Miles's blog

Three law enforcement issues which trouble me collided in Greenland, New Hampshire yesterday when the police chief was killed trying to serve an arrest warrant for possession of drugs on an offender who ultimately killed a female companion along with himself.

This represents in some ways a microcosm of so many law enforcement issues: enforcement of drug laws, danger of police work, and domestic violence.  (The news has not reported who the woman in the home with the killer was, I am just assuming it was a domestic violence situation.  Whomever she was, she died as an innocent victim.)  According to the Porstmouth (N.H.) Herald, the shooter was caught with anabolic steroids in his home and the arrest warrant was in connection with that case.  The chief was a 26-year law enforcement veteran with a wife and family who was only days away from retirement.

I realize the necessity of enforcing the drug laws, and I am not in favor of legalization, decriminalization, or even significant reduction in penalties (which apparently is going to happen in Colorado).  I know that arrest warrants need to be served, that the system must get offenders into court in order to effectuate any treatment, and that there is a risk to all police work.  I am well-familiar with drug laws, drug treatment strategies, and drug enforcement operations.  All of that being said, I cannot help but feel sad at the thought that a policeman’s family will be forced to go on without him merely because the state of New Hampshire wanted to prosecute a man for having some steroids.   (I would feel the same if it was possession of heroin, LSD, or meth.)

Anyone who reads my blogs on a regular basis (and I know of two) knows my dissatisfaction with the manner in which the current war on drugs is carried out.  Certainly serving this warrant is not the kind of thing I complain about, but it is still an outgrowth of the same perspective.  Should the police fail to serve drug warrants?  I would hate to say that.  The police need to arrest wanted suspects.  The DA needs to get warrants for violations.  I realize nobody did anything wrong here. But still, had this guy been allowed to stay in his home until he safely could have been arrested in a different environment, the community would not have suffered severely.   Because of what I wrote about earlier this week—the increasing risk to police—what would seem to be a mundane task for the police, making an arrest of a low-level suspect, is now a life-or-death risk.  I, for one, am not comfortable putting cops at risk of death (and now suffering that horrible result) just so one guy can answer for having (or selling or importing) steroids or any other drug.

That he chose to kill his girlfriend (if indeed that is what she was) only compounds the tragedy, but evinces no surprise.  Domestic violence kills thousands of people, mostly women, every year.  I am willing to bet that in places like Greenland, New Hampshire, most of their murders and attempted murders were the result of domestic violence.  In this case, as in many, the perpetrator was a risk to both his partner and the police.  And, as in many cases, what appeared to be a somewhat minor police issue turned deadly for the intimate partner of a criminal and the police officers trying to respond. (Whether she was his intimate partner or not, she was killed for no more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  No one suspects her of shooting at the police.)

All of this is merely just to point out how very dangerous America is.  The New York Times had a large article today, in the context of the Trayvon Marin murder case, about the advent of self-defense protections and the increased allowance of concealed weapons.  (Ironically, it also had an article today about the repeal of the death penalty in Connecticut.)  Many states have increasingly allowed gun owners to carry their weapons concealed, and then use them with impunity should someone violate their property rights.  The Brady Bill seems to be inadequate at keeping guns away from those who are prohibited from having them, and American culture has the right to bear arms so ingrained that even the barest suggestion that guns should be controlled in some fashion is met with an outpouring of vitriol.  

Wherever you fall on the gun control debate, you need to acknowledge that gun violence is a significant problem.  (The gun proponents concede, or perhaps even emphasize, the amount of violent crime in America; they believe the answer is for law-abiding citizens to have access to weapons for protection.)  This makes policing, and dating, more dangerous.

George Zimmerman needed no gun to be a Neighborhood Watch volunteer.  Had he carried none, both he and Martin would be alive (although perhaps one of them would have gotten beat up).  So while I offer no opinion on whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense at the time he pulled the trigger, I will say it does not appear he was at risk of being beaten to death with a Pringles can.  I doubt had he been unarmed he would have even chosen to confront Martin.  His attitude of invincibility created by the handgun he lawfully possessed allowed him to confront the person he felt was potentially a risk to commit a crime in his gated community.  I sincerely doubt Zimmerman feared Martin was a danger to kill, rape, or maim.  He probably thought somebody’s car stereo, or maybe their in-home computer, was at risk.  Nevertheless, Zimmerman knew that should things go bad after he got out of his car, if the police weren’t there, that he had brought a gun to a fistfight.

OK, I digressed.  I did not mean to make this a gun-control blog.  I just wanted to emphasize that my concerns of days ago about the dangers of police work were brought home in the small town of Greenland, New Hampshire (population 3500).  I worry about Michele and Rob.