Type your name into an online search engine and chances are you’ll see an offer from a company or 10 claiming to have lots of information about you for anyone willing to fork over a mere $19.99.
Your address, your phone numbers, your closest relatives and the towns and organizations you have connections with, your education background — all available, it would seem, fairly cheap.
Reporters and editors today can simply type in the name of, say, a murder victim from 15 years ago and within seconds have every story their publication ever generated about the case.
No more combing through file cabinets or flipping through microfiche.
As a nation we don’t manufacture anything anymore, we drive too fast and too far to get to work, we work too long and we probably spend too little time with our loved ones.
But we certainly do communicate quickly.
Information is at our fingertips in a way that it has never been before.
Yet apparently our bail commissioners — those charged with setting reasonable bail amounts for people arrested for a variety of crimes — are unable, in many cases, to see any of an offender’s criminal background.
Last June, Steven Lake shot and killed his estranged wife, Amy, and their two children, Monica and Coty, in Dexter.
Steven Lake had been arrested in June 2010 for criminal threatening and then again in November 2011 for violating a protection from abuse order. In both cases a bail commissioner had released him on $2,000 bail put up by his father.
Seven months later he killed his family.
Is it realistic to think that that bail commissioner back in November would have foreseen that.
Is it realistic to think that any of us would have?
Is it realistic to think that if that bail commissioner had set a higher bail, it eventually wouldn’t have been met and Steven Lake still would have killed his family?
Trust me. Maine would not have kept him in prison or jail for that amount of time.
Would it have made sense if the local police department had the right to search his home and business for the guns he was not supposed to have because of the protection from abuse order?
Probably.
Have you looked at our gun laws?
If Steven Lake had not hidden a couple of his own guns away, he easily could have purchased any number of guns from Uncle Henry’s or any online site.
I’m so sorry to say it, but Steven Lake decided to kill his family and he did.
Do you think so??????
A bail commissioner should have access to a defendant’s criminal history prior to setting bail and should use that information, as well as results from any validated risk assessment performed in the field, to determine the bail amount needed to secure victim and public safety. In this case what we know is that he had held his family hostage with a gun, which any of us know is a fairly risky behavior. After being bailed on that charge he violated orders to stay away from his wife. Another risky behavior. Had bail been set at an amount to keep him incarcerated for some time at least there would have been additional barriers he would have to navigate in order to murder his family. But you are right, Renee. He would not have been in jail forever and obtaining a firearm is simple in Maine, so the result may have been the same but….maybe just a bit less likely.
after the 2nd or 3rd offense he should’ve been JAILED. his firearms shouldn’t have gone to “FAMILY MEMBERS” the Police should have had them. But instead up to the 5th time( i believe that was the number) he shot his soon to be xwife & kids who he supposingly LOVED so much , he was out free. In my opinion, the DA/bailsmen dropped the ball bigtime. I also believe his FAMILY MEMBER should be arrested for accesory(sp) to murder!
I understand your frustration completely. The concern about police keeping guns is that they might not care for them properly or have the facilities to do so, resulting in harm to the weapon. The person who really dropped the ball big time is Steven Lake, although he had people who loved him who supported his actions for whatever reason. He made the ultimate decision for the entire family. So unfair for all the survivors, as well as those whose lives he clearly took.
So Steven Lake and his family “cared for the guns properly”? And the police can’t? Why not?
What you advocate for is standard for defendants in Federal Court who are being held prior to arraignment. The process is done by a Federal Pre-Trial Officer.
There are bills in front of the Maine legislature right now that would encourage the things I am advocating. I haven’t read anything that says Steven Lake had a pre trial contract with anyone but having one is pretty standard fare in southern Maine. It’s good to know someone has these safeguards in place.
Ms. Ordway,
Instead of making firearms the villians, which seems to be SOP by many maintream journalists, please consider that if Amy had access to a firearm and had the training to use it appropriately in the defense of her family, she might have been able to deter an attack upon them all. No degree of protection orders, confiscation of destructive devices, or threats of incarceration can guarantee a defense against the workings of a crazy/destructive mind. In the end, it sometimes falls upon us as individuals to be responsible for our safety and not look for the towers of a protective village. Ken
OK, philosophically, I can understand your point, but where in a home with children do you keep a loaded firearm so that you can get to it in time to defend yourself against an attacker who has surprised you? Is your attacker going to wait to shoot you and yours while you unlock the gun cabinet? This is a tragedy, but so are accidents with kids and firearms. When my kids were young I made sure that there were no guns in the house and that visitors did not bring guns into the house. In fairness, I am not a hunter, and have not lived under the sort of threat this woman faced. But I don’t see that Renee is making firearms the villain here. Her last sentence identifies the villain fairly clearly.
You can keep them anywhere. Those kids were plenty old enough to be around a gun anyway; the boy was old enough to use it, if need be.
She attacks the freedom of the right to bear arms by implying that a firearm is the only way to murder someone, and then she goes on to attack law abiding gun owners by saying that it should be a pain in the a** to simply acquire a firearm. Her basic undertone is that guns=murder.
