Of all the politically charged claims made from the terrible shootings in Tucson, perhaps the most obscene comes from the man charged with investigating the crime. The broad-sweeping indictments Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has continually made – blaming public discourse, the media and talk radio – now look absurd, distracting, even self-serving.
And that may be exactly why Dupnik has said them.
By all appearances, Dupnik is going on the offensive, cluttering the tragedy with emotion-laden political talking points that have deflected attention and shifted scrutiny away from his department’s actions (or inactions) and possible negligence in preventing the shooting. This is a strong assertion indeed and one with troubling implications for the cause of justice in this sad event.
In a recent profile, Dupnik said, “I don’t have a political agenda. I don’t have any kind of agenda. Hopefully, next week, people will forget who this idiot sheriff is in Tucson.”
But on the other hand, Dupnik’s claims of being agenda-free, political or otherwise, ring hollow when he has blamed the shootings on “the hard right,” “people who preach hate” and “people like Rush Limbaugh.”
If Dupnik sincerely believes the climate is so polluted with the type of “vitriol” that could incite violent attacks and politically motivated assassinations, why did he or his department not send some deputies – or at least one deputy – to provide security at Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s publicized public appearance? The police were called to the scene after the crime occurred and after a few courageous citizens had subdued the suspect. This is not a case of what Dupnik did, but what he failed to do that should lead us to question the veracity of his claims and his reasons for making those claims.
We’re now learning a lot about the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner. We’re learning about his associations, about his being expelled from community college, about his strange reading habits – and we know from the Arizona Daily Star that Loughner “has made death threats before and been contacted by law-enforcement officers.”
But according to Dupnik, those threats were not against Rep. Giffords. Whether Dupnik considered Loughner a threat to Giffords or anyone else, why didn’t he or his department react defensively to the purported toxicity of the political atmosphere that he so vividly describes? Where was he (or the men under his command) when Loughner struck?
Rep. Giffords was making a high-profile, well publicized public appearance. Does Loughner – or anyone else – need to specifically threaten her to warrant the presence of police? If Dupnik is being sincere, isn’t it a dereliction of duty not to take basic preventive measures by positioning police at Rep. Giffords’ appearance? Such police presence may not have prevented the shootings, but it may very well have served as a deterrent. And such deterrents would seem vital at such an event in the political combat zone Dupnik tells us exists.
When someone who wields political power makes a blanket, all-encompassing statement about the culture or political opponents, we should be careful not to grant that person a pass just because he has a political or government position of power.
Better still, we should remember that many generalizations should be considered suspect. As Ronald Reagan said: “Trust, but verify.” The real question is, how did actions and inactions within Dupnik’s areas of expertise and responsibility – in this case treating a specific and previously identified threat as a potential dangerous one – impact this horrible crime?
Eric Kampmann is the author of “Signposts: A Devotional,” published by WND Books.
