Denver
Post
letters
Denver police
shooting
Force was justified
Friday,
July 11, 2003 - Re:
"Shooting provokes outrage; Officer who killed disabled teen involved in
fatal shooting last year," July 7 news story.
The reaction of some in the Denver
community to the latest Denver
police shooting has bordered on the absurd.
Forgetting for the moment all the Monday-morning quarterbacking being done
by some community "leaders" and newspaper columnists before the
investigation into the incident has been completed, there is a belief that
because the shooting victim may have been developmentally disabled, he was no
threat to the police officers or others on the scene. Nonsense! If anything, being developmentally disabled may have
made the young man more of a threat to those present. He
may have been less likely to understand the consequences of his actions, and
therefore may have caused injury to another person. This
appears to have been what the officer involved was thinking when he
confronted the potential assailant. Those who
believe that being developmentally challenged should have gotten this young
man a free pass to continue on a path that could have caused injury or death
to another person are seriously delusional. Our
prisons are full of violent criminals who I am sure would love to tell you
how they should be given a break because they are disadvantaged.
It is tragic that this situation had to end like it did.
It may have become more tragic had the police not treated this armed
person like they would any other armed person.
BOB FALCONE
Colorado Springs
-----------------------------------------
It'll happen again
I read with dismay the article about the 15-year-old mentally handicapped
boy killed by police gunfire, only to be further appalled to find out that
the officer who shot him had previously killed yet another handicapped person
who was also unable to follow his commands because of a disability. As in countless other cases, the officer will be
exonerated, and the taxpayers will pay a huge settlement to the victim's
family by way of a civil suit. Maybe next year the
officer will be in the newspapers again, for shooting Christopher Reeve for
not getting out of his wheelchair as commanded, or
perhaps Stevie Wonder for failing to obey hand
signals.
JIM SMITH
Wellington
-----------------------------------------
Cops not babysitters
One would think Denverites would be irritated
that Paul Childs' family has a history of using Denver
police officers as social workers to control their son when clearly Paul
needed to be in an institution where his behavior could be monitored and
controlled. The family bears responsibility for
calling the police to "calm him down." They
shouldn't have called if they weren't concerned for their safety. The job of the police is to enforce law and order, and
they did that, especially when Paul did not obey their commands.
BART RHOTEN
Aurora
-----------------------------------------
Stop finger-pointing
While I sympathize with Paul Childs' family over their tragic loss, I am
disappointed with the finger-pointing that has become of it.
On Sunday, media showed pastors within the community saying that if he
were white, this never would have happened. Bull. If he were white, it wouldn't be the cover story. James Turney, the officer who
shot Paul, felt, for whatever reason, that he needed to control the
situation, and his method was to shoot. I wasn't
there, so I don't know exactly what happened; I only know what the media has
said. That goes for everyone else, too, except for
the people at the scene.
Officer Turney may have acted in haste, but that
was his decision. Maybe I am nave and not cynical
enough, but I don't think Turney shot Paul because
of the color of his skin. I think that's
oversimplifying the situation, and I thought as a society, we were past using
color as a reason. By no means is it one person's
fault. Many events led up to the heartbreaking
conclusion. Enough with the finger-pointing.
DIANA SIMPSON
Littleton
|