News-Record.com

Doug, you wrote this, um, editorial (I'm trying to be restrained here). I thought you had more respect for law enforcement than that.

Fact is, Emile Williams is 100% to blame for his own demise. He was a predator who sought to gain by harming others.

Officer Symmes did what he had to do to protect the innocent victims of Williams' crimes. Because Williams led police on a dangerous case, resisted arrest and eventually threatened Symmes' life, the officer had no choice but to use force.

And to say it was just a "property crime" is outrageous. Robbery is not a victimless crime, Doug. Those rings belonged to the jewelers, not Williams. Thieves have no right to simply take property and police officers has every right to defend the property of law-abiding citizens. What should he have done - waved at the crook as he ran past him?

So I'm not going to shed any tears for Williams. He made his bed and, well, you know the rest. We should be praising Officer Symmes for defending the public.

It is no surprise that GPD is facing more troubles. When you have no responsible upper managment, it is almost imperative that the officers end up acting irresponsibly. Regardless of any prior criminal history, a simple robbery is no reason to put the lives of other Guilford County residents at risk because Officer Symmes wanted to play a hero that night. How pathetic. Please let the housing market pick up so I can get out of this horrible city.

I never said jewel theft is a victimless crime. However, Gso's pursuit policy does recognize that some crimes are more serious than others, and that officers should take that into consideration.

Do you think the policy should be changed to simply authorize chases without regard to whether the fugitive is, say, a shoplifter or an armed murderer?

My view, which is clearly recognized in the Gso pursuit policy, is that risk is more acceptable when trying to apprehend an obviously dangerous fugitive than in other situations.

In response to more trouble, I want to make clear that I am not asserting that the officer acted irresponsibly. I'm saying the incident deserves a fair and thorough investigation, which happens to be standard procedure. My questions are based on the belief that if the outcome wasn't so good, then everything that contributed to that outcome might not have been so good.

Sure, some cases warrant pursuit more than others. But Officer Symmes didn't know Williams was going to lead him on a high-speed chase, now did he?

Once Williams started endangering lives by racing away at 100 MPH, what was Symmes supposed to do? If you don't pursue, you send a message that criminals can simply outrace the police, thereby encouraging this dangerous behavior. Symmes not only neutralized a dangerous criminal, he also sent a message to other would-be robbers that such crimes will not be tolerated.

Again, all's well that ends well. The victim's property was recovered, the police got their man and no bystanders were harmed.

Doug,
I applaud you for taking this stance on this incident. What the public has to remember is that law enforcement's job is to apprehend the suspected criminal. It is the JUDGE's job to try them and find them guilty or not guilty. No law enforcement officer should presume that he has the right to be judge and jury on the spot like an old west lynch mob. He has a duty to protect the citizens, not put them at danger by chasing someone in a frantic state of mind on public thoroughfares. This officer exhibited bad judgement in trying to handle this himself. He could have called for back up and professionally apprehended the suspect without trying to be a HERO (?) and putting the public at risk. I am convinced that law enforcement has the resources to catch robbers. It is time for police to step back from heavy handed tactics and do their job. Nothing more. Remember, this man, even though he was suspected of committing a crime, was a citizen of the USA - innocent until proven guilty. Now he is dead. I say that the officer has two options. He could have let the suspect flee and eventually apprehended him professionally, or stop him with deadly force. He chose to kill this man. Can that be justified? I think the officer stepped over the line and put himself in a situation that could have been avoided. Then he appointed himself to take his life. What if he would have hit an innocent motorist with an errant shot? His judgement put us all at risk over a larceny. In my opinion, this is police brutality and this man should be relieved of his law enforcement credentials.

This is obviously a difficult issue absenting the ability of our police officers to call Commisioner Gordon and have him light up Bat Beam to persue criminals. Police officers are conditioned to chase bad guys, er..., I guess living around here, I should clarify -most police officers are conditioned to chase bad guys. Asking them to make judgements about who to go after, and how vigorously is not easy.

It would then be easy to slip into a mind set no crime is worth persuit. Especially with the likelhood of guns being involved. After all, how many crimes occur or warrant services etc. happen without guns out in a non-populated area. How much property do you have to steal to be worth even one human life?

On the other hand, if this perpetrator smashed his car into a family coming home from church there would be an uproar that it was the police's fault.

