery cab driver jockey for places one and two, these days.
No, I'd say that a good number of people would say that if a person is too dangerous to possess a weapon, that person is too dangerous to be let out of prison. A gun isn't the ONLY weapon that a criminal could use you know.
HOWEVER, there are MANY individuals convicted of "felonies" that have never hurt a fly, let alone another human being. As such, they SHOULD have their rights restored when they have served their sentence. There should be a distinction between a violent criminal and one who isn't.
Additionally, you appear to think that all of those who desire to protect themselves, their property, and their families are "out to overthrow the government". Is that what you really think? People wishing to defend themselves does not equate with a desire to "overthrow the government"..
"And that's why you and I"? perhaps?....
(When addressing the grand-poobah of the 'State-can-do-no-wrong', please consider the image and how such replies may tarnish it, especially when coming from an admirerer.)
No excuse to putting an innocent person in jepordy because these 'police' won't do a felony stop.
Excellent! (Just for the record, I was held up at gunpoint a couple of times in a convenience store during the seventies [went to school days, worked nights] and can honestly say that when someone sticks a gun in your face it changes your whole outlook on a lot of things.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.