Clear
45°
Clear
Hi 58° | Lo 26°

Editorial: Weare shooting raises troubling questions

The Weare police and Attorney General Joe Foster, who is investigating the fatal Aug. 14 shooting by two Weare officers of a fleeing suspect, have some explaining to do. The suspect “failed to stop when he was told to stop. As a result, a chase ensued,” Senior Assistant Attorney General Susan Morrell said of Alex Cora DeJesus, a 35-year-old Manchester resident with a history of arrests for dealing small quantities of drugs. DeJesus was the target of an undercover sting near a Dunkin’ Donuts in Lanctot’s Plaza on Route 114 in South Weare.

Press releases issued by the attorney general’s office confirmed that several Weare officers and two confidential informants participated in the sting operation and that DeJesus’s death resulted from a gunshot to the head. The authorities have not, however, explained what prompted the officers to fire on DeJesus, whether he was armed, or if he possessed illegal drugs. It is also unclear whether DeJesus was fleeing on foot when he was wounded or in the vehicle he drove away and crashed with police officers in pursuit.

Thorough investigations take time, but in this case, at a minimum, the attorney general’s office needs to inform the public about police policies regarding the use of deadly force.

“Stop or I’ll shoot,” is not the law of the land. Law enforcement officers may not fire on fleeing suspects, or known criminals for that matter, simply to prevent them from getting away. Deadly force may only be employed when an officer needs to defend him- or herself or a third party from the imminent use of deadly force, or to prevent the escape of someone the officer believes will seriously endanger human life if not apprehended without delay.

This has been true since 1985, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the case of Tennessee v. Garner. Edward Garner was the unarmed 15-year-old boy shot and killed by a Memphis police officer as he was scaling a chain-link fence to flee. Garner had just burglarized a nearby house, and he died with the $10 he stole. Tennessee’s law at the time allowed police officers to use deadly force to stop any fleeing suspect. Garner’s father sued the police over the wrongful death of his son. In a split decision written by Justice Byron White, the court said, “It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”

In the Weare case, press interviews with DeJesus’s friends and acquaintances, and his lengthy criminal record as a small-time drug dealer, suggest no history of violence on his part. Nor, friends say, was he believed to possess a gun. If, in attempting to flee, DeJesus used his vehicle as a potentially deadly weapon to threaten the lives of officers or others, the use of deadly force by police would be appropriate. Whether he did so should be easily determined.

Police officers have dangerous jobs that can require making split-second life or death decisions, and police actions must be considered first from the point of view of an officer in a charged situation. But the death of anyone at the hands of the police requires explanation, and the sooner the better.

We await the results of the attorney general’s investigation into DeJesus’s death.

And leave us not forget, dear citizen taxpayer, that this has happened under the "interim chief" (installed following a good deal of questionable *previous* Weare PD activity and "colorful" characters), first in the newly re-established line of Select Board appointees (jumping the gun, as they are, since it's still an elected position until the end of this term, so where's the special election?). One might think they'd endeavor to keep a slightly lower profile -- at least for a little while, at least until some of the heat dies (sorry) down. But no. An inauspicious beginning to the New Era, I'd offer. Others might be forgiven for characterizing it as frightening. Here's a thought: since they can't seem to be reformed, let's just dissolve the gang and revert to a more peaceful time in Weare -- when, say, business owners weren't driven out of town for not agreeing to perjure themselves, and citizens weren't arrested and charged for invoking their Constitutionally protected right to hold their government accountable, when serial roadside fishing expeditions didn't occur on a nightly basis, and summary executions weren't a cause to circle the wagons -- that wasn't all that long ago. Pretty confident it would cost the taxpayers a lot less in further settlements going forward, too. Oh, and Chief Begin told us on camera that their policies aren't for public consumption, so break out a 91-A request form...

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.