Very Sticky.

I know it's the easiest thing in the world to second-guess from a safe distance.

However, police can break off a chase when the risk increases. Police did that a few years ago in High Point when a high-speed chase was zooming up Main Street at a busy time in the afternoon. Unfortunately, it wasn't called off in time and the fugitives slammed into a vehicle driven by a very nice lady who is left with very limited mobility for the rest of her life. Police said they were right to start the chase and right to call it off -- which seemed like a contradiction to me, especially with such a terrible outcome. In that situation, though, the fugitives had committed an armed robbery and could be considered very dangerous.

In this case, I'd hardly say all's well that ends well. One man dead, a police officer injured (fortunately, only slightly), two vehicles including a police vehicle seriously damaged.

Is it always so hard to track down a fugitive later? Again to use High Point examples, there were two cases of hit and run recently, one causing a death, another a very severe injury. Both victims were kids. No one chased, but police made arrests in both cases within a couple of days.

But what if Officer Symmes hadn't pursued and Williams had murdered someone during his next robbery? Then, people would be saying, "The police didn't do enough."

I disagree that the outcome here wasn't a good one, other than the damaged police car and the stolen car that Williams destroyed. Officer Symmes will recover, thankfully.

As for Williams, he is 100% responsible for his own death. I'm not going to waste my sympathies mourning his passing. I'll save that for those who deserve it, namely the victims of violent crime.

Police have to make split-second decisions. Make the wrong one and they - or an innocent victim - can die. Officer Symmes did what he thought he had to do.

So rather than second-guess the cops, perhaps the real question is, "Why was Emile Williams on the streets to begin with?" According to the N&R's story, he had "been to prison on 10 occasions for crimes including felony robbery, larceny, speeding from police, assaulting an officer and other crimes since 1987. He's also been on probation or parole five times."

With that kind of rap sheet, why wasn't this man still behind bars?

Very good points, Doug. I guess it's a minute to minute thing. God Bless those men in blue.

This man, while he is suspected of committing robbery, DID NOT CAUSE HIS OWN DEATH. OFFICER STYMMES, by his own admission, PULLED THAT TRIGGER! "Just saying" must be a cop. He wants to vindicate any LEO who kills someone especially if, after the fact, you can justify it by looking at his rap sheet. As to why this man wasn't still behind bars, that's easy HE DID THE TIME THE COURT DETERMINED HE EARNED for his previous crimes. If you cannot make split second decisions and make them right, then at least you should err to the decision that is rectifiable. Homicide is permanent. But then, If Stymmes thinks (or was trained to think) like "just saying" perhaps we can get a little insight into why this incident ended with a fatality.

What do you think, JUst? Does NC need a "three strikes"?

One less bad guy on the streets. Thanks officer!!

Mark, I believe in personal responsibility. Emile Williams:

1. Chose to rob a jewelry store.
2. Chose to flee police in the mall.
3. Chose to lead police on a high-speed chase in his stolen car.
4. Chose to resist arrest and fight with the officer after he crashed.
5. Tried to drag the officer from the officer's own car. At that point, Officer Symmes had no choice but to defend himself.

So, yes, Williams caused his own death, just as much as if he had squeezed the trigger himself. His actions - actions that he willingly chose to commit - led to his demise.

Skeet Club, I do think some type of mandatory sentencing guidelines are appropriate. Obviously, such guidelines have to be carefully structured, but there comes a point when enough is enough. Emile Williams was a 10-time loser. There never should have been #11 and Officer Symmes shouldn't have been in such a difficult position. We need to get these chronic repeat offenders off the streets.

Just another reprobate we won't have to worry about and pay for - can't say that I'm sorry - nature has a way of weeding out the dumb and unfit - I wish society would let nature take it's course more often -

The officer DID have a choice. There is ALWAYS a choice. He choose to reach inside the car (I am assuming that they are trained to take the keys out of the ignition in a situation like this. Another officer killed a man (shot him multiple times!) in High Point under similar circumstances). Officer Stymmes could have chosen to let the perp go and call it in. He did not have the right to put himself in the position of judge and jury. He should be removed from service, but he will probably get paid leave until this blows over and resume his duties emboldened by the support of his colleagues and some in the community. I do not want to live in a police state - which is where this is taking us.

