Fritz may hold the key to debate on civil liberties

Friday, Jan. 12, 2007

For those interested, I have written extensively on my blog, Who’s Your Nanny? (Google it), of my impression of the events that led to the death of the local Army reservist on Dec. 26. And while I’m glad to learn this incident will be given the attention Dean’s family and the public deserve, I might also suggest to Mr. Fritz the importance of empaneling a citizens group to review his own independent investigation, as well.

One of Mr. Fritz’s prevailing concerns is why police refused to let Jamie Dean’s family speak with him during the standoff, despite reports that Dean’s father was told they would be taken to an emergency-dispatch center for that very reason. According to The Enterprise, Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron stated, ‘‘Family believes they can help,” but ‘‘[y]ou can make a situation worse by introducing them into that situation. We can’t take the chance.”

Really? The police couldn’t take the chance that Jamie Dean may have had a little better relationship with his father, aunt and grandmother than he did with authorities firing tear gas into his house?

Mr. Fritz also noted that he was never even personally notified of the cops’ attempt to obtain a search warrant during the standoff, even though he has a standing directive to be informed of such action immediately. ‘‘Is it because they don’t want anybody there viewing their actions?” Fritz asked.

I’ll refrain from speculation while Mr. Fritz himself searches for answers to this question. However, I will say that this type of language is optimistic coming from the state’s attorney, who has a vested professional interest as the county’s lead prosecutor in maintaining an amicable working relationship with police departments.

It may also be worthwhile to note that Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron has gone on record stating that he at no time authorized an assault on the house Dean occupied. This certainly seems reasonable given that the state police could have assumed control of the situation upon their arrival, which leads me to wonder if the sheriff at any time questioned the tactics being employed.

That said, officers in charge should have realized the likely outcome of this situation as soon as the tactical units were summoned. Jamie Dean’s family asked the police to check on their loved one’s welfare. Instead of simply confirming that Dean was indeed suicidal and refused to cooperate with police and leaving the matter at that, the police maintained involvement and called in a SWAT team. Nevertheless, I doubt the state’s attorney is going to conclude that the shooting of Jamie Dean itself was unjustified, primarily because the actions that occurred prior to that point — Dean’s firing at police cruisers and raising his weapon in front of or at the police — most likely were enough to strike mortal fear into the officers, who most certainly have the right to defend themselves. But in no way should this necessarily mean that the standoff was justified in the first place, or that it should have been allowed to escalate to the point where a state police sharpshooter was arguably forced to kill a man who had stated previously his intention to commit suicide.

Given what we know, I hope Richard Fritz at least finds that the police acted inappropriately in initiating a standoff with a man who was not a fugitive, held no hostages, and initially was a threat to no one but himself, and that we finally end up with a debate to determine the extent to which government should be allowed to infringe upon our civil liberties.

Trevor Bothwell, Dowell