Duh!!!!

G

Guest

Guest
Good thinking

Witnesses told investigators that one of the men grabbed for the other woman's purse and duFresne intervened, asking, "What are you going to do, shoot us?" A man then fired one shot at her, police said.
 
The thing to remember is that, as my mother reminds me, there's no entrance exam to become a criminal. Just because something is inconceivably stupid, vile, and pointless - like shooting someone in front of witnessses in a crowded location for the value of the contents of her purse - doesn't mean that someone won't do it.

See, for example, the recent news of the young woman in Texas kidnapped from a Walmart parking lot and murdered. Her killer was found literally hours later; he had, after all, been caught on surveillance cameras, having lingered in the parking lot for nearly two hours and entered the store as well, and the police had descriptions of him, his clothing, and the vehicle, as well as the license plate numbers. There was not the slightest chance that something this stupid was ever going to succeed - at least not in the sense of the criminal getting away with it. But how we all wish he'd realized this before he murdered a poor child to prove it.

Shanglan
 
There are really two problems here.

1) Nobody stupid enough to shoot someone down in front of three witnesses and three co-conspirators for the contents of a purse should be allowed to live.

[The police know the identity of people who hang around an aea late at night. They will roust enough of the people to get a location for the shooter. They already have a police artist drawing of the guy. Then they will track down dumb-dumb and arest him.]

2) After dumb-dumb is convicted and put away, he will go to a prison where he might just obtain a PhD in crime from other inmates. Then we face a criminal who is not only vicious, but now a lot smarter. And he will inevitably be paroled.
 
Sad isn't it.

Our justice system is a farce and the only thing anyone can say is, "Ain't that a shame."
 
Back
Top