Next time you need help with a crime against you or your family Mark, just don't bother with calling the police. Handle it yourself. That is a "choice" you can make.

Don't you worry. I cannot wait 20 minutes for a cop to answer a B&E Call . We 're locked and loaded here.

Interesting Mark, sounds like you might be a little "judge and jury" minded yourself. But then that is OK because it is you and not a police officer, right? It is so easy for you to say all those bad things about Officer Symms, because in this country every night policemen just like him put their lifes on the line for REAL, in life and death situations protecting us just so ungrateful folks like Mr. Clark and yourself can sit safely behind a keyboard and condem them for it. I know you two feel very superior judging and condeming this police officer, who I am sure never wanted to do anything but make this city a better place. Good for you both!

If someone threatens me or my family with bodily harm or forcibly enters my home, I will defend myself. I think that's a lot different than the situation we have been discussing. Remember, Officer Stymmes put himself in the window of that car. The perp was trying to get away. HE DID NOT ASSAULT STYMMES with the vehicle. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. This was the wrong way and the out come, a homicide is not what the GPD nor the public wants. The real question here is "Where is the line of demarcation? How can citizens expect police officers to respond? Being arrested is never pleasant, but should we consider the possibility of being killed for shoplifting (or a traffic ticket, or resisting arrest) in the USA? God help us when our law enforcement departments lose sight of citizens' basic rights. If that day ever comes, we will be no better than Hitler's Germany and his gestapo.

Mark, you say the perp is "innocent until proven guilty", yet you want the officer relieved of his duties. Let us give the officer a chance to explain to the SBI before you play judge and jury.

I am not playing judge and jury. The perp didn't kill anyone. The officer sworn to uphold the law DID!! Both have been caught red handed. One man is dead. It's up to the judge now. The officer should have to face the same legal process as everyone else. In fact, he should be held to a higher standard because of his "training". But he should not be allowed to continue to "protect and serve" at the taxpayers expense until it is determined that he is fit to serve again.

Officer is innocent unti proven guilty and has not even been charged with a crime last time I checked.

JC If the officer is innocent, how can you explain the corpse???

I also believe that he admitted shooting the victim. Usually when someone admits they committed the act, the court goes into the sentencing mode. Is id different behind the blue line?

No charges have been filed to be guilty of and sentenced for. Not sure a "crime" happened. He "committed an act" of protecting himself and that is why we have a corpse.

JC is right. No charges have been filed. However, isn't it part of the ongoing investigations to determine whether the officer was protecting himself?

Reaching into a vehicle to try to remove the keys from the ignition is NOT a defensive action. The officer may have been trained to do that, but in the "real world" letting the perp go and calling it in would have avoided both the fatality and the question of whether the officer was justified in killing this man.

Thought everything did happen in the "real world". Letting him go might have led to more deaths. He won't ever commit another crime and our 'real world" is now safer.

Does it really matter what Mark thinks? The SBI will clear Symmes (wait and see). Symmes will go back to work and will continue to protect our city as he should. Maybe next time a bad guy steals something and speeds away in order to avoid being captured, he will smash into Mark and his family and they will be seriously injured or die. Mr. williams was driving recklessly way before officer symmes got behind him and pursued him (thats right, i've seen the surveillance tape). Im sure Mark would then blame the police for not stopping the crime sooner. Good job officer Symmes.

Mark, you are a moron. You claim you have the right to defend yourself and are "locked and loaded" at home. But then officer Symmes (yes it's Symmes you moron, not Stymmes) did not have the right. But officer Symmes was assaulted for nearly 5 minutes by this tumor on society who deserved exactly what he got. I hope one day, you do not call the police for an incident at your house. Then I hope you take matters into your own hands, and end up in jail with someone who another, less competent officer, let go. And then, that person takes care of you.

and now for you Doug. Are you angry because you got a ticket you could not editorialize your way out of (wouldn't surprise me with the ones I've read from you). What happens, if a report comes back, that this "poor foolish fellow" Emile Williams, has a much larger rap sheet than we even know now. What if he had murdered someone, or hurt a small child? Will you then feel the same way, or is it still just a simple jewelry store robbery, that this officer should have ignored? Not to mention the stolen car, or the outstanding warrants? You don't know all the circumstances, and neither did Officer Symmes when he called to pursue this felon.

