Subway robber served with seven-year sentence
Published Friday, April 18, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!A Fairbanks man was sentenced to more than seven years in prison earlier this week after pleading no contest to one count of armed robbery.
Benjamin Skinner, 28, pleaded no contest to the single count in exchange for prosecutors dropping other robbery and theft charges.
Fairbanks police believe Skinner and Justin Thomerson, 21, are responsible for the August robberies of Espresso Yourself Coffee on College Road and two Subway restaurants. The Subways were robbed on consecutive nights.
In addition, authorities suspect the pair committed at least four burglaries in the Fairbanks area between August and October. Cash, weapons, jewelry and electronics were the primary targets in those break-ins. It is believed the two men were selling or trading the items to acquaintances for drugs.
Prosecutors also agreed not to file charges against Brynn Ploetz, an acquaintance of Skinner’s. The pair allegedly returned to her home following the robberies.
Ploetz said Skinner was remorseful for his involvement in the robberies, but that he only helped plan them and pled out because of “extenuating circumstances.”
Thomerson was indicted on four counts of first-degree burglary, six counts of second-degree theft, one count of first-degree robbery, two counts of third-degree assault and one count of third-degree weapons misconduct in February.
He is scheduled to make a change of plea Wednesday in Fairbanks Superior Court.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
What do you think, any chance of reform for Skinner and Thomerson?
Let's hope Ms. Ploetz learns to make better decisions and that her child was not at home when she let armed robbers in:
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/mar/29/ru...
Imusuallyright - We all make bad choices, I did not know what was going on, and there where extenutating circumstances look up the court cases and the police reports and see the stuff that I was having to deal with, it was not the most pleasant experience of my life. So before you judge please make an informed desicion based on the facts. Please, and for the record my children where never in harms way.
So, have you learned to make better decisions? Unpleasant experiences are often the most instructive.
Please remember that there are folks who are able to avoid making really "bad choices". We all conduct our lives differently. I suspect that this was a big lesson for you and I hope you have paid attention.
Bad choices for me involve having the fish instead of the beef, not armed robbery. How messed up are we collectively when we justify crime with excuses like this. Give 'em a heavy sledge hammer and point them to a pile of big rocks. When they are standing in front of a pile of sand, ask them if they feel like robbing again.
well since she is still standing by his side ,
i would say there was no lesson learned
she will be waiting awhile
Hey folks -- Meth is bad, mkay?
Yes, I am making an assumption. However, in my many years of experience, it is usually the meth heads that are motivated (and amped up) enough to go on such a string of robberies. Usually the crack heads stick to petty theft - particularly from friends and family :(
Anyhow - these were obviously a string of drug related robberies and I'd be willing to bet ANY amount of money that they weren't doing this just to get some pot!
In my opinion, it is HIGHLY likely that the MAJORITY of thefts, home invasions, and armed robberies in Fairbanks are brought about by our city's hard drug problems (those being crack and meth).
Personally, I would love to see more meth and crack busts in the police reports. Obviously, they are in our town ripping us off. Anyone care to enlighten me as to why we don't see them in the public safety reports more often?
I've certainly have my own ideas on this, but I'd like to hear others.
I have made it to 30 without being imprisoned or even commiting a felony. I wonder how long before I will get a check in the mail for behaving myself?
Imusuallyright --
In my experience (and assuming that these were crimes committed by addicts trying to get money for a fix), their chances of rehabilitation are very good, IF THEY CAN KICK THE DRUGS.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
newsreader-
Why we don't see them in the paper or why they're not happening?
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Unfortunatly hi_bert is right.
free speech-i have to agree bout that.
hi bert-
I am very sorry that you've had to go through this. People who make these kinds of "choices" often cause a lot of heartache and trouble for the ones they say they care about. Your advice, "cut it off" is valid. Enabling people really helps no one.
Before the ability to comment on this article is revoked, let's remember that Thomerson has not yet been convicted nor sentenced.
Imusuallyright says -- "Why we don't see them in the paper or why they're not happening?"
As I have stated before, I have no reason to believe that the Newsminer is intentionally leaving out crack or meth busts from their public safety report. Thus, if I don't see them in the paper, I assume they aren't happening.
If anyone one has other information to prove my assumption incorrect, feel free to let us know!
Until then, I will assume that we have a REACTIVE police force that waits until drug addicts commit violence or property crimes rather than a PROACTIVE police force that would stop the drugs, thereby stopping the theft and violence PRIOR to it occurring.
you are right they havent slapped his wrist yet. skinner is not a first time offender so that puts him in the same boat! LEECH! If thats they company Ms.Ploetz keeps she shouldn't be allowed to raise a dog much less children!
they are users! thats just my observation from family and friends that spill this useless info to me whether i want to hear it or not!
Newsreader, feel free to dispute and dissect this:
1.) It's easier and cheaper to catch someone committing or has committed a violent crime than it is to invesitgate the use, distribution and in some cases, manufacture of the drugs you're discussing.