There have been many knee jerk laws added to the books that say ”this will stop violence”, these laws have done nothing but punish law abiding gun enthusiasts with increased costs, lengthy processes, and even the outright banning of certain firearms that were never even used in a crime. Yet violence between humans continues in the same capacity it has since a caveman picked up a stick.
You might find this interesting. A Harvard professor and best-selling science writer named Steven Pinker recently published a book entitled “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.” I admit I have not read the book, but a lengthy review in the New Yorker (Oct. 3, 2011) by Elizabeth Kolbert showcases his argument that violence has decreased, not only since caveman times, but since classical antiquity, and continues to decrease today. Here’s a quote from the review; any typos are mine:
‘Fed on a steady diet of gruesome news — terrorist bombings, schoolyard shootings, deadly riots — people have come to think of life in modern, industrialized societies as dangerous, when just the opposite is true. Western Europe is not only the safest place to live in the world today; it is probably the safest, most peaceful place in the history of humankind. “The decline of violence may be the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species,” Pinker writes.’
On the scale of our species I’m sure violence has declined with the advent of the nuclear age and the worlds sole superpower acting as supreme police of the world, but humans are still killing each other in record numbers.
I found it interesting alright. Sounds like your Prof. Pinker and Ms. Kolbert are still living in a cave. They make a lot of statements but that doesn’t mean it’s fact. Just ask Mr. Holder.
Can you believe the stories about Syria, Libia, Bosnia, Egypt, Iraq, England, Germany, France, Australia indicate an increase in safety? Sorry but I’m not buying the delusions.
The laws have not ncessarily been knee-jerk and have been realistic by not insisting they will stop violence. Hopefully, they should make it more difficult just as a locked front door will hopefully make a robbery more difficult, not ncessarily prevent it.
Really? Obviously you ignore the facts, when Bill Clinton signed the assault weapon ban in 1994 it was supposedly to decrease gun related violence. It never did and the statistics back it up. Then when the ban sunset in 2003 liberal politicians were freaking out because surely being able to have a bayonet lug would doom us all, we are currently seeing some of the lowest levels of crime involving guns in the last 50 years.
Every time an incident happens some politician or anti gun group will put the blame on something that is inconsequential to preventing crime, like cosmetics or gunshows. In this instance all I see are comments from ill informed people saying kids shouldn’t be given guns, yet we already have multiple laws on the books that prevent this, unless of course you think an 18 year old is a child. The laws that are usually proposed by liberals dont adress any real problems and thats why they constantly fail. Of course the byproduct being that millions of law abiding citizens suffer for nothing.
Hank,
Thanks for your comments. It would be horrific to second guess the actions of ANY victims, and I would never approach that slippery slope. There are however untold households with children that balance the very real need for the securement of firearms with their accessibility when needed. It’s frustrating and criminal to see an annual stream of victims who had absolutely no way of defending themselves and their families when their abusers fail to heed or respect the legal dictates whose strength is the weight of a pack of papers. There is no magic answer, but I truly believe that potential victims should have the real option of self protection, including the procurement of firearms. Ken
And I think it’s frustrating and definitely criminal that too many domineering egotists (and I’m being kind) continue to vitimize others, especially their own families. Also frustrating and criminal that their families support their violent actions.
Any spouse should not have to resort to arming and training in order to fend off abusive spouses, friends or family members. This may have been the case in the pioneer days and the Wild West, but we’re supposedly civilized now. At least a majority of us are.
Hi there,
Thanks for your comment. I think that most all of us would agree that no one should have to resort to hyperbole in dealing with spouses, friends, etc. Unfortunately, the fact that they’re abusive and a threat to life and limb preempts our wishes. When the real world choice is defend or perish, we all have a singular obligation to use everything in our means to remain alive. We owe that to ourselves and to those whom we love and depend on us. Ken
he shouldn’t have been out on bail, period.
There is no issue here with Bail Commissioners. Out for Seven Months.. Is a Failure in the Court System. The Bail Commissioners set the Bail and you go to see a Judge on the Charge. The Judge Takes over the Bail Responsibility. The Judge and the District Attorney are the only people who should be looked at for any system failure in this case. If it happened the night he got out on Bail then maybe it would be a Bail Commissioner issue but it did not, It was Seven Months later.
Bad people do bad things and when it come’s right down to it you better be able to protect yourself, because it’s apparent a piece of paper is not capable of this..
Can we just stop this ridiculousness, guns or no guns murder can and will still happen in these situations. Sure you can make a law that puts everybody accused of DV in solitary confinement so they will never see the light of day again and all it will just change the way the murder is committed.
This guy was capable of murdering his wife, do you think he would have waited till the third arrest to do it if he knew he would never get another opportunity? no he would have committed his murder/suicide the first time she called the police before they even got there, with a knife if had no gun.
