Officer escalated situation
Re: “Shift noted in police prosecutions – Murder indictments for 4 officers in 3 years buck national trend,” Sunday news story.
Burglary is not a capital offense. No one is executed for sneaking into someone’s apartment and stealing their TV. So, when Amber Guyger decides to not back away from the door of what she thinks in her apartment and call backup from some fellow officers until it could be determined what was going on (maybe that this was not her apartment at all) but, instead , draws her weapon and escalates the situation to a life-or-death one, what was going on in her mind?
Do we authorize our police officers to carry a deadly weapon (which not all countries enable) for use as the first alternative in a given situation? What causes a trained police officer to immediately perceive such a situation as one in which his or her life is in danger?
Had she been in the apartment and an unknown person crashed in the door, maybe, but she entered the room for no reason but to perhaps protect her property, and, in so doing, she escalated the situation, which took a person’s life.
What part of the mission to “protect and serve” drives a police office to act this way? Is this a failure of the trainers or irrational fear and unprovoked aggression on the part of an otherwise capable officer?
Stephen Love, Dallas
Self-defense doesn’t apply
It’s my understanding that self-defense can’t be used if you are in the commission of a crime.
When Amber Guyger shot Botham Jean, she was essentially an armed intruder. Therefore, she was in the commission of breaking the law. She has no legitimate claim of self-defense.
If that is ignored, then it sets a dangerous precedent for others to follow. Just break into someone’s home and claim you thought it was your home.
Tim Scott, Houston
Mistakes can be made
Re: “Unalterable facts about shooting,” by Brian Baldwin, Monday
I agreed with Mr. Letters. Baldwin’s letter until the last paragraph. There are indeed two sides here unless you are aware of facts the rest of us don’t know.
Did these two people know each other? Did they have a disagreement? Did they have a breakup? Were there any circumstances where they interacted? Or does Mr. Baldwin want us to believe that a Dallas police officer just walked into her apartment building, selected an apartment, walked in and shot a complete stranger in cold blood?
I traveled for years for business, and I can’t tell you the number of times I found myself on the wrong floor. And I hadn’t just worked a fifteen-hour shift. In many hotels and apartment buildings, the floors all look alike. Mistakes can be made. I’m not saying that’s what happened. But until a court decides, there are indeed two sides to this story.
Donald Ahlgren, San Antonio
Adults must act for children
While the student’s protest marches regarding climate change are to be admired, I fear that like the Florida student protests after their school shootings, the president and Congress will take no action, since the students cannot vote.
I think the children would see more results if they asked their parents, grandparents, etc., to speak for them in the voting booth. If adults, for their children and grandchildren, don’t take action by voting out ineffective politicians, then nothing will ever change regarding the climate or mass shootings.
John Lopez, Dallas / Lake Highlands
What will you sacrifice?
Re: “North Texans join in global fight for change,” Saturday news story.
I was greatly heartened to see the youth of the world gather in huge numbers to demand action on climate change. They will bear most of the hardship. But what I missed was any proposal for specific action. To avoid the looming catastrophe will require a drastic changes in our lifestyle and, at least in our Western standard of living. Simply put, we have to stop burning fossil fuel. At this point, more efficient appliances, better-insulated buildings and increased auto mileage requirements are too little, too late, especially when the current administration opposes all of them.
So what are you proposing? And bear in mind that any proposal has to require sacrifices from you as well as everyone else. Are you willing to give up your cellphones, computers and other electronic gadgets that consume untold kilowatts to operate and recharge? Are you willing to give up air conditioning in your homes and schools? Heating? Uber rides? Will you take these steps even if not mandated by the government? This is tough stuff. Urging legislators to act is not enough; we need to hear what you think they should do. And then you’re going to have to work to accomplish it.
Chuck Snakard, Dallas / North Oak Cliff
Climate inaction costs more
Re: “Environmental justice for all – With black and brown communities vulnerable to pollution, national leaders must fight for a healthier future, “by Aubrey Hooper, Sunday Opinion.
Mr. Hooper wrote truths we all need to contemplate and act upon. Action to reduce climate change is vital to us all. Those who claim such action is too expensive do not include in their calculations the expenses fossil-fueled vehicles and power create: excess sickness and death, homes and businesses destroyed by storms, floods and fire. U.S. investment in cutting excess carbon dioxide, methane and other emissions would pay for itself within 20 years, according to the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report, released last November. Those who damage our atmosphere must start paying for the damage.
Christine A. Guldi, Dallas
Clickhereto submit a letter to the editor.