2.) For similar reasons, violent crimes and theft are easier to convict, therefore ensuring that these folks are off the streets, rather than taking a gamble with charging them with use, distribution and, in some cases, manufacture.
newsreader - It'd be interesting see what you'd propose for proactive police operations.
1. Most people appear to want the police to catch criminals, i.e., catch the people commiting robberies, assaults, burglaries, etc. In order to comply with the apparent desires of the people, the police must be reactive.
2. How many times have you heard something like, "Why are we wasting money on cops in the schools when they could be out busting real criminals," or, "Why are the cops wandering around doing neighborhood patrols when they should be busting drug dealers?" I've heard similar sentiments far more often than I'd care to count.
3. A crime must be committed before the police can act. The police do attempt to prevent crime when they encounter a situation where it appears HIGHLY probable that crime will be committed. Otherwise, they operate under very restrictive guidelines.
4. I'm fairly sure the cops would LOVE to get rid of ALL crack and meth ... less drug-related crime means less headaches and less work for them. On the other hand, I've heard a number of people object rather strongly because the cops busted a "reliable, hard working truck driver" simply because he happen to have some meth in his possession.
5. Where do you draw the line? I'm sure you'd be upset if a cop gave you a ticket because he "thought you were going to exceed the speed limit."
Yes, I'd be interested in hearing your proposals. Please remember, however, those proposals must abide by the legal protections written into the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. Also, please remember your proposals are essentially empty rhetoric unless there is the manning and funding necessary to carry them out.
GRIFF: I think newsreader is only saying that he'd like to see more trafficking and distribution arrests because they address supply issues rather than just taking bottom-of-the-food-chain addicts off the street for a little while.
There was one big distribution case recently (the Christopher Smith conviction), but that's the only one I remember off the top of my head. It would be encouraging to see more of that, but I think that kind of policing is very expensive and time consuming. Also, drugs are so profitable that I don't think there's any shortage of suppliers willing to take the necessary risks.
Honestly I don't know if there is a good law enforcement solution for hard drug use and its associated problems. Of course the police need to aggressively investigate property and violent crimes, but the last thirty years or so have demonstrated that that has no effect at all on the problem as a whole.
The drug problem might be more effectively addressed as a public health issue. We're doing that already, but it would need to be done on a much wider scale to have any real effect. Of course that would mean law abiding taxpayers spending their hard-earned money on expanded treatment programs for "deadbeats," "addicts," "losers," etc. I think we'd all come out ahead in the long run.
BABYLON - agreed, well said.
I have said before (and was laughed at) that I (with the help of a friend or two) could find most of the crack houses in this town in a matter of a few weeks.
This time, I'll tell you how
First thing - cabbies know where everything is in the town they work in. Admittedly not all cabbies will direct you where you want to go, but I can assure you that you can find one who will.
So, you get a cabbie to either find you some crack (possible but not likely) or to find you a hooker (very likely). Odds are very good that the hooker will either be a crack head, or know a crack head. Thus, she will get your foot in the door.
From there, you hang out with the crack heads for a while (yes, this will probably require you to lay with hookers and smoke crack). It won't take long before you have a nice little group of crack head followers, that is, as long as you have money to spend on crack that they can smoke.
From there, each of them will take you to their suppliers. (I was taken to as many as 4 crack houses on South Cushman in a single night).
Now, rather than bust the crack heads, or even the crack houses, you place them under surveillance and wait for them to go "hook-up" with some more. Viola! You have stepped a couple of rungs up the ladder and found a multitude of crack houses in a matter of a few weeks.
Now, you guys can try to poke all the holes you want in this method, but I can assure you verh high certainty that this will work. Will it stop all of the problems? No. It will have to be repeated on a (fairly) regular basis, but no more often than our law enforcement currently runs "sting" operations on local bars and kwiky-mart type places to catch selling to underage folks.
Why do I know this will work? Because you can do the exact same thing in any city in our country. Get off the plane, get in a cab, find a hooker, and find some crack.
Now, this does not address the meth problem. However, it needs to be dealt with in a similar manner. It will just take longer because they are generally far more paranoid. However, it certainly can be done. If an addict can move from town to town and still get drugs, then so can an undercover officer.
So, I see the bars getting busted by undercover stings. I see the kwiky-marts getting busted by undercover stings. I see that an undercover sting will certainly work for the crack houses. But, I don't see it being done. Which is worse, kids smoking cigarettes or kids smoking crack? If you say crack, then you have to ask yourself, what are the cops thinking?
If my assumption is true that a lot of the theft (and violence) is caused by hard drug addicts, then focusing efforts on busting those drugs will not only alleviate the drug problem, it will alleviate the crime problem. Win-win.
Now, if for a few weeks a year, we have to go with out a few of the patrol cars on the road in order to work these operations, then I say that is what should happen.
In addition, we need two more things to happen.