If you’re going to write an article like this you should at least A.) Know that while he could have purchased a firearm online, that firearm would be REQUIRED to be shipped to a Federally Licensed Dealer who would then be REQUIRED by FEDERAL LAW to do a background check the same as if Mr. Lake was purchasing it directly from the dealer. There is no internet loophole as you’re claiming. Secondly, in the news recently a man accused of killing his wife a few months ago killed his two boys ages 7 and 5 with a hatchet before lighting the house on fire.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/josh-powell-kill-sons-hatchet-fatal-explosion/story?id=15520394#.TzXwbU6PWrY
Sick people like this will use whatever means they can to inflict their disturbing ideas and actions. I believe we all know that something must be done to try and prevent this but spreading false information isn’t helping anyone. If you’re going to write articles for the paper, please try and get the information straight and not just write what you think you know. It’s not doing anyone any good.
LikeICIt11, she’s referring to a private in-state sale. No NICS check or FFL required.
To your point though, once this man decided to kill his family there was pretty much nothing anyone could have done to prevent it. A firearm is only one tool (and if he didn’t have one he could easily have bought one privately or stolen one…theft is a fairly minor consideration for a man who’s decided to commit murder) and there are plenty of other ways he could have done it.
We (including his family) still could have made his path more difficult. The bail system, although no panacea, still needs improvement.
This is BS to say the least……….We have ways to place ankles alarms on violent people that would track people, Its our courts and judges that are not doing enough to protect these people. We can come up with all kinds of shocking devices that would have sent him to the ground in two seconds and protected this family!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Violent people need to be locked up and watched. WHATS WRONG WITH our courts. Protect people and its their right to be protected for god sake
424101_135407149914093_105256722929136_157235_651176466_n.jpg
I Don’t believe that the message should be “ preventing “ only a lock-up
would accomplish that. I believe that “ to deter “ would be more in line.
Constant contact with everyone, He should of gotten counseling for sure and
ordered to attend church. All the things that puts emphasis on a life.
If your not the initiator in a divorce , it takes about 2 years to
recover.
“and ordered to attend church”… um no, I think he learned enough hate without the church helping him learn more.
Ms. Ordway, with all due respect, my 2nd amendment trumps your 1st amendment.
Any opinions on which amendments, statutes, etc., that the victims were entitled too and Steven Lake was not
Since when does any one amendment “trump” another? Since yours is capable of doing physical harm or death? Sounds rather barbarian (and Unconsitutional).
There are some key elements missing from this discussion. Other states are in fact using tools like evidenced based risk assessment to identify offenders at high risk for dangerousness and/or for re-assault–and Mr Lake would have scored off the charts on such assessments, particularly after his violation of his bail conditions. These programs then strategically use a range of resources for oversight and management of high risk cases and have demonstrated significant decreases in murders and in re-offenses. It’s not just throwing someone in jail or taking guns. There are best practices that Maine needs to adopt–because national practice proves that not all , but many murders really are predictable and preventable. We cannot just continue to be apologists for the status quo or take a stance of powerlessness when there are tools available to do better.
Some people will never get it, you cannot stop a man or women who is intent on harming someone unless you defuse the thought process in the person who wants to do the harming. Bail, No Bail, Jail time is not a deterrent for someone who wants to hurt someone. Changing their thought process is the only way and then you may have to go back frequently to make sure the negative anger dont come back ! You can take away his guns, knives , bow and arrows , but you cant take away his hands and mind, they are more dangerous than any manufactured weapon ! Weapons dont kill people , people do !
I feel many readers have forgotten that Ms. Ordway has experienced loss by violence in her own family. She writes a personal opinion column, therefore her opinion will be affected by her own experiences and feelings on the subject. She is due a little respect by her readers here. This problem is far deeper than gun laws or bail conditions. There are no easy answers. Responding to her article in a kind, intelligent and respectful way, even if you disagree, is not too much to ask. Is it?
Ms. Foley,
I think that a great deal of respect is due to all whom we address in our responses. An absence of respect speaks poorly of us all. Thanks for a point well taken. Ken
this man is awful for what he did but i have to ask why didnt she move her and her kids the heck out of the house. she didnt need a gun ,she needed to get herself and her kids away from him. there needs to be changes all around but ladies if this is happening to you, get the heck out of there . i dont care if you gotta go to a soup kitchen get out of there.
With or without firearms he would have found a way to do what he did. Firearms had nothing to do with it.
They should have approached it from the mental angle in June 2010. Immediate confinement in a locked ward and a judge ordering him kept in for a full evaluation. There’s no bail in that case. I don’t think he would have done well in such an evaluation.
Ms. Ordway, your last sentence indicates that your view is that we should take no preventative steps toward stopping domestic violence homicide. Perhaps we should remove all stop signs from all intersections as well? Higher bail, combined with level II and III criminal background checks of arrestees are but 2 necessary preventative steps of 8 to 10 of them that will save lives. Regarding Lake’s access to his firearms, a public records check shows that all of Lake’s firearms were mandated to be collected by Judge Stipham. And in Maine, every single law enforcement agency and officer can sek and receive a search warrant for firearms under title 19A-4006, 4007. Also, if Lake’s bail was set at $20,000 or $40,000 you may be assured that the provider of his bail cash (his dad) would have had a chat with him about the seriousness of his offense.
So, bail is a very important PART of this equation…when done smartly…but not the ONLY part.