Letters to the Editor

What if CMPD used bear spray, not bullets, to defuse confrontations?

Try a nonlethal approach: bear spray

In response to “Report on protests gives CMPD positive review” (Sept. 21):

Instead of a gun, outdoor enthusiasts in grizzly bear habitat are encouraged to use “bear spray,” which can stop a charging grizzly at up to 60 feet. Use of bear spray protects both humans and bears with a non-lethal way to resolve confrontations.

Ed Hinson
Ed Hinson

This approach should serve as a model for our police. Imagine the difference if the police were armed with and trained to use highly potent pepper spray or some other non-lethal means of disabling people perceived by them to be life-threatening.

How many confrontations leading to death, riots, and mistrust of the police might yield a different outcome?

Ed Hinson, Charlotte

Keith Lamont Scott wasn’t a martyr

Many are treating Keith Lamont Scott as a martyr when in fact he was a convicted felon who at the time of the incident was in possession of both illegal drugs and a firearm – items which could have sent him back to prison.

He was not an exception, but rather a good example of the landscape police face today when dealing with those who believe they are above he law.

As a former police officer, I wonder if Mr. Scott had shot and killed a CMPD officer if the same throngs of protesters would be as vocal over the fact an officer had been killed? I doubt it as I consider their overall vision to be rather myopic.

C.R. Moore III, Charlotte

Build a wall, then deal with Dreamers

Americans believe in immigration, but also believe in fairness and rule of law.

The first step in solving any problem is to stop the problem from getting worse. This means border security with a wall.

Dreamers should demand that Democrats support a border wall. Once construction has begun, a solution can be determined for immigration issues, including DACA.

Bruce Moline, Charlotte

GOP bill: just lipstick on the same old pig

The Cassidy-Graham Bill is just new lipstick on the same pig of a bill the American people have overwhelming opposed already.

Beyond its elimination of health coverage for tens of millions, and lack of cost protections for millions more, there once again is a total lack of process in the Senate’s consideration, including no real hearings or even a meaningful CBO score.

In addition, its proponents are being dishonest about the bill’s impact.

We deserve an open and bipartisan process for such an enormous and consequential decision. What we’re getting instead is a sham.

Pat McCoy, Charlotte

Latest GOP health plan is a crossover

The new GOP healthcare plan with the block grants to the states is… intriguing.

The states would use the money to grant the extra tax cuts and perks to the global corporations improving their financial health and attracting even more businesses.

The more the companies are profitable, the more money would trickle down to the citizens for their health care services.

This plan depends on our patience. We have been waiting on those windfalls since 1980…

Kenan Porobic, Charlotte

Move UN out of NYC. To Iceland, maybe?

With the United Nations in the news, now is an excellent time for the United States to cease all financial support for this haven of geopolitical dysfunction.

The huge expense of supporting this organization, with its vast espionage networks, should be borne by another country after all these years in New York City.

Ed Carlson
Ed Carlson

One suggestion would be to shut it down and move everything to Reykjavik, Iceland. Who knows, without the luxury and comfort of NYC, maybe something truly constructive might happen.

Ed Carlson, Charlotte

On God, history and prayer at meetings

In response to “Why remove prayer from City Council?” (Sept. 21 Forum):

Sandra Johnson
Sandra Johnson

“In God We Trust” didn’t appear on paper currency until 1957, and on coins in 1864, at the time of the Civil War.

“One Nation under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, during the McCarthy era. “So help me God” is optional in the oath of office for the president of the United States, though almost every president has used it since 1881.

Surely we must have more substantive concerns in our country than opening a meeting with prayer. If personally preferred, no one could object to a member’s silent prayer to their deity.

Sandra Johnson, Cornelius

  Comments