First, we need to legalize marijuana. Right now, it is being lumped in with all of the other drugs and that causes a LOT of confusion to young drug experimenters. Marijuana has been called the gateway drug, and I have a theory as to why. When a kid smokes some pot, the lies that are feed to them about ALL drugs being bad become readily obvious. Pot is a rather benign substance. Once that is established, they begin to wonder, what else are they lying to me about? And they begin to experiment with the truly dangerous drugs - the powders (meth, crack, coke, and heroin). Those truly are bad AND highly addictive. Viola -- you end up with addicts because the government has been lying to them, and pot gets blamed for it.
So, once we separate the (fairly) benign from the truly evil, then we re-double our education and public health side of the campaign (without the lies). Readily available free treatment would be a GREAT place to start. For those who complain about the "deadbeats, addicts, and losers", I would say that the effort is well worth the long run benefit to society.
Imusuallyright --
1) We don't pay the cops to take the easy way out. As so many are quick to state, they have a hard dangerous job and they knew that when they took it. All I'm saying is do the job you signed up for.
2) Just because the violent crimes are easier to convict, doesn't mean that we should ignore the real, true cause (drug addiction) and allow them to continue. By waiting until they commit violent crimes, we are attempting to cure the symptoms and not tackling the actual cause.
I'd also like to add that no where in my posts have I advocated busting the end user - the possessor. To me, busting the lowest level addict is a miscarriage of justice - they need to go to treatment - we need to focus efforts on the distribution and smuggling end of the spectrum - they need to go to jail.
Newsreader-
There is a long way between the way things should be and the way things are. I don't know and am not defending the rationale behind (your stated assumption of) the way FPD and AST conduct business. Just speculating there...
I do take issue with the statement that "busting the lowest level addict is a miscarriage of justice - they need to go to treatment." Successful treatment of addiction can only happen if the addict is really willing to go and work because they have come to the realization that addiction is negatively affecting their life. A drug conviction can (not always does) speed up the process of coming to that realization. No, I don’t believe that’s the reason that possession arrests are made, but there is a percentage—probably small--- of users/addicts who stop using because they’ve been arrested.
Imusuallyright says - "There is a long way between the way things should be and the way things are."
LOL! Now that is something that probably everyone can agree on! Way to stay absolutely neutral there ;)
I accept your statement that a conviction may speed the path to seeking treatment. I still won't advocate it, but I certainly think you have a valid point. [I don't need to advocate it - it is already happening!]
Darn! Neutral's no fun.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
newsreader---
Amazingly, I agree with most of what you say about this. I hope this doesn't ruin your evening, me agreeing with you for a change.
However, the biggest problem that police face in this circumstance, could be questionable searches. Judges have been known to interpret the law in strange ways. Just because the cop was following a skanky crackhead hooker doesn't me they had cause for investigation. Or something like that.
I mean the cop in newsreader's scenario, nothing to do with this case.
What amazes me is that I have read most of the posts commented. And noted the time stamps applied to these posts. Some of these continual commenter's have an opinion and or solution to everything.
Maybe they just have the best high paying jobs, or they have nothing better to do all day than tell everybody else what to do and how to do it. Maybe some of them are cause for concern over our tax-dollars. I have been in numerous positions to listen to whiners who are usually right and have just learned to turn the radio off.
That said. There have been suggestions submitted that are legit.
When I was a Kid "a long time ago" I knew more, and said less than all of the old fuddy duddies ever could suspect. Does anybody think this has changed.
Now that I am responsible, have a family, career and job. I take my knowledge from my past and try to apply it. When something smells like fish, it probably stinks.
The kids are our future, and will be responsible for taking care of us, and fixing all of our screw-ups. Their not all bad, and the parent who knows where and what his kid is doing, is way ahead.
I believe that BABYLON'S ideas and insights are a refreshing change to the less than effective way things have been handled since about 38 years ago or so.
BILLIONS of dollars have been thrown after other BILLIONS of dollars, and even if they do 'sweeps' in some areas, similar to what newsreader is proposing, most towns have an alternate supply of nearly anything you want, almost instantaneously.
Indicating that -what- was achieved?? Employment made possible for specialized law enforcment?? Prosecutors? Prison and jail staff? Defense attorney? Judges?
If keeping those folks in paychecks is the objective, then the War On (Some) Drugs has been an amazing success!
If the real intention is, however, to curb illicit drug use, then someone best take another look at the play book.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
IMO. Skinner should have still been in Jail from his involvement in stealing guns back in 2001. Skinner is a career criminal and should be treated that way.
You can blame the things that "created" him. But he is who he is and needs to take responsibility, if he wants to change he will. Society won't change him. We all make choice and they form who we are. We all make bad choice and must live with them, and accept the consequences.
M.
These guys are worse than scum. They need to just stay in jail. Society has no use for them. Or the woman who helped them hide all of their stolen goods. Makes me wonder why child services was never involved. And if they did get involved, they obviously served no purpose. Kind of like these three people.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.