Commentary
Now Grand Marais will have a metal detector where it once got by on trust
by Jim BoydJim Boyd is a retired Star Tribune editor who now lives in Grand Marais. He is a source in MPR News' Public Insight Network.
A friend from the Cities, someone who visits Cook County often, called to talk about the shooting Thursday afternoon at the Cook County Courthouse in Grand Marais. It shocked him.
"I always think of Grand Marais," he said, "as this bucolic place where time stands still. Where people leave their keys in their cars and their homes unlocked, where everyone is safe and friendly, the idyllic and iconic Minnesota tourism town. So is that all illusion?"
It is and it isn't, I replied. As a transplant from the Cities, I truly value what my friend calls Cook County's "bucolic" nature. I do leave my keys in the car frequently. Most often, our home remains unlocked unless we are to be gone for more than two days. Our garage always is unlocked; indeed I do not know where the key is. Much as I love the Longfellow neighborhood of Minneapolis, our previous home, those behaviors would have been an invitation to disaster.
I frequently visit the courthouse where the shooting occurred. County Attorney Tim Scannell, injured in the shooting, is an exceedingly nice guy I know well enough to call "Tim" and get "Jim" in return. So is Sheriff Mark Falk. Of the five county commissioners, two are friends and two are nodding acquaintances. Last week we played trivia with the county auditor at Sven & Ole's.
On Wednesday and Thursday, I helped organize customer service training for the employees of county resorts and restaurants. The theme was, "It takes a village to enchant a tourist," and the emphasis was on knowing where to send people who ask where they might snowshoe or cross-country ski, on being patient with dawdling tourist drivers, that sort of thing. In essence, the training focused on reinforcing the county's natural, joyfully bucolic nature.
Recently I went into Java Moose in Grand Marais for coffee. It's the place to meet and talk with folks, and the owner's daughter hailed me: "Jim, your bride called: The folks you are looking for are over by the Trading Post." When my jaw dropped — I had no idea she knew my name — she said, with a grin, "Isn't it great to live in a village?"
Yes, it is. On Wednesday afternoon, my wife, Jetty, attended the trial that led to the shooting as a representative of the Cook County Violence Prevention Center. When she came home, she expressed dismay that she had been able to just walk into the courtroom and take a seat. No inspection of her purse, nothing. This was 24 hours before the shooting.
That's the way things are at the courthouse, I explained, and isn't it great?
Now that's probably gone, though I'm not well enough informed on the shooting to tell whether metal detectors and attendants would have made a difference. No matter: We're likely to get them now. Perhaps prudence requires it, but I regret the loss of freedom and with it the diversion of truly scarce county resources. We hadn't enough money to go around as it was. This will mean some things we really wanted to do now won't get done.
Outside of those changes, Cook County will likely retain the bucolicity my friend so enjoys. I don't envision locking my car. Certainly our home will remain unlocked. The Java Moose will still be the place where you can strike up a conversation with just about anyone.
But my friend was perceptive in his question: The bucolic charm of Cook County and Grand Marais isn't actually an illusion, but it's not the full story, either. Visitors seldom hear the full story; they're not here long enough; they don't get to know people here well enough. That's true of any tourist destination.
Cook County is not a movie set. It is a real place inhabited by real people who come with all sorts of problems and issues. People struggle. There are drug problems and alcoholism, sex crimes and domestic assault. I'm told by folks who have been here a lot longer than me that a serious, longstanding problem involves older men "dating" high-school girls, frequently using access to alcohol and autos as inducements. That appears to have been the issue at the center of this tragedy. Some old-timers complain bitterly that it is an issue too long swept under the rug. Not any longer, perhaps.
Do not fret: Grand Marais and Cook County will retain their ability to charm, to welcome with genuine warmth visitors seeking a respite from too-hectic schedules elsewhere. That is all real and will remain so. Beneath it, however, we will go on living our complicated, sometimes difficult lives, grateful that we at least get to live them in this beautiful place. And grateful for the chance to share the beauty with others.
Comments (13)
In the name of safety; I vote for a metal detector at the court house.
Even one of those wand hand held ones would suffice. If money is
the problem I'm sure the Sheriff's department budget could fund it.
If not, it's time to cut one deputy to pay for the detector.
I must disagree, one of the reasons people live in Grand Marais is that issue of trust, but at the same time recognizing that such trust implies risk. We take the risks of living more remotely, we leave our keys in our cars, our houses and bicycles unlocked because we trust others to respect those liberties, and, yes, that includes having no metal detector in the courthouse. But sometimes that trust gets violated, sometimes people fail, real trust accepts and overcomes those failures because they are so rare. The courthouse incident was exceedingly rare, on a probability scale akin to being hit by a meteorite, the chance of a recurrence is likely even less. A metal detector will not change those odds, in fact would not have prevented this situation unless operated full time at every entrance to the courthouse, something far beyond what any of us would tolerate or for which we would be willing to pay. For me a metal detector itself is a betrayal of trust, something very harmful to who and what we are in Grand Marais.
