John R. Carroll wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

This character had a history of causing trouble. The fact that he
was still on the loose shows that you can't coddle dangerous people
and leave them on the streets to cause more problems.



So who is going to decide (before hand, now!) who is dangerous and
who is not?
Are you ready to face a psych evaluation - just to run around loose?

Are you willing to empower rent-a-cops (campus security) to be able to
commit someone for "mental instability"?

Are you REALLY sure you want to go there???

You know Richard, the first place this guy went to buy ammo (WalMart)
wouldn't sell to him.
You'd think that with WalMart's adoption of the "See and Say" program
encouraging people to report odd or suspicious behavior someone would have
phoned up DHS or even the local PD.


Yeah, I read that.
Then he straightened up long enough at the second Walmart.

So they call the cops on him.
But he hasn't done anything (YET you may say).

Then our litigious society is gonna bite back.
Or the nut case will remember who wouldn't sell him ammo?

Face it, guys, there is no simple solution here.
Although I see some of us promoting our pet agendas.
Just like the politico crowd.
(not you John )

This guy was psychotic.

True, there were several places he might have been nabbed - prior.

But he wasn't.

So how aggressive do you want the police powers to be on this?



--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb