The 5-year-old girl was killed and her father was injured as they were shot while trying to get into their car. As of this writing, there are no suspects, and police have asked for help cracking the case.
More than 100 people turned out for a memorial to honor Taylor’s memory. Those gatherings are good healing moments for those left behind. But no gathering can solve what ails a crime-ridden city. It can’t erase the pain of innocence cut down by bullets.
Last month, I wrote a column advocating that the city aggressively use drones and door cameras linked to police command to fight crime. But after the death of this little girl, I’m convinced Dayton needs to consider going much further.
The city should meet with local leaders to discuss whether to call in the National Guard in the most dangerous neighborhoods.
The crime rate — Dayton is one of the most dangerous cities in the county, the FBI says — hurts its law-abiding citizens and the prospect of landing much-needed business. Who wants to invest millions of dollars in a city whose anthem could be the tat-tat-tat of gun fire?
I’m not in favor of the federal government invading communities, as has been done in Portland and Chicago. Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma rightfully called the deployment of guard troops in Illinois a violation of states’ rights.
And some residents here will automatically recoil because the guard has become synonymous, in some quarters, with an out-of-control, authoritarian president. If Trump likes the idea, I hate it.
But poor policy implementation shouldn’t disqualify discussions of using every possible tool to reduce violence, and that includes the use of the guard.
The city has touted a violence interruption strategy based on a Cure Violence Global program. Research, including a study from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, noted the program’s positive impact on reducing violence in many of its cities. But overall, prevention program results are mixed. While it’s fine to try things that may (or may not) have an impact, the city shouldn’t put all of its eggs in one violence interruption basket.
The city knows which areas suffer from the most violent crime. It should meet with local leaders and discuss whether bringing in the guard makes sense. It should, with police, work in concert to determine what the guard would and wouldn’t do. Would patrols supplement police on patrol? Secure scenes until police arrive?
The parameters on what the guard can’t do should be clear, too. It can’t, for example, detain people or make arrests, I would think.
Make clear that this is an experiment for a set time (30 days? 60?) after which the city will analyze the data. If violent crime doesn’t drop, then figure out something else. But if it does — in conjunction with the drones, cameras, and the violence program — then you have a template for aggressively combat and hopefully reduce (not stop) crime.
I hear the objections. Bringing in the guard, untrained in local policing, usurps local authority. It turns Dayton into a police state. It runs the risk of people in the neighborhoods rebelling against the sight of camouflage-wearing troops walking down their streets.
But it also could give a sense of security to residents sick of wondering whether they can let their children safely play in a local park, or stand at a bus stop, or try to get in their own car.
The potential benefits far outweigh the negatives. Besides, we’re talking about a discussion, not a mandate, on ways to reduce violent crime.
That discussion needs to include all options, including utilizing the guard.
Failure to aggressively act will cost lives.
We’ve seen that already. We need to see it as little as possible.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday.
About the Author