DA: No charges against man who shot suspect

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by bibit612

I beg to disagree that Mr. McLure was unprovoked and that his being robbed of his peace of mind, his wife being beat is considered personal everyday infractions.

And let's please add . . . his wife suffered a heart attack . . .

[susan42]

Originally Posted by anifani821

I don't know what your point is. We have been bitching about the DA for years here. I don't think anyone even runs against him in most (if not all) elections.

You are assigning some sort of hero status to the guy and all he did was his job.

On this forum, at least, the general consensus is that he pleads down cases too often in order to move folks thru/ a very bloated system (too many perps in this town) and so we have repeat offenders on the street continually.

So you are talking to the wrong group if your point is that we all idolize Gilchrist.

It is other people on here, not me, who idolise him when he does what,in their eyes, is the right thing eg in the case of Mr MClure. Then his decision is unquestionably correct. When he doesn't he is "the weak link in the justice system".

[susan42]

Originally Posted by anifani821

And let's please add . . . his wife suffered a heart attack . . .

In the DAs statement it doesn't mention that either of them were beaten, just that he was tied up.

[sundrop]

Originally Posted by susan42

In the DAs statement it doesn't mention that either of them were beaten, just that he was tied up.

the post of Ani's that you are quoting doesn't mention anything about being beaten. But, it is being reported that they were.

I do not know why you are continuing to attempt to create hostility on this board. It is quite juvenile.

You aren't going to change anyone's mind here just as no one is going to change yours, so it makes no sense to continue the path.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by susan42

It is other people on here, not me, who idolise him when he does what,in their eyes, is the right thing eg in the case of Mr MClure. Then his decision is unquestionably correct. When he doesn't he is "the weak link in the justice system".

Okay. Let me try to put this in the simplest form I know how.

Gilchrist has, IMHO, been the weak link in our justice system here b/c he employs a catch-and-release approach to justice. We have repeat offenders continually on the streets. It is a REVOLVING DOOR HERE. I have stated this over and over and others have stated it over and over on many threads here in the past. There is general agreement, at least on this forum, that Gilchrist lets these home invaders and robbers back on the streets too soon.

We have a new police chief who is trying his best to get the perps off the street so we won't continually have REPEAT OFFENDERS, who all basically have the same types of rap sheets, out again invading our homes. CMPD rounds up these thugs and then the DA's office lets them back on the streets.

I don't think that is hard to understand. That is the bone of contention. He lets repeat offenders back on the street.

We want some control over these criminals in this county. They are running loose and continue to repeat the same offenses, except the violence ESCALATES as they get more offenses under their belts.

If you can't understand why we are relieved to finally see some of these thugs caught up with and a homeowner not being indicted for protecting himself, then that is your business! We have all agreed, you are entitled to your opinion! We are entitled to ours as well.

Gilchrist followed the rule of law. If you don't see it that way, write a letter to him. Write a letter to the Bar Association. Write a letter to the Attorney General.

Of course, I doubt it would have much standing, since you A. don't live here and B. are not a citizen here.

Not meaning to sound disrespectful, but you seem to be trying to make some sort of point here about inconsistencies in how people are responding to the DA's decision, and it is actually very consistent. We want the thugs off the street. We want the DA to do his job. You obviously don't feel he followed the law. The majority of folks on this forum feel he did. We could go round in circles all day, but it isn't gonna change anyone's opinion, it appears.