Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-03-04
WAS 1T JUsr1F1ABLE KILLING ?

The Geographic account of the killing
of the Valley Falls bank burglar at Me-
riden, Kansas, does not exonerate the Off
GERS who shot him, from all blame As we
look at it, the man should not have been
killed, for ne could easily have been taken
alive. 1t appears that on Friday the bank
at Valley Falls was robbed. Saturday
night the operator at Meriden received a
Geographic description of the robber, and
looking up from his table as he received
the closing words he saw the man answer
ing to the description standing at his
counter. The stranger asked at what hour
a train left for a certain point, and being
told that some hours would elapse, he
went to hotel, took room and bed and
left orders to be called for the train. The
operator thereupon notified the local po-
lice and two of them, armed with rifles,
came to the hotel and had the stranger
called up on the plea that it was train
time. As he came into the Office he was
told to "throw up" his hands, and the
rifles were pointed at his breast at the
same instant. He did not do as COM
manded, but thrust his hands into his
pockets, where two pistols were afterwards
found. The officers then fired and the
man fell dead. The money, of which he
had robbed the bank was, in part, found
upon the person of the stranger.
On the very face of this statement, the
officers did not take the man as they might
have done. The disposition to kill or
timidity evidently predominated. Wecan
name at least half dozen Sheriffs in this
State who would have taken the criminal
without killing him. Knowing the man
to be in the house, and in particular
room and asleep, or at least in bed, he
certainly could have been sliced as he left
the room, or while in bed, or while en-
route to the train or while at the depot.
In all probability he could have been taken
in his room, or as he left it, or in the hotel
office. by the exercise of some mother wit.
He could have been seized, for instance,
without any warning cry of "throw up your
hands"
The disposition to capture criminals at
the muzzle of a gun is too manifest among
most forces of officers, and the case in
hand is testimony of the truth. The man
had not committed an offense for which
death was penalty, and there was no
evidence that he was desperate, or in
deed, prior to the taking, that he was the
man wanted. We can easily understand
how an innocent person may have acted
precisely as did the burglar. Aroused in
the middle of the night in strange place,
in a Western part where the shotgun and
the pistol are too often arbiters of fate, an
innocent man upon being confronted by
two men armed with rifles and told to
throw up his hands, unaccompanied by
the declaration that the rihemen were
officers and were arresting him-an inno-
cent man, we say, might have done as did
the burglar, and have attempted to defend
himself from what he may we'll have con-
ceived to be an attempted robbery. At all
events, the shooting of the burglar was
according to the statement sent out, and
which is that of the operator who discov-
cred the man, too hasty; for he might have
been taken without shooting, and the law
thus have been given an opportunity to
punish him as he deserved.
Society owes it to itself to check the
disposition of officers to draw and fire on
slight provocations; there is altogether
too much of this official shooting all over
the land, and fully two-thirds of which is
unnecessary. Two of the most successful
thieftakers in this State, and who have
captured more desperate men in the last
twenty years than any others-and that,
too, in dead of night, in mountain re-
treats, in broad day on crowded highways,
as well as in deserted -paths-have never
vet found it necessary to kill man in the
taking. 1t is scarcely necessary to name
the officers, but we cite their experience to
show that the officer who is so quick to
shoot, and who prefers the gun and the
pistoi to some mother wit and little cum
ming, is not the safest, best or most sue
cessful.
The Coroner's jury exonerated the Mer-
;den officers, but it was evidently done
hastily, since the verdict was rendered in
a few hours, and the testimony was that,
Of course, of the landlord and officers only,
We do not say that the officers should be
held in this particular case to answer for
haste in shooting the burglar; they acted
mn I'd their standard of safety and duty
Int It is not standard to be commended,
nor Is it one that should be set up for any
officers sent out to take ordinary crimi-
nails On the contrary, it ought to be so
clearly laid down that no official can make
a mistake blindly, that the officer must
exhaust all reasonable means to take his
man before resorting to the use of fire.
arms. and even then he should not shoot
with intent to kill. if by wounding the
criminal he can probably effect his cap
ture Had the Meriden officers. for in
stance not carried rifles in their hands,
but have met the man as he came into