North Little Rock, AR cops stand by and watch as convenience store is robbed!

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ^ | 31 AUG 02 | BY JIM BROOKS

[VOA]

(b) Arrange a substitute for the cashier? Without the store's permission?

I guess there just wasn't enough time to call ahead...

North Little Rock police knew hours ahead of time that a convicted robber
and kidnapper planned to hold up a convenience store...

With no training on store procedures?
I'd worry about a cop that couldn't stand in front of a cash register and do a passable
imitation of a clerk.

Besides, do the police not have "police power" to step in and prevent harm to citizens?
Maybe that's just an urban myth.

Who might be detected as a policeman by the thieves?
Well I guess I'm not civic-minded enough to think the police should be using
uninformed clerks as the equivalent of a sheep tied to a stake waiting for a wolf to arrive.

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."

Nice Labor Day story. Sounds like corporate and the cops have decided on
who's gonna' take the bullet if anything goes wrong.
Just some poor minimum-wage clerk who never knew what was coming.
And all the minor irritation of a wrongful death lawsuit from a relative can
be dispensed with.

And no, I'm not a lawyer.
And, if I was a clerk and the cops said "play along with the robber...", I'd do it
if I had a gun in the drawer. I'd just want to know that if the robber decides to
start shooting the place up...I'd at least have a chance to shoot the b@stard,
even if I was mortally wounded.

[VOA]

"This is really not uncommon," he said. "In fact, clerks are probably better off not knowing."

Aside from the action/inaction of the police, I hope the clerk at least
sits down with a lawyer and finds out what clause of his contract determines that
he is remunerated, in part, to be an unwitting decoy.
And to determine what benefits his survivors get in case he gets capped the next time.

I'm sure the corporate lawyers will have some sort of winning "public policy" argument,
but this might be interesting if it got in front of a jury.

[SouthernFreebird]

....but Lowery bolted and hid for three hours in a nearby drainage ditch before he was arrested.

He hid.... he wasn't allowed to just rest.......I'd say it took them 3 hours to find and then apprehend him, don't forget he did have a gun.

[marajade]

Um, you can't arrest someone for something they haven't done...

They waited until he left the store so they could arrest for armed robbery... Until he had left he hadn't committed the crime yet...

[DCBryan1]

Um, you can't arrest someone for something they haven't done...

No $hit! You need to re-read the article. But you CAN blow away a criminal with a gun in your face. The cops put the clerk in danger. They should have supplemented a SWAT officer in civie clothing behind the counter.

What would your reaction be if the criminal SHOT the oblivious clerk?

They waited until he left the store so they could arrest for armed robbery... Until he had left he hadn't committed the crime yet...

Re-read the article before you comment, you are stating the obvious and missing the point entirely.

[marajade]

"But you CAN blow away a criminal with a gun in your face."

Are you talking about the victim or the police? The police certainly couldn't ....

What point am I missing?

[shiva]

Um, you can't arrest someone for something they haven't done...

You got that right!

[FormerLurker]

Funny how they show up in heavily armed teams to arrest relatively benign "dopers", yet allow a unarmed civilian to deal with an armed bandit..

[marajade]

Um, from my reading of the article they were heavily armed...

[DCBryan1]

Are you talking about the victim or the police? The police certainly couldn't ....

ANYONE has the right to shoot someone who is about to cause you serious bodily harm or end your life. Self-defense is a basic human right. WHat point am I missing?

The point that your missing is that the cops had HOURS to notify the clerk, set up a sting, and PROTECT the clerk from the inherent harm he was in since the criminal had a gun! SOP in Little Rock (diff city) would be to supplement the clerk with a SWAT officer, OR, have a couple of un-uniformed cops waiting for a gun to be displayed to either 1) Shoot him in self defense, 2) Shoot him to protect the life on an innocent bystander (the clerk), or 3) apprehend him. I vote for either 1 or 2.

[SarahW]

Isn't the innocent clerk's life worth more than "making the arrest"?

The cops decided that making an arrest for armed robbery was more important than preventing the danger to life and property ahead of time, by PREVENTING it.

The perp was a felon, on parole, and had a gun. He would have gone straight to jail and stayed there.

It wasn't worth the risk of the clerk's life to get an armed robbery conviction.

At minimum, with the advance notice given, the clerk should have been replaced with an armed undercover officer. THE END.

There is NO excuse for this. The informant gave them info and they should have acted on it to protect life and property. That was enough for them to stop the guy on the street, search him and put him in jail for a weapons charge and violation of parole.

[philman_36]

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.
The "confidential informant" is no longer an "unknown informant". With this article they're a "known canary". That "informant" is probably seeking "protection" now from those who "protect and serve".

[marajade]

What you are saying is the police would be complicit in engaging in murder...

[marajade]

"Isn't the innocent clerk's life ..."

Yes... But nowhere in the article does it state the informant was going to murder the clerk...

[marajade]

"The cops decided that making an arrest for armed robbery was more important than preventing the danger to life and property ahead of time, by PREVENTING it."

And if the police had PREVENTED it, the suspect would be free to commit another crime...

[JoeSixPack1]

What all the comments and this article refer to is the arrest of the perp AFTER he commites armed robbery.

WELL BULL$%it....!!!!!!!!! I don't give a rats patuty about the perp. or about the game the PD was playing. The PD's FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE CLERK!

They were so excited about getting the tip to put this career criminal back behind bars they completely ignored their primary responsibility to the public for which they serve and protect. If he's on early release and carrying a gun, he goes back to jail. No games, no extra points for solving a crime, no medals, no newspapers or TV, no nothing! The perp GOES TO JAIL.. long before they ALLOWED him to rob the store he still goes back to jail.

I'm calm now. sorry about the screaming.

[DCBryan1]

What you are saying is the police would be complicit in engaging in murder...

I enthusiastically advocate cops or armed civilians killing life-long criminals in the commission of a crime. Criminals like this are only going to reoffend until they kill someone.

Police can use deadly force to a) Protect their own lives, or b) to protect the innocent.

You are starting to sound like a cop hater.

Your'e either a bleeding heart liberal, an idiot, or both. I'm done trying to draw this out for you on a chalk board. You are probably one of those supporters of Palestinian "freedom fighters" aren't you?

[A CA Guy]

Doesn't sound good at all. I remember I once reported a bank robbery about to happen (the hint being these gang looking guys in a high class neighborhood walking in with shot guns).
About 30 minutes later they responded! So I know it can get bad.

[marajade]

"I enthusiastically advocate cops or armed civilians killing life-long criminals in the commission of a crime."

Well you may but its against the law...

[marajade]

"You are starting to sound like a cop hater."

On the contrary, I support the actions they took in the article, you don't. Maybe your response to me should be applid to yourself... That's called projection and Bill and Hillary Clinton are masters at it...