I have just finished reading "Officer Fatally Wounds Parolee in Santa Ana" (May 18). The reporter used statements from people he listed as witnesses. According to these "witnesses," the officer's action "seemed excessive," "unfair," and: "For the officer to shoot him as many times as he did, it wasn't necessary."
Toward the beginning of the article, these witnesses said they saw (Jose Javier) Muniz wrestling on the ground with the officer but did not see how the struggle began. Later, in the same article, one of the witnesses said she "saw shadows back by our patio. They looked like they were in a struggle. . . ." How can this "witness" who saw shadows and what looked like a struggle, say that the officer shooting Muniz "was unfair?"
According to Webster's New World Dictionary, witness is defined as a "person attesting to a fact or person who saw or can give a firsthand account