Lawyering Up May Impede Progress in Arizona Massacre

I think we have heard about enough from the Tucson massacre. All the finger pointing should stop now with the emergence of the reality that the shooter was not very political, didn't vote in the last election, and was seriously mentally ill. So Sarah Palin did not cause this, no way, no how. But I worry that as we delve more deeply into this tragedy we are likely to run into further obstacles that may impede our progress in preventing other incidents of this magnitude.

Who might have known enough to do something that might have prevented this? Did his parents see anything that might have tipped the scales of suspicion enough to have him committed? What is that story about his father chasing him the morning of the incident and that he was carrying a black bag? And how about Pima Community College and all the incidents? I have heard a classmate admit that she "sat near the door so she could get away if he did something." What about the letter that the College sent that he could not return to school until documentation was sent from a "health professional that he does not present a danger to himself or others." Apparently, according to the Wall Street Journal, he had five run-ins with the campus police between February and September of 2010.

Apparently, statements, the College acted in accordance with what other similar institutions would do. Now that rings a bell. It begins to sound like medical malpractice standards. In medical suits it is not unusual for the accused doctor to plead that he did what a similarly trained physician would do under similar circumstances.

Not being there, or knowing the details of the self-examination of the individuals involved in this affair, I can bet you that they are "lawyering-up" as they face public scrutiny.

With all due respect, are we ever going to find out the truth from his parents, and discover what they actually knew or what their suspicions were about their son's behavior? I don't think so. And Pima Community College, or even the Sheriff's office probably won't get into the nitty-gritty either. Frankly, there was too much "damage" done on that Saturday morning, and unless one is willing to pay big dollars to amend one's "wrong" it is probably "legally" best to just shut up! That's the reason no one says, "we should have seen this coming, and done something more."

I'm not wanting to place blame, I'm just raising the point that we need openness here to help us move forward with preventing-probably impossible- or lessening the risk of future catastrophes of this sort. Understanding and evaluating more barometers of borderline behavior and our responses to it may help guide others in the future. Would the Fort Hood debacle have been prevented if we had those bench marks? I don't know, but revealing those details will now probably be buried by the protective activities of the legal profession. The lawyers are just doing their job.

What could we all learn if the military had been more open about Fort Hood and the activities of Nadal Malik Hasan before he killed all those innocent people. I don't know, but I do understand that CYA if a powerful force in the obfuscation of information.

We live in an "open" and free society, and I believe this is gift from our forefathers. I wouldn't have it any other way. We have to live with these risks because of these rights, and I believe open analysis might help us be more secure with these unalienable gifts.