A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, July 31, on a memorial for Aurora shooting victims:
Unfiltered emotion can produce moving tributes to victims of violence, and such is the case with the impromptu memorial across the street from the Aurora theater where 12 people were murdered earlier this month. But Aurora may well want to erect a more permanent memorial to the victims of the July 20 shootings—and that task will require patience and diplomacy.
Regarding such a memorial, an Aurora spokeswoman was quoted in Sunday’s Denver Post as saying, “We are just in the beginning stages of how that will proceed,” adding that the city will seek community input on the right course of action.
That’s of course the proper strategy. The victims’ families and larger community need to be on board with any decision—not only on whether to build a permanent memorial but also its location and design.
Yet sorting through these issues and developing a consensus means that officials will have to be patient, too, because there is bound to be initial disagreement.
They also need to be realistic in planning the scope of the memorial and how much it will cost.
Columbine serves as an example. The shootings that took the lives of 12 students and one teacher occurred on April 20, 1999, yet it was more than 3 years before a conceptual design for a permanent memorial was unveiled by the Columbine Memorial Committee and the Foothills Foundation. And the finished memorial, with its impressive Ring of Remembrance and Wall of Healing, did not open in Clement Park, next to the high school, until Sept. 21, 2007—more than eight years after the tragedy.
It’s not as if the Columbine community was slow off the mark, either. The Foothills Foundation was soliciting funds for a memorial within two weeks of the shootings, according to news reports. Within a year, a selection team began to review more than 250 possible designs, and a site was announced in May 2000.
Still, we’re not suggesting that those who’d like to see a permanent memorial for the shootings in Aurora be prepared to wait so long. For one thing, those overseeing the Columbine Memorial deliberately put the process on hold for a number of months so other issues could be dealt with, including reconstruction of the school library. Meanwhile, slower-than-hoped-for fundraising delayed construction.
So it’s reasonable to expect a permanent memorial can be finished in Aurora on a shorter timetable.
Even so, any memorial worthy of the name will take time to conceive, design and construct. And for the time being, there are more urgent matters to address, such as making sure the injured get the assistance they need to cover their growing medical bills.
A memorial is an important way to honor those who were shot, but physical and mental healing and recovery must be taken care of first.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Reporter-Herald, July 28, on gun ownership regulations:
When the nation heard about the gun massacre, its leaders were moved to action. People were slain by weapons certainly not envisioned by the Founding Fathers, so a line was drawn on the absolute provisions of the Second Amendment.
The crime: The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago, in which gangland violence resulted in seven deaths from several weapons, including Thompson machine guns with high-capacity magazines. In the passage of federal regulations tightening controls on weapons such as machine guns and silencers, the National Rifle Association cooperated to ensure the proper balance between individual rights and collective security was observed. As a result, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms now regulates “destructive devices” such as machine guns, silencers, artillery and land mines.
Few would now argue for the unfettered ownership of bazookas and missiles, and rightly so.
Another gun massacre, the Aurora movie theater shooting that left 12 people dead and 58 injured, has brought a new awareness on where the line has been drawn between legal and casual gun ownership and those that should be regulated much more tightly.
Make no mistake: The guns used by the shooter early July 20 were purchased legally, and no action taken by either the local retailers who sold him his weapons or the online businesses that supplied him with ammunition and the capacity to use much of it at once has been deemed to be outside the rule of law.
Moving forward, however, it is incumbent on lawmakers to have an honest discussion of whether, again, technology has advanced to the point where the line between casual ownership and heavily regulated ownership should be redrawn.
In the past 20 years, attempts have been made to redraw that line. The “assault weapon” ban from 1994 to 2004 did take some guns off the streets. But did it deter criminals? There were high-profile mass gun deaths during that period, such as Columbine, as well attacks using other weapons, such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber attacks. Right now, many of those types of rifles are owned by law-abiding Americans. Reinstatement of the ban would likely have no effect.
