Letters to the editor – Police prosecutions, Amber Guyger, climate change, environment



[ad_1]

Officer escalated the situation

Re: "Change noted in police lawsuits – Charges for killing 4 officers in 3 years against the national trend," reported Sunday the article.

Burglary is not a capital offense. No one is executed for being infiltrated in someone 's apartment and having stolen his television. So when Amber Guyger decides not to go back to the door of what she thinks in her apartment and call the reinforcements of some officers until we can determine what was happening (maybe it was not his flat at all), but, shoot his weapon and make the situation go to death or death, what was going on in his head?

Do we allow our police officers to carry a lethal weapon (which all countries do not allow) to use as a first alternative in a given situation? What is it that a trained police officer immediately perceives such a situation as a situation in which one's life is in danger?

If she had been in the apartment and an unknown person had stuck in the door, maybe, but she entered it for no other reason than to possibly protect her property and, in so doing, it aggravated the situation that cost the life of a person.

What part of the "protect and serve" mission is pushing a police office to do this? Does it mean a coaches failure or an irrational fear and unprovoked aggression on the part of an otherwise capable officer?

Stephen Love, Dallas

Self defense does not apply

I understand that self-defense can not be used if you commit a crime.

When Amber Guyger shot Botham Jean, she was essentially an armed intruder. As a result, she was in violation of the law. It has no legitimate claim for self-defense.

If this is ignored, then this creates a dangerous precedent to follow. Go home to someone and state that you thought it was your home.

Tim Scott, Houston

Errors can be made

Re: "Unchanging Facts on Shooting", by Brian Baldwin, Monday Letters.

I accepted Mr. Baldwin's letter until the last paragraph. There are indeed two sides here unless you are aware of the facts that the rest of us do not know.

Did these two people know each other? Did they have a disagreement? Did they have a break? Were there any circumstances in which they interacted? Or does Mr Baldwin want us to believe that a Dallas policeman has just entered his building, picked an apartment, walked in and killed a stranger in cold blood?

I've been traveling for years for work and I can not tell you the number of times I found myself on the wrong floor. And I did not come to work for fifteen hours. In many hotels and apartment buildings, the floors are all alike. Errors can be made. I do not say 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 student protest marches on climate change are to be admired, I am afraid that, like Florida student demonstrations after the school shootings, the President and Congress take no action because the Students can not vote.

I think children would get more results if they asked their parents, grandparents, etc., to speak for them in the voting booth. If adults, for their children and grandchildren, do not act by voting against ineffective politicians, nothing will ever change with regard to climate or large-scale shootings.

John Lopez, Dallas / Lake Highlands

What are you going to sacrifice?

Re: "North Texans join the global fight for change", report Saturday.

I have been very comforted to see young people from around the world come together in large numbers to demand action on climate change. They will bear most of the difficulties. But what has missed me, is any specific action proposal. To avoid the imminent disaster, we will radically change our way of life and, at least, our Western standard of living. In simple terms, we must stop burning fossil fuels. At the present time, more efficient appliances, better insulated buildings and increased automobile mileage requirements are too few and too late, especially when the current administration opposes them.

So what are you proposing? And keep in mind that any proposal must require sacrifices from you and all others. Are you willing to give up your cell phones, computers and other electronic gadgets consuming countless kilowatts to run and recharge? Are you ready to give up air conditioning in your homes and schools? Heater? Uber rides? Are you going to take these measures even if they are not mandated by the government? It's hard. To ask legislators to act is not enough; we need to hear what you think they should do. And then you will 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 has written truths that we all need to think about and act on. Actions to reduce climate change are vital for all of us. Those who claim that such an action is too expensive do not include in their calculations the expenses incurred by fossil fuel vehicles and electricity: excess of illness and death, homes and businesses destroyed by storms, floods and fires. According to the second report on the state of the carbon cycle, released last November, US investment in reducing carbon dioxide, methane and other excessive sources would be profitable. Those who damage our atmosphere must start paying for the damage.

Christine A. Guldi, Dallas

Click here to send a letter to the publisher.

[ad_2]

Source link