More on Moore.

Gregory B. Moore, subject of the previous post (go there now if you haven't read it yet), deserves another few inches of columnar, pixelated, editorial commentary from an overly wordy Felis silvestris catus. ((Yes, I've been alternating naps on a thesaurus & a dictionary for the last day or so. They're large, and when open, quite comfy.)

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Mr. Moore, perhaps under the influence of Satanic possession, went bat-shit crazy, killed one person, critically injured another, and committed a string of car-jackings. (I'm going to omit the 'allegedly' wimp-out language, as this guy is guilty as Hell.) An article in Sun Sentinel from that day gives some additional background.

The FBI identified the gunman as Gregory B. Moore, 35, who goes by the nickname Pop. Moore has a lengthy criminal record and is considered armed and dangerous.

...

Moore has served five stints in Florida state prisons going back to 1997. The longest and most recent stay was from Sept. 1, 2011 to Feb. 15, 2014, when he served nearly 2 1/2 years of a 4-year prison sentence for an armed robbery in Pompano Beach.

Moore's other convictions include burglary, assault, aggravated battery and cocaine possession.

But that's not all! Moore had been arrested two days prior to his December 2 crime spree:

Moore's most recent run-in with police was Sunday [November 30, 2014 - Gato], when he was arrested about 3:30 a.m. by Lauderhill police. He was charged with possession of a weapon or ammunition by a convicted felon, posted $2,500 bond and was released the same day, records show.

Perhaps the bond should have been set a little higher.

Or perhaps Moore should have done the full four years in prison for the previous armed robbery conviction. Had he served out the four years, two other people would have lived past December 2, 2014. Note that the four years for armed robbery came AFTER other convictions for violent crimes. Justice isn't just blind, it's deaf and dumb, too.

Side note: I remember James Ellroy writing in one of his books (I believe it was Blood's a Rover) that the LAPD once had an unwritten rule that when practical, armed robbers should be killed. The reasoning for such a practice was that armed robbers had a very high likelihood of eventually killing someone, so it was better to stop them before they killed some innocent. I have no idea if that claim was merely a fictitious invention for his story, or if it had some basis in fact. However, it doesn't seem like such a bad idea, and is probably better than letting armed robbers out after less than two and a half years in prison.