Verdict will answer important questions of justice

Frontiersman editorial board

The trial of Big Lake pastor Phillip Mielke will likely represent a watershed moment for justice in the Valley for a number of reasons. Mielke's culpability in the April shooting deaths of two men is not the only important question to be answered in a Palmer courtroom. When the jury brings back their verdict, they will also tell us what justice actually means in our community. They will tell us whether we believe we can trust our law enforcement agencies to protect us, and whether or not we believe our justice system is functioning.

If Phillip Mielke was justified in shooting and killing two burglars, we'll know that the bar for deadly force has been lowered. We'll know that frustration with law enforcement is justification enough for the use of deadly force -- whether or not we are imminently threatened.

Consider the actions that led to the two deaths. Mielke's church had been burglarized before. Slow response times by police and the inability of the justice system to capture and punish the burglars left Mielke, and other Valley residents frustrated and feeling as though they were insufficiently protected. Mielke placed a baby monitor in the church (his house was in a separate but nearby building). He kept a high-caliber handgun on hand for protection. When he heard what sounded like intruders in his church, the pastor took the gun, left his home and entered the dark church. The two burglars, hearing the pastor upstairs, rushed up the stairs. Mielke began firing his gun. One of the men made it out of the building, and Mielke continued to fire at him through a church window until he'd emptied every chamber. Each intruder received gunshot wounds in the back.

The defense argues that it was dark in the church, and that Mielke was confused and felt panicked by the men rushing toward him. All of that may be true, but are those the most important questions to be answered here? What alternative outcomes were possible?

If Mielke felt threatened by the presence of intruders in his church, why did he leave the relative safety of his home to confront them or at least call the police first? At the moment the pastor chose to arm himself and confront what he believed were burglars, it could be argued that the handgun ceased to be a weapon for protection and became, instead, a weapon of aggression. Once he left his home with a weapon in hand, he had to be committed to using the weapon -- and he did use it.

When the jury brings in their verdict, they will tell us if we all have that right. They will tell us if the power to prosecute and execute is inherent in each of us, and thus will tell us whether we are a community of law enforcement and organized justice or a community of vigilantism and frontier justice.