July 15, 2003

News shouldn't ignore Childs family's role

Please, no more articles bemoaning the acute victimization of the Childs family. Yes, the Denver Police Department's shooting of special-needs teenager Paul Childs is an outrage, and yes, his family members are certainly victims, but let's acknowledge that the family had responsibilities, too.

The Childs family laments - and the News stresses again and again - that Paul considered the police his "friends." However, this was because they routinely returned him home every time he was allowed to wander away (sometimes to as far off as Boulder). Where was the family oversight here?

It should also be remembered that the tragedy was initiated when the family called the police to "calm Paul down." Again, wasn't this the family's job? Even if not, why did they call 911 instead of the regular number for the police? And why didn't they inform the 911 operator that they did not consider the situation life-threatening, that the knife Paul wielded "couldn't cut a tomato," and that they would continue watching television until police arrived?

In part, it was the Childs family's reliance upon police to provide basic parental functions that brought about yet another senseless DPD shooting of a minor. Yet the News seems content to focus solely upon law enforcement's culpability (yes, now even 911 dispatch is being blamed for not taking sufficient information) for a situation in which lax parenting also played a tragic role.

My heart goes out to the Childs family, and it is human nature that they should seek to absolve themselves from any blame. But the Rocky Mountain News should not be encouraging its readers to do the same.

Jeff Zoerner
Denver

Decree confronts city, police with dilemma

I empathize with the family members who are coping with the tragic death of Paul Childs, shot by Denver police officer James Turney. I have a developmentally disabled step-brother who struggles with mental illness and is sometimes violent with other family members.

I was digesting the content of the July 10 News article, "Threat by cop alleged," and surmised that Turney was possibly given preferential treatment because of his Asian ancestry due to the Hoag Decree, a settlement of a 1975 civil rights lawsuit seeking greater diversity in the ranks of the Denver Police Department. His oral and written scores placed him 812th among 956 candidates who made the final cut of applicants in 1996. His ethnicity and further tests pulled him up to a ranking of 158 which enabled him to enter and graduate from the Denver Police Academy. The News neglected to explain if the results of his further testing or his ethnic background had a greater bearing on his final ranking that placed him in the top 14 percent of the 956 candidates that made the final cut.

If Turney's race played the key role in his final ranking, the Denver community and the Denver Police Department face a dilemma in continuing to put the most qualified officers on the street for an extremely dangerous and demanding job. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., are applicants for openings on the Denver police force to be evaluated solely on the content of their character or on the color of their skin?

Larry Sourbeer
Arvada

Go ahead, God, get it over with - nuke us

Dear God, Evelyn Chavez recently quoted your book in a July 2 Rocky Mountain News letter to the editor ("What God thinks about 'who we really are' "). Now I realize that you didn't actually write this book yourself, that men did, but here are the verses she quoted:

"They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies," "The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil," "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked," "There is none righteous, no not one," "There is none who does good, no not one," and "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

You aren't very nice, are you? If, after all these thousands of years of mankind you still think of us this way, then why, in your self-righteous name, do we still exist, procreating like there's no tomorrow? These quotes are indicative of one profound thing: As Gods go, you must be completely dysfunctional, because these statements exist only to crush the positive in us pathetic human beings and to demean and destroy our worth and value.

Apparently, we humans have no redeemable qualities. We don't create incredible art. We don't write beautiful poetry. We don't compose amazing music. We don't build remarkable cathedrals. We've never done anything to ease the suffering on this sacred Earth. We don't do anything of value to you, and we are all monsters. So go ahead and project the blame on us. It's our fault, isn't it?

Why don't you just nuke us now and get it over with? And please, get me first, as I am the most evil sinner there is. I'm an unconditionally loving, non-Christian, non-Jew, non- Muslim, non-Hindu, non-Buddhist, mostly pagan, nonheterosexual artist/poet/shaman/healer brat.

What on earth are you waiting for? Oh, that's right . . . the Rapture.

Well, while you are waiting, I'll keep on creating art.

