Replies

" That's right because it would mean providing the public at large from someone for a longer period of time " .

" sentenced to 35 years in prison but was paroled less than 11 years later " . Is this what you mean by providing the public ? Ok .. I take it because you trust law enforcement so much you would not have minded at all if you were the Arkansas clerk ?

I just thought that I would ask you 1 more time .

"That's right because it would mean providing the public at large from someone for a longer period of time... "

I wonder if you would be so blase about it if the clerk in question were your son. My daughter at one point took a second job as a clerk in a convenience store. I hated it. It wasn't that long before or far away that 2 young women clerks had been shot and killed in the commission of a robbery in a store of the same chain. In my opinion, it was a wreckless move by the police and I would have had no sympathy whatsoever for them had this episode resulted in the death of the clerk. The best I can do as it is is to give them the benefit of the doubt based on the possibility that perhaps they weren't smart enough to come up with a better plan. People who think that because they're cops they can do no wrong and their judgement shouldn't be questioned scare me. It is a pretty well-known fact that cops are not hired based on their high IQ's. I don't mean that as a put down. I am in support of cops who are decent people trying to do a good job of protecting citizens, but sadly, I think that the police force tends to attract a lot of the types that have a different agenda or an ax to grind and seek an outlet that empowers them to act on it.

Oh. My. God.

We are talking about an immediate threat of harm to a member of the public, and you think the armed robbery charge better protects the public?

Your priorities are as screwed up as the officers'.

They could have arrested him. They had enough to revoke his parole, make him serve all that time, and then he would have had to serve time for the weapons charge. That would have been substantial time.

The immediate threat to the clerk far outweighs any public good that could be had from the armed robbery conviction. They had enough to remove him from society for a very long time.

Revoking parole and trying him on the weapons charge was a given. A conspiracy charge or attempted robbery charge was also possible; testimony from the informant might well have been enough to convict. Failing that, testimony about his intent would have ensured he got the maximum jail time for possession of the weapon.

He would have been off the street for at least a decade.
You don't run a sting at the expense of the lives of innocents.

If a conviction for armed robbery was necessary for the public good, let it not come, ironically, and the expense of a citizen. They had hours advance notice.
If they want to do a sting and get him for the highest offense possible, let them substitute an armed undercover officer for the poor slob clerking that day.

He didn't die, thank God, thought the risk of that was real. But I;m sure he had to live through thinking he might not live, might never see his loved ones again. Might never see the sun again.
Making an innocent live through that trauma, robbery and abduction at gunpoint, when it was totally preventable, shocks the conscience.

I hope this raises enough stink that it never happens again.