I agree with Jerry. Moreover, I refuse to let fear rule my life.
A metal detector and heightened security - great, like the long wait in airports now - will be unlikely to fix whatever unusual set of events happens next. I agree with Jerry. See this for what it is - a rare occurrence, unlikely to be repeated. The hysteria of trying to be safe needs to be balanced with a dose of reality. Surgeons don't remove a cancer with a jackhammer. Evaluate first - examine what went wrong. I grew up in a small town - Aurora, MN - when I would return from my big college town of Moorhead, I would face an annoyed dad who had wanted to move my car - leave the keys IN it, I was reminded. But, we knew that this was idealistic, and knew that among us there were likely people who would abuse trust. We did it anyway, because we were a community.
On first look, I was thinking "Yeah its time for a metal detector" and then I read Jerry's post and agree pretty ,much and will want to think it over more.
I'm also with Jerry. The cost of metal detectors at the court house entrances would be dwarfed by the personnel costs of having them operated by an armed guard. The machine in and of itself would do nothing. The best compromise might be a deteactor at the court room entrance.
But, we really must look at what we give up if we barricade ourselves after the fact every time something like this occurs.
Now, I must find 3 oz. clear containers and slip on shoes for my Christmas travels, make sure my laptop will come out of it's case easily, and not forget to put my nail clippers in my checked luggage. I'm sure none the safer for having it.
Allan summed it up the best- I won't let fear rule my life whether it be Grand Marais or 9/11. Money is better spent on tomorrow then yesterday.
Having moved here from the Twin Cities, I have always found it very odd but somehow comforting that there is no security at the courthouse. I have taken it as evidence that I live in a small, safe town. I have talked to several friends who work at the courthouse about their experiences during the shootings. While I would like to continue my quaint, small town experience of walking into the courthouse without security devices, I wonder how the people who work there every day feel about the topic of courthouse security. When I first heard of the shootings I thought of all the departments/functions there that have the potential for triggering violent reactions in unstable citizens: planning and zoning, the assessor's office, the auditor's office, child protection, the courtroom, probation, etc. The answer is most, and all of them as potential bystanders to violence. I will be interested in hearing from the staff and those who are there regularly as to what feels right to them. Knowing this community well, I'm guessing we will prefer to reclaim our way of life here that is based on trust and freedom from fear. But perhaps that option is forever in our past.
I admit that being close to the recent tragedy naturally influences my view, but metal detector or not, a reasonable approach to security is needed. Even if we do not have 24/7 scrutiny of everyone who enters the courthouse, doesn't it make sense to heighten security in situations where there may danger may obviously be more likely. A criminal trial is one, a return of a jury verdict in a criminal trial may be another, a sentencing hearing yet another. You cannot summarize a complicated problem with a platitude. It is offensive to those who are actually exposed to the danger.
As much as we might get carried away with our "bucolicity", any courthouse in the state has the possibility of tragedy. It's the one place in a county where passion,frustration and stress intermingle and there's high potential for explosiveness. Tempers flare while life changing decisions are being made about a person out of their control.Let's not pretend that potential doesn't exist.Outside of the courthouse our idyllic county still exists and things will quickly get back to normal as we are resilient. Lastly, I think this is a statewide issue and we should appeal to our state legislators to address this serious security issue. State taxes should be used to help fund every county for at least handheld units and as Mr. Swanson suggested,the counties can use them at criminal trials where security risks are high. By the way,why was he let out to his car after the guilty verdict?Or are my facts misplaced?
I was a member of the jury and was dismayed that there was no security outside the courtroom. It was noon of the hatred involved in this man towards the Prosecuting attorney. Also at no time was a policeman every sent to the jury. We had to find our own hiding place! It is time to join reality and get security at our court house. Believe me if you went through this you would agree.
Marcia, reason no "policeman" was sent to help the jury find a hiding spot, was the baliff was confronting the suspect and when other officers responded, they likely knew where the 1 and only suspect was, so therefore instead of making sure you had a hiding place, they were helping the baliff get control of the suspect and to make the situation come to an end as quick as possible. Cook County isn't a force that has a large amount of officers on at one time like large cities. I am sure if they suspect was not restrained as quickly as he was when other officers arrived, I am sure as more officers arrived on scene, they would of come to help find you a "hiding place". I thought I read officers did eventually come and help you out after the suspect was apprehended anyways.
We all need to be concerned by the events last Thursday, but it appears that many are seeking a solution to a different problem, and one that does not seem to exist. Metal scanners outside the courtroom would not have prevented this incident, but only have provided a false sense of security. In fact, many courtroom shootings and killings have happened in spite of metal detectors. Courtroom security requires more than such devices, and can likely be managed even better by adjustments to courtroom procedures. Some have suggested lawyers be allowed to carry guns, or judges, but this might make things even worse: defendants have wrestled guns away from those allowed them, and killed in spite of such armed sentinels. I certainly do not disagree with increased security measures, but before we choose the method we should be sure that they are appropriate, they prevent courtroom mayhem without penalizing the majority who pose no threat.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
