In The Signal published April 7, Christopher Lucero penned a verbose appeal to hypocrisy and questions, while singling out “local conservatives,” our entire rule of law foundation to prop it up.
Here’s a succinct rebuttal to a couple of points:
It’s not illogical to oppose incarceration of violent offenders near a residential area and recognize that county government has a responsibility to protect the physical safety of those serving terms for criminal acts. Nor is it difficult to differentiate between voluntary residence with acceptance of risk and involuntary incarceration.
Too, his prior residence risk tolerance profile may not be shared by those currently affected. What makes Lucero’s profile the valid one?