"You worm, you don't have the guts to shoot." These were the last words of an unhappily married woman living in Fairbanks in 1959. Her husband followed his successful shot at her by putting the muzzle of his pistol under his chin. Fortunately or not, this bullet went up through his face, creasing his skull on exit, and knocking 50 points off an IQ not top-grade to begin with.
The legal endgame included a briefing for the new Supreme Court by a new Alaska lawyer in the Department of Law on what the legal test of insanity should be. Was the defendant sane enough to stand trial? Beyond legalities, here was a case of words with mortal consequences. There was some evidence that the victim had been running her husband down for months. Wasn't she taking a risk that the worm would explode on her challenge?
Half a century later, that lawyer is writing regarding the consequences of drawing cartoons savaging Muslim traditions, not anticipating that a real-world consequence was about to explode in Paris and on the front pages of newspapers around the world.
The immediate common reaction was solidarity with the dead cartoonists, bringing millions into the streets. The situation was not quite that simple. Where were the police? Two street officers, (one Muslim) were unlucky enough to be in the way as the killers fled. Where were the anti-terrorist tactical specialists, equipped with arms and armor, protecting the office? Wasn't the potential of this attack screaming for attention?
Then consider the rapidity of the government's response in the context of French politics. France is facing a rise on the political Far Right led by Marine Le Pen's National Front, using hostility to Muslim immigrants as a tool. Most European countries have similar problems. Swiftly coming together in solidarity with the dead cartoonists and sending tens of thousands of troops throughout the country stopped the Far Right from making the issue their own and drowned questions of failed prevention.
The likelihood of the long-ago, Fairbanks homicide being repeated is substantially reduced today by increased law enforcement involvement in prevention. Domestic violence is now commonly spotted early on. Resources such as counseling and shelter protection are applied in anticipation, as well as court orders.
Gangs are too often a predictable source of violence and crime. Modern police methods involve getting gang specialists involved in redirecting gang activities.
Larger airports, often considered prime targets for terrorists, are each protected by a squadron of specialists. The list is potentially endless. Some intelligent assessment of each risk is required to avoid ending up as an armed camp.
Changes in public attitudes make a difference. Emmett Till, age 14, was murdered for whistling at a white woman on a village street in Mississippi in 1955. An unsympathetic prosecution and local jury let his killers off: no protection at that time for free speech in Mississippi. It might still be dangerous in some parts of the South today to replicate Emmett's "mistake," but the perpetrator would not be as assured of the indifference of public institutions.
The real issue in Paris is how to protect members of the public from all forms of violence, much of which is predictable, much of which starts with words, without scapegoating Muslims. Several writers have pointed out that the cartoons in question echo the style used by pro-Nazi propagandists in the era leading up to World War II. The Muslim faces portray exaggerated Semitic features also used in the anti-Semitic pictorials used by American Nazi sympathizers.
American police famously protected parading Nazis (American National Socialists) in Chicago in the 1970s in the wake of the Skokie, Illinois Supreme Court case, protecting profoundly objectionable speech.
By distributing insulting cartoons portraying Muhammad in vulgar positions, his genitals exposed, were the publishers saying, "You worm, you wouldn't dare?" Suppose some American news magazine portrayed Jesus in such a way every week, would you be surprised if someone decided to revenge this insult to the Judeo-Christian tradition?
John Havelock is an Anchorage attorney, former Alaska attorney general and former White House Fellow.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com