A couple of products used in the Aurora shootings should merit more scrutiny, however: high-capacity magazines that allow for 50 or even 100 rounds, because they can cause the level of destruction that initially drew the attention of federal lawmakers; and the types of body armor designed to thwart would-be shooters, which should be limited to law enforcement and the military.
Gun advocacy groups point out that had members of the theater audience been armed, the massacre might have been avoided. It’s unlikely, however, that a civilian would have the training and firepower to match the awful events of that night.
Those who are willing to commit mass murder will work hard to concoct ways to kill people; it’s the evil nature of their beings. As a democratic republic, we should elect leaders who are willing to weigh individual rights versus collective safety to ensure mass murderers do not have easy access to the tools to accomplish their goal.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, July 30, on gag orders in court appearances of Colorado shooting suspect:
When accused killer James Holmes appeared Monday in district court in Arapaho County to be formally charged with numerous counts of murder and attempted murder, there were no cameras to film the orange-haired suspect, as there had been a week ago.
There were also not supposed to be any cellphones, audio recorders, laptop computers or iPads at Monday’s hearing for the man accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 others at an Aurora movie theater July 20.
Judge William Sylvester has apparently decided to turn back the clock on technology in hopes he can prevent Holmes’ case from turning into the kind of media circus that other high-profile cases have unfortunately become. But he should rethink that strategy and look for ways to deal with today’s technology.
Sylvester has also issued a gag order for those involved in the case and rejected media requests under Colorado’s Open Records Act for University of Colorado documents related to Holmes’ time at CU.
Concerns about a media barrage related to the Holmes case are certainly not without merit. Cases such as the O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony murder trials demonstrate how excessive media coverage—in which legal and law enforcement participants, defendants and witnesses all play to the camera—can change the trajectory of a criminal case.
More recently, there is the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida, in which politicians, pundits and talk show hosts have already convicted or exonerated suspect George Zimmerman, even though the case has not yet proceeded beyond bond hearings.
The courts in Arapaho County, we suspect, are like most of those throughout the country. They are well-equipped to deal with day-to-day criminal cases and even the big murder cases that draw statewide news coverage. But few judicial systems are prepared to deal with the media firestorm that accompanies a case which has garnered sensational international attention, as the Holmes case has.
Sylvester’s gag order and other attempts to clamp down on news reporting won’t halt the sort of rampant speculation that accompanies cases such as that of Holmes. Witness the reports that came from several news organizations last week saying Holmes had sent emails shortly before the Aurora killings to a University of Colorado psychologist, allegedly detailing much of his plan for committing mass murder. There has been no official word that such emails exist, even as authorities scramble to find where the leak came from.
Attempting to retreat into a 19th century world through gag orders, technology bans and limited access to public documents won’t prevent the 21st century from intruding. Judge Sylvester, and our judicial system in general, would do better if they looked for ways to accommodate current technology while protecting defendants’ rights and the integrity of the courts. We don’t pretend to know the magic fix, but we do know transparency always serves the public best.
Editorial:
———
The Pueblo Chieftain, July 29, on state funding of the Colorado State Fair:
The Colorado State Fair is having a banner summer, and officials hope they won’t have to seek extra money from the Legislature next January.
The Fair’s previous investment in upgrading its horse arena area is paying off this year. Last summer, 15 equine events brought in a bit more than $35,500 in revenues. This year revenues from 20 events are anticipated to raise nearly $160,000.
The Southwest Motors Events Center likewise is a good cash flow generator. While 42 events there brought in nearly $167,000 last year, 43 events this year will have generated nearly $206,000.
Mix the increased revenues with lower expenses, and the Fair has posted a profit of $128,000, according to a report given the Fair’s Board of Commissioners last week. Helping the bottom line this past year was an infusion of $375,000 from the Colorado Department of Agriculture.
But now, General Manager Chris Wiseman believes the Fair is on its way to a year where it will not need more financial support from the state. The one caveat is the hope that this year’s State Fair can get through its run without any major weekend rainstorms. Those keep visitors and their cash away.
Nevertheless, the Fair seems to be on stable footing—in an era when fairs around the country are in financial trouble or are fading away.
Editorial:
