What were you thinking? - Follow up

Back in March, I posted an entry about a local man, a deacon in his church, who robbed a bank. My post is here, but in summary, the man was hailed by many as a "good" man who just snapped. He was seen walking into the bank wearing a mask and police were called. He ended up holding two bank employees hostage during the attempt, before he eventually gave himself up.

Last week, Bruce Lee Windsor plead guilty in Federal court to the bank robbery. Windsor, father of 4, stepped up to the task and admitted his actions. He still faces two counts of kidnapping in state court. Whether he will plead guilty in this case or attempt a defense is not yet clear.

Windsor faces up to 25 years on the Federal case (sentencing date not set). According to this news article he did not have a criminal past, however he was facing a $30,000 lawsuit. The article also says the "federal system doesn’t allow parole." With that information and the upcoming state trial, Mr. Windsor will be away from his children for a long, long, long time.

Some comments I've seen on the newspaper articles question Windsor's status as a "good man." Some people had question about his real estate dealings (the lawsuit is one result). He did have financial problems and apparently was looking for a way out.

There are a lot of victims in this story. Some are quick to point out his wife and children, who still face the same problems he faced before the robbery and now face new problems. They are correct in pointing out these problems. Others are correct to point out the two people held hostage, who feared for their life as well as all of the ones in the bank. From a strictly dollars and cents viewpoint, there's lost business at the bank, cost of the police force to come out and other business aspects. I mentioned back in March that I knew a family impacted by the event (much less than those immediately involved).

I go back to my original question - What were you thinking? Obviously, Windsor wasn't thinking. The Greenville News reports that FBI has a 60% clearance rate in solving bank robberies. You have only a 2 in 5 chance of getting anything and then it's only likely to be "couple of thousand dollars." As Miller Shealy, a former federal prosecutor and now Charleston School of Law professor says, "the bank robber is a more desperate form of criminal and not a very smart one these days." (see here)

I hold no special animosity towards Mr. Windsor, but I also hold no special compassion. Maybe he was a "good man", but his actions deserve punishment. The length of that punishment will soon become obvious.

Gaffney serial killer is caught

Gaffney, SC is a small town best known for it's peach water tower, a symbol of the peach orchards in the area. Some have said the peach resembles the back-end of a woman bending over. In addition to the peach orchards, Gaffney, population around 13,000 is also home to Limestone College, a small "private, Christian, non-denominational, coeducational liberal arts college."

Recently, Gaffney has been terrorized by a serial killer who has murdered five people in three separate incidents. There has been no known connection between these people and no pattern. Yesterday, the suspect was killed in nearby Gaston County, NC after a shoot-out with police.

My family has two separate connections to Gaffney, about 50 miles away from my back door. My daughter-in-law's family lives in Gaffney and her mother works at Limestone College. They have lived in Gaffney their entire life. Additionally, my son-in-law's parents attended Limestone back before they were married. The town of Gaffney has been hit hard with this incident and they are all glad it's over.

Much will come out about the individual who committed these crimes. 41 year old Patrick Burris. During a press conference last night, SLED investigators waved a 25 page rap sheet - asking for an explanation as to why this man was on the streets. When captured, Burris was in the company of a couple - what is their role in this mess? Where has Burris been the last two weeks and what led him to Gaffney (he was caught about 30 miles away) to commit these murders?

There will be more research into all of this and I, for one, am interested in the answers. But for now, this saga is over and Gaffney can return to its peaceful nature again.

Book 'em Danno

This morning our local station did a "Timeline" story, a story where they explain something significant that happened this day, June 13. Now I would have thought they would have recognized my son-in-law's birthday or maybe granddaughter #3's one month birthday, but rather they focused on a court decision, the decision of Miranda v. Arizona.

Most of us are familiar with the Miranda decision, from watching television (analog or digital). The decision (1966) marked a time when the Supreme Court ruled that an individual must be told his rights when arrested, you know, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc.

But I got to thinking, whatever happened to Mr. Miranda? Well Wikipedia is always a good source, especially if you aren't writing a paper. In this Wikipedia article, it's all spelled out. Seems 22 year old Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery and while under arrest, he confessed to raping a girl 2 days earlier. At trial, his victim positively identified him and his confession was entered into the courts.

The Supreme Court indicated that Miranda didn't know (or wasn't told) his rights and sent the case back to trial. Now Paul Harvey would say, here's the rest of the story. When the case went back to trial, the prosecution entered the same witnesses and "other evidence" (Wikipedia isn't known for detail). The result? Miranda was convicted, sentenced to 20 to 30 years, served 5 years in jail, was released on parole and went on to lead the life of a prosperous citizen.

Well, maybe not that last part. Seems he spent time autographing Miranda cards for police officers and then was stabbed to death in a bar argument four years later. Even when given the protection of his full rights, he was still convicted. And in his final trial, he was afforded the same rights he gave his earlier victim.

Moral of the story: Just because someone gets a big case named after them, doesn't mean they weren't guilty.