you said yourself that Police can call off a chase at any time, if it is deemed unsafe. Did you listen to the audio posted on your website? It sounded to me like Officer Symmes was in constant communication of exactly the circumstances that surrounded and included the chase. Not once did I hear someone say, "Officer, this doesnt sound safe. Why don't you just back off and let this nice fellow go. I'm sure since he has been arrested 10 times and is still on the loose, he'll be caught again. Oh, and dont worry about the fact he assaulted another police prior to you, I'm sure since it is just a simple jewlery store robbery, noone is in danger." The police obviously knew the situation and circumstances surrounding it, and felt the chase was warranted and necessary, or, as you said, they would have called it off.

Also, why dont you clear up the fact, that Symmes was not an off duty police officer, doing some post Christmas shopping at the Mall. That Off Duty Police work, which is what Officer Symmes was performing, is sanctioned and scheduled, by the Greensboro Police.

Why don't you get all of your facts straight, and not incite anger among the ignorant (like my friend Mark here) against the Police who protect everyone, regardless of ignorant and unfounded stances against the police department.

Why dont you just tip your hat, say Thank you Officer Symmes, I appreciate you making our streets safer for me and my family, and be on your way.

Oh, and Mark...I've got another for you. Since you are locked and loaded at home, (in case there is a robbery I am assuming).
just so you know, B&E (like a jewelry store robbery) is a property crime, therefore the action you must take, according to you and Doug, is to run out your back door, and let someone else handle it.

As you said, and I quote "It is the JUDGE's job to try them and find them guilty or not guilty...innocent until proven guilty...let the suspect flee and eventually apprehend him professionally... Is {homocide} this justified"

So I ask you, how are you justified taking matters into your own hands while "locked and loaded" but a sworn officer, who is well trained, not able to do his job?

and to quote Doug, "is it always so hard to track down a fugitive later? ...police made arrests in both cases within a couple of days."

By this logic, you again, should run out the back door because your offenders will be caught quickly and efficiently by the police who protect everyone, even You!

so to reiterate in your own words Mark, "if you cannot make split second decisions and make them right, then at least you should err to the decision that is rectifiable. Homicide is permanent." and you "should have to face the same legal process as everyone else."

It sounds like you should heed your own words, and probably remain quiet on this blog, lest you contradict yourself yet another time.

ARE WE REALLY ON HERE DEFENDING A 10 TIME CONVICTED FELON??? FROM MY EXPERIENCE, MOST PEOPLE ON BLOGS ARE JEALOUS THAT THEY DID NOT GET ACCEPTED TO NORTHWESTERN JOURNALISM SCHOOL AND WANT TO SAY ANYTHING THEY CAN TO WARRANT THEIR EXISTENCE, BUT COME ON...ARE YOU REALLY DEFENDING EMILE WILLIAMS. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT FELONIES ARE CONSIDERED PETTY THESE DAYS MARK, BUT ISNT THAT WHY WE HAVE MISDEMEANORS... WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE?? WHAT IF MR WILLIAMS HAD ESCAPED AND HIS NEXT "JOB" WAS TO ABDUCT YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER, SON, DAUGHTER, MOM, DAD, ETC...WOULD YOU BE UPSET THAT THE POLICE HAD HIM IN HIS GRASP BUT LET HIM GO... THE REASON YOU CAN SIT AROUND YOUR HOUSE AND DO YOUR LITTLE CUPCAKE JOB KNOWING YOUR FAMILY IS SAFE WHILE BEING ABLE TO TUCK YOUR WIFE AND KIDS IN BED EVERY NIGHT WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT THEIR SAFETY IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE OFFICER STYMMES....I WOULD NEVER WISH ANYTHING BAD ON ANYONE...SO IF YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ARE EVER PUT IN SUCH A PREDICAMENT I HOPE YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE STYMMES THERE TO PROTECT YOU AND MAKE SURE YOU LIVE TO SEE ANOTHER DAY

MARK....IF EMILE WILLIAMS HAD MOLESTED YOUR CHILD, BUT HE WAS GONNA DRIVE AWAY AND BREAK THE SPEED LIMIT, WOULD YOU JUST LET THE "PERP" DRIVE AWAY BECAUSE HE MIGHT NOT COME TO A COMPLETE STOP AT A STOP SIGN??? YOU MY FRIEND ARE AN EFFING MORON!!!

