UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
McArthur Bobo, 27 wanted in connection with the December 23rd murder of Michael Gibbs, which occurred at 42 N. Claybrook. HAS BEEN ARRESTED BY UNION STATION OFFICERS.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
Kudos to the officers of Union Station! Another job well done!
The Memphis Police Department is looking for this suspect, McArthur Bobo, in regards to a murder that occurred in the downtown area a week ago. He has been identified as a member of the Crips, a local social group who specialize in terrorizing communities. If you encounter him, call the police, he is a bad boy who carries a gun and uses it. He has been arrested over 30 times for everything from burglary, to selling drugs, to assault, witness intimidation, arson, possession of an unlawful weapon, etc! Here's a link to the BOLO on McArthur Bobo
8 comments:
This guy, McArthur Bobo is only about 27 years old and has been arrested 30 times?
From looking at his arrest record, many of his arrests seem to be for felony violations, which carry a MINIMUM of a year in jail, and many others were for misdemeanors which carry up to 11 months and 29 days in jail.
Why, with this many arrests, was this man on the streets?
Someone should file suit under the Freedom of Information act and obtain the District Attorney General's ticket on ALL of his arrests and see just who it is in the DA's office that is cutting deals with this criminal which allowed him to be on the streets to commit the murder he is accused of.
If the Bill Gibbons can't be sued for negligence in cutting these sweet deals with a man who is obviously and clearly a violent threat to society, at least the media should report every sweetheart deal Bill Gibbons' office made this made and have General Gibbons on T.V. to explain how, with his "no deals" policy, this man, who could have already been incarcerated for at least 30 years, was free and on the streets.
I hope when Bill Gibbons runs for governor everyone in Tennessee will be allowed to have the opportunity to know just how little Bill "Let's Make A Deal" Gibbons cares for the safety of the public at large.
He's more interested in letting violent criminals roam the streets in order to keep favor with that segment of the population so he can continue living off the taxpayer's tit.
I say enough! The District Attorney MUST STOP MAKING DEALS WITH CRIMINALS THAT PUTS THEM BACK ON THE STREETS SOONER THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE RELEASED FROM INCARCERATION.
I hesitate to rush to judgment on this. I think a better thing to do is lobby the legislators to enact tougher laws, particularly my sentencing matrix. If the sentencing matrix were in place, this guy would have been in prison, because the matrix would have retained him.
why do we need more and (I'm assuming) better laws when the ones we have in place would have kept this guy incarcerated but for the fact that he wasn't required to serve the time our current laws already allow?
i would suggest that, before we go have the legislature enact sentencing matrix's, we just elect a District Attorney General who will not cut deals with the criminals, thereby allowing them back on the streets.
even without the proposed matrix, this guy would not have been free to commit the murder he's accused of having done if he'd been given the MAXIMUM time allowed on all his 30 or so prior arrests.
I dont think the legislative branch not having tough enough sentencing laws in place is the problem. The problem seems to be that we have an elected official (namely an attorney general) who let's violent offenders accept deals to get their feet back on the streets sooner than they'd otherwise be released if he gave them the max.
I think we have to have the facts before we can point the finger at the DA. Trust me, I'm not averse to calling someone out, if they deserve it. I just don't have enough information to be able to say the DA is wherein the problem lies. Having worked in the DA's office for 6 years, and the courts, for several years, I know a little about how these things work.
The DAs prosecutors have caseloads that don't all contain cases they can hit home runs on. They try to move the minor ones as quickly as possible and devote most of their time to the most serious ones.
This is where my matrix fixes things. Even if they have a plea bargain, the penalty would have to be greater than the previous crimes sentence. Of course, this is all rough and has to be thoroughly vetted before a system can be installed. Even then, I would expect some tweaking downstream.
Is what you propose some sort of "sentencing guideline" that would take the matter completely out of the hands of the DA and the judges, kind of like the recently struck down federal sentencing guidelines?
If so, I see a danger in such a system in that it would fail to take the dynamics of each particular offender's situation into consideration.
I think the system we have now is probably the best, if we could but get our elected officials to use the tools the legislature has given them.
What you seem to propose is a system that acknowledges that the DA isn't going to make an offer so "unacceptable" that the offenders will not accept it. Then, they are left with the choice of accepting the offer given (at the max) or going to trial and have a judge impose a sentence just as harsh.
Before we scrap the entire system, I say let's make our District Attorneys General give these thugs an offer of the maximum time allowed under present law. If they dont take it, I think the majority of our criminal court judges will see to it that these thugs get what they deserve. The judges do have a strong propensity to follow the recommendation of the state so if the state (i.e., DA) reccommends the max that is what the judge is likely to give.
The sentencing guidelines that were recently overturned had to do with a disproportionate punishment for crack dealers and powder "salesmen". I mean how could you punish someone who services the affluent the same as you would a lowly "rock mane?"
What I propose is somewhat like the current DUI sentencing. It escalates the punishment with each conviction, and as far as I know, it hasn't been overturned. I think, if we use minimum sentences on the front end and go heavy on the biggest offenders, we can have an impact. That would obviate the need to handle each case with a deep concern for each individual's situation.
As for the DA pushing for the max, I'm all for that. But, what is the DA to do when the crime is particularly heinous, but the proof in the case is shaky? How can he go for the max, when there is a big question as to whether or not the case is winnable, or even better, when there is a question as to whether or not we have the right perpetrator?
I think McArthur Bobo was right for killing Michael gibbs.People look at it as okay,bobo,has killed someone,if you dont know Michael Gibbs you shouldnt have anything to say because Michael Gibbs was locked up for 9year due to a murder charge.so he's also a killer,but thats not all he is a rapest.He have raped young girls in the pass years.He is also a drug dealer.So I say thumbs up to McArthur Bobo.
Well, I can certainly understand you feeling that Gibbs needed killing, if he did all those things. However, we have these things called laws, and we should push to get them enforced. I readily admit that the system isn't working as it should today, but I don't know that I can support vigilantiism. Then again, if someone raped one of my daughters....
Post a Comment