Cook County News Herald

Security and the smirk test




Concerning the Feb. 4 letters to the editor, I heartily agree with Gideon Silence regarding security at the county courthouse. However, like every other letter and article I’ve read on this issue, a single, critical point has been missed. The courthouse shooting was committed by a just convicted felon, who was allowed to roam freely around the courthouse and the adjacent parking lot, where he retrieved a gun from his car, and allegedly shoot two people in the county attorney’s office. This was not a disgruntled citizen seeking help from county officials, nor was it someone simply conducting business.

Proposals for metal detectors, locked doors and other measures that simply harass the public do not address the fundamental question: Why was a convicted felon not handcuffed and led off to jail, or at least in police custody?

Mr. Prom’s letter extolling the benefits of the proposed community center was like all the rest: It will draw tourists, enhance living in Cook County, bring young families to the area, promote health, reduce health care costs, keep kids in school, and reduce social service and law enforcement costs.

As far as I can tell, the only benefits that have not been claimed are the curing of cancer and ending world hunger. Like all such letters, it neither passes the smirk test, nor does it provide data supporting the claims. Furthermore, no examples are given of where such edifices have produced such benefits. Perhaps I’m just a skeptic, but I know bull when I see it.

Nevin D. Holmberg
Hovland

Editor’s note: In the December 24 article Schlienz charged with premeditated attempted murder, the Cook County News-Herald reported the following: Schlienz was not taken into custody after the verdict because sentencing had not yet been determined. Because he was not convicted of the count which included force and coercion, it was likely that he would receive a stayed prison sentence…Also taken into consideration, according to a court spokesperson, was that Schlienz had been compliant with the restrictions of probation and had not had any new charges.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.