MARK....IF EMILE WILLIAMS HAD MOLESTED YOUR CHILD, BUT HE WAS GONNA DRIVE AWAY AND BREAK THE SPEED LIMIT, WOULD YOU JUST LET THE "PERP" DRIVE AWAY BECAUSE HE MIGHT NOT COME TO A COMPLETE STOP AT A STOP SIGN??? YOU MY FRIEND ARE AN EFFING MORON!!!

MARK....IF EMILE WILLIAMS HAD MOLESTED YOUR CHILD, BUT HE WAS GONNA DRIVE AWAY AND BREAK THE SPEED LIMIT, WOULD YOU JUST LET THE "PERP" DRIVE AWAY BECAUSE HE MIGHT NOT COME TO A COMPLETE STOP AT A STOP SIGN??? YOU MY FRIEND ARE AN EFFING MORON!!!

With all due respect, these last fewcomments are really twisting the issue. What if Emile Williams was a child molester? What if it turns out he's murdered someone? What absurdities. That's like saying you should send a shoplifter to prison for life because maybe he killed someone and we just don't know about it.

I happen to read the GPD's pursuit policy as if it were written for a purpose. You folks seem to think it's meaningless. Why not let investigators determine whether proper police procedures were followed in this case rather than simply conclude that criminals are bad and deserve to die, and it doesn't matter at all how they end up dead?

This is not like someone breaking into your home. I agree the homeowner has the right to defend his family and his property. It's a different matter legally if you chase the thief out of your house and gun him down in the street.

No, I haven't been given a ticket by GPD or anyone else except the State Highway Patrol about 25 years ago. I'm supporting an investigation into this fatal incident. You folks seem to want the whole thing whitewashed. You might get your way, but I have more confidence in law-enforcement agencies that evaluate themselves honestly, make sure their policies are followed properly and try to avoide repeating mistakes.

How is anything being whitewashed ? Did you want the same investigation into the Rev. Michael King's fraud or our esteemed city councilman's abuse of the money from the city to operate St. James place. How about the whitewashing of the continued and mounting losses @ the Greensboro Coliseum with annual promises of a profit for the taxpayers. there are public servants who really require our scrutiny, Doug.

How is anything being whitewashed ? Did you want the same investigation into the Rev. Michael King's fraud or our esteemed city councilman's abuse of the money from the city to operate St. James place. How about the whitewashing of the continued and mounting losses @ the Greensboro Coliseum with annual promises of a profit for the taxpayers. There are public servants who really require our scrutiny, Doug.

Doug,
You dont seem to get it. A property crime is a property crime, whether it be a B&E at your house or a snatch and grab at a Jewelry store. But I do agree with you, this is not like someone breaking into your home and putting just a few people at risk, this parasite put many people at risk at the mall as well as on the highways. He chose to speed away from the officer, when he could have pulled over, like a normal, non-dreg of society would have done.

Obviously the justice system has not worked or this cancer on our society would have been in jail for the rest of his life long ago. He would not be out there stealing again, and assaulting a police officer, AGAIN!!!!

The point we were trying to make was not, what if he was a murderer, or a child molester, but that the police pursuit should not discriminate who they chase based on the crime. Grand Larceny of $30 some thousand in rings is not your standard snatch and grab. He was not a petty criminal, again, HE WAS A 10 TIME FELON!

And you fail to note the point I made about the police chase itself. If the officer was not performing a legitimate chase, don't you think that dispatch or someone higher up than the officer would have called it off? Of course they would have. Therefore, Officer Symmes was following protocol and would have no reason to think he was not properly following protocol.

You just do not seem to get that we should thank the police for doing their job and ridding the world of another horrible individual.who, had the justice system actually done it's job, would just have been eating more taxpayer money up while sitting in jail.

Do you not believe that the police will investigate this incident? I don't think anyone just wants police running renegade through the streets, but when this officer is cleared and all is well again in Greensboro, will you then print a thank you, or will you look for another public servant to chastise?

