The Blame Game
Why do the front page headlines about the late Chris Burgess having meth in his system bother me? Probably because it seems to simplify the issue and now a lot of people are going to say something like, "Oh, he was on meth. That explains it. Case closed...".
Sure, meth can alter one's judgement and cause someone to do something he might not normally do. But shouldn't there be some individual responsibility involved here?
On the flip side, does the fact someone is on meth dictate what actions police should take when dealing with someone? First, none of the law enforcement on the scene knew for sure he was on meth. They might have suspected, but they didn't know for sure.
Regardless, actions taken were in response to actions Burgess initiated, whether he had meth in his system, or not, response should (and I assume did) remain the same.
I realize there are serious problems with meth in this county, and across the state. I realize this makes good news showing how serious the problem might be, but I think it clouds the issues involved with the Burgess shooting.
Meth was a player, but there's no way we can say he [or law enforcement] would have acted differently had meth not been involved.