Observer Forum: Letters to the editor 08.16.15
Kerrick, self-defense? Not the way I see it
In response to “Officers do get shot with own weapons” (Aug. 12 Forum):
To compare what happened the night Officer Wes Kerrick killed Jonathan Ferrell to the deaths of Officers John Burnette and Andy Nobles was overly simplistic, and perhaps a reflection of Forum writer David Self’s own bias.
The man who killed Burnette and Nobles was driving a stolen vehicle and ran away from police when approached. Mr. Ferrell was not driving a stolen car and walked toward police.
And really, 12 shots, 10 hitting Mr. Ferrell. That doesn’t sound much like self-defense to me.
That’s why Eric Frazier’s question rang so true to so many people: “The two black officers didn’t need deadly force that night. Why did you?” (“Ferrell faced 3 cops, but one gun,” Aug. 7 Opinion)
To me, it’s not a question of race, it’s a question of justice.
Sharon Boyd, Charlotte
State has yet to prove Kerrick’s guilt
I have followed the Kerrick trial through the Observer and as of yet haven’t heard any testimony that “beyond a reasonable doubt” would convict Officer Kerrick of voluntary manslaughter.
This was a rush to judgment on CMPD’s part to placate the African-American community.
It is a shame that Jonathan Ferrell was killed as a result of his and Kerrick’s actions that night.
Now that the trial is where it belongs, in a courtroom, I can only see an acquittal as the end result. So far, the state has not met its burden.
Bill Hite, Indian Land, S.C.
It’s about the pets, not the politics
In response to “Let’s not mix pets, Pride, and politics” (Aug. 13 Forum):
I don’t think Humane Society volunteers marching in the gay pride parade should be the focus here.
This is simply another way the Humane Society of Charlotte can reach a group of people who can potentially adopt animals in need of a home.
Dogs and cats don’t know the difference – and they don’t care. You shouldn’t either. Finding a loving home for a pet is a good thing. Period!
Sham Ostapko, Huntersville
Hillary confused by computers? Absurd
In response to “I can’t blame Hillary on email issues” (Aug. 14 Forum):
The problem with people like Hillary Clinton is that she truly believes laws are made for “the little people,” not her.
She fully understood exactly what she was doing and did not think that anyone would dare question her right to do it.
To say that she might not have understood servers, browsers, and routers is like saying Einstein did not understand arithmetic.
The idea that she might have been confused by computers is absurd.
Ray Cooper, Charlotte
Schools in limbo, legislators to blame
Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools open in a week. No one knows exactly how much money schools will have to operate.
Administrators are in limbo because the “honorables” in Raleigh cannot pass a budget while they are posturing, pouting, playing political games, and being all puffed up in front of cameras.
As taxpayers, we expect public employees, such as teachers and others, to do their jobs and meet their responsibilities on time.
Legislators, do your job – so others can do theirs.
Paul Jones, Charlotte
Blame privatization and not just EPA
In response to “EPA blunder proves necessity of its services” (Aug. 14 Viewpoint):
While the EPA was responsible for the work being done at the Colorado gold mine, the actual work was done by the private contractor Missouri-based Environmental Restoration LLC – proving once again, privatization of the public good isn’t good for the public.
C.G. Kilburn, Pageland, S.C.
Thoughts on Orwell and Donald Trump
In response to “Anti-political correctness crowd’s criticism misfires” (Aug. 14 Viewpoint):
Columnist Reg Henry misses the point of politically correct language.
Orwell would refer to PC as “goodthink,” meaning individuals should not even think of using an alternative term, lest they commit a “thoughtcrime.”
Example: “Illegal alien” is a thoughtcrime; goodthink would be “undocumented immigrant.” Cleverly enough, this gets around the fact that “illegal alien” is a term of law.
It’s easy to see that those who control the language control the debate.
Donald Trump intuitively understands – and dismisses – goodthink.
J.P. Straley Hickory
This story was originally published August 15, 2015 at 1:00 PM with the headline "Observer Forum: Letters to the editor 08.16.15."