For Mr. Hertz: This newspaper was at the forefront of reporting Project Homestead abuses in a series of articles by Stan Swofford. You might remember the press conference by black elected officials accusing us of racism as a result. Unfortunately, the SBI report on that mess has been buried deep underground. We also reported extensively on the St. James Homes affair, and we've criticized coliseum losses, particularly the bad deal with the last hockey team. So, we've done all that. But if we dare suggest there should be a fair investigation of a police chase that resulted in someone's death, then we're out of line? Come on!

GPD supporter: I get that the point you're trying to make is that the pursuit should not discriminate based on the crime. But the fact is, GPD pursuit policy DOES make that distinction. Read it. If the officer wasn't instructed to back off, perhaps dispatch or someone higher made an error.

You're quite the judge and jury when it comes to a human being's life. You've decided that his prior criminal record should have put him in prison for life. You've decided that ridding the world of another horrible individual was a just result. That's a very harsh conclusion to draw before any review of the circumstances has been completed.

I do appreciate the work that police officers do daily, but I never will agree that taking any person's life is justified based only on one officer's word without a proper investigation. Are you seriously telling me that asking for such an investigation is wrong or somehow anti-police?

Mr Editor,
I understand that you are going to continue to come on this blog and defend your stand about this certain incident, however i want to ask your opinion on something related to earlier questions raised during this blog. What are your thoughts about repeated felons? Do you think that possibly there may be something wrong with the judicial system? It has been stated by numerous different bloggers that this man, Mr Williams, was a ten time convicted felon. Should we be questioning officer Symmes or should we be questioning why a 10 time convicted felon should even have the opportunity to go out and rob a jewelry store?How is it that someone is able to be put in this situation 10 times. Since he had been caught by authorities 10 times, I am going out on a limb and say that he has committed way more than 10 felonies. Just going by the odds, if Mr Williams were to get arrested everytime he committed a crime, that he probably would have stopped at number 2, 3, 4, 5, or maybe felony number 6. However something tells me that he was able to get away with much more crimimal activity over the past 15 years that he has spent in and out of jail. I have come to one of two conclusions. Either Emile Williams was the worst crook in the history of crooks, or he has done this over, and over, and over, and over again. It just so happens he was caught only 10 times, yes CAUGHT 10 TIMES.
Now yes, according to your previous posts, it is irresponsible for anyone to draw conclusions about someone's past if there is no record for it, so we cannot assume that Mr Williams had done anything worse than those 10 FELONIES on his record. If this is the case, however, we SUREly CANNOT ASSUME THAT OFFICER SYMMES DID ANYTHING WRONG. I'm sure he does not have any felonies on his record. I am also sure, Mr. Editor, you know what they say about people who assume. So all that I ask is you do not raise judgement about fellow bloggers who are assuming things, when you yourself began all of this nonsense because of your assumptions. I know you are a very intelligent person, otherwise you would not be in the position you are in. Nevertheless, you of all people, should realize the influence that journalists have on public opinion, so unfortunately I thought that you would have taken this responsibility a little more serious. Granted, you have probably made a name for yourself by all the controversy you try to stir up, but do you really believe what you are saying? Can you look at yourself in the mirror, knowing you are trying to turn people against all the brave Greensboro Police Officers out there protecting this city. Can you look yourself in the mirror knowing you are trying to throw a young man who did what he was trained to do "under the bus". I mean come on! It does make me feel happy to be a Greensboro resident after reading some of the other bloggers on this site. They respect and understand the job that these young men are doing every day and every night in order to make us feel safer. Anyway, Mr. Editor, thank you so much for giving us all the opportunity to express our opinions and please know that no matter who you may potentially harm by your biased opinions, in your mind you have made Greensboro a "better place".

Doug, if you have any humanity, remove that last posting. This is information that does not need to be out there and we dont even know if it is true. If this is the kind of garbage that makes it on the blog, then all of our banter over what we agree or disagree on is pointless. We can all argue professionally, or in some cases unprofessionally about what we believe in this case, but this garbage bedroom "humor" is ridiculous and has no place in this discussion.

I agree and have deleted a post that contained inappropriate personal information -- which, of course, may have been completely fictitious.

The earlier question about repeat offenses is a good one. Had the subject been convicted of that many violent offenses he likely would have been locked up for life. How many minor offenses should someone be allowed? Or, how many more prisons would we need to put away all the repeat petty criminals for life? I don't have the answers to those questions.