J. Bruce Wilcox
Denver

Marriage's twin nature: secular and religious

In a recent article about the Supreme Court's ruling on Texas's anti-sodomy law, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was quoted as saying, "Marriage is a sacrament."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Marriage, in the context of government as opposed to the context of religion, is a special legal contract between two parties, portions of which contract are provided for by statute and others of which are rooted in the common law. The statutory implications for marriage include such things as inheritance without probate, special tax provisions (the "marriage penalty"), and survivor benefits. There are probably hundreds of other statutory benefits and legal liabilities to marriage, and there are certainly thousands of imputed clauses to that contract provided for by the common law.

It is indeed unfortunate that a highly-placed member of our national government brings up a religious aspect when discussing the Supreme Court ruling and its possible implications. There are absolutely no sacramental implications to a marriage, while there certainly are to weddings performed by various religious organizations. Tying these two concepts together has hindered our ability to discuss the unions of two persons rationally and logically.

I have always viewed with skepticism the argument that gay marriage is destructive of families and family values. I've never been able to figure out how the gay couple down the street impinges in any way on my quintessentially nuclear marriage (man, woman, two children). Those two neighbors aren't telling me how to raise my children, so why should I (as a perhaps unwilling part of the "moral majority," whatever that is) have a say in whether those two should have or adopt children.

Conversely, if any two (or even more) people want to consider themselves wed, and if they can get some religious organization to sanctify that wedding, more power to them. Just separate the concept of religious wedding from legal contractual marriage.

Ted Remington
Aurora

President, allies on the right track in Iraq

Misunderstood facts have caused anger over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

First, the president of the United States and his advisers were not alone in believing the regime of Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It was also believed by the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix.

The reason the war began is not because of the failure of the search for weapons but because our government rightly felt that by toppling Saddam we could not only end the threat of his weapons, but also sever his numerous ties to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida that have killed thousands of people around the world and in the United States.

Most of all, though, the war was waged to give the people of Iraq a better chance at a quality life with democracy. Tens of thousands of people were murdered by Saddam. This became apparent to the world with the discovery of mass graves with countless numbers of victims. With the help of the United States and other countries we can already see the changes. Our president is on the right track.

Kelly Wilcoxson
Aurora

Administration must be held accountable

Now that the U.S. unilaterally bombed Iraq into submission, it is imperative we hold this administration accountable to develop a foreign policy that advances our national security through a spirit of diplomacy. As its foundation, this policy must address building a safer world based on international law, cooperation and economic and social justice.

This "new and improved" foreign policy must also address reversing the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive war," to prevent attacks on the people of Syria, Iran, North Korea or Cuba.

The U.S. must join and support The International Criminal Court and rebuild strained relations with the United Nations. To strengthen our security and preserve our environment, it is imperative the U.S. make a rapid shift to clean, renewable energy sources.

Winning does not make us safe or sustainable.

Shari Malloy
Longmont

Remark disappoints

Even those of us in the business of monitoring hate were surprised and disappointed by the blatantly anti-Semitic remark of Amarillo Slim during KOA radio's Sports Zoo on July 3 ("Card shark sorry, but radio station still wields a club," July 8).

Slim, a national public figure with access and appeal to the media, crassly disparaged a well-known Jewish comic and refused to apologize for the slur. Gratefully, an embarrassed and angry KOA has responded appropriately. Amarillo Slim's explanation that he thought he was speaking off the air does not excuse nor lessen the bigotry reflected in his remark.

Evan M. Zuckerman
Associate director, Anti-Defamation League
Denver

Keep mounted patrol

Is Mayor Wellington Webb ("Mayor slashes budget," June 24) not aware that the Denver Police Department's Mounted Patrol costs nothing to maintain every year? Feed, grain, shelter and tack are all donated. In this day and age, most citizens disrespect policemen, except those on horseback. Will it cost less to reassign these gentlemen to the streets in patrol cars? We need to keep some part of our Western heritage intact. If this is to truly become a "Hick" town, don't we deserve to have these men on horses?

Cindy L. Peacock
Littleton

Smoke screen

I am curious as to how many of the seven "no" votes on the City Council are smokers ("Council kills smoking ban," July 1)? After all, why be concerned about secondhand smoke when you indulge in it first hand?

Fred Everding
Arvada

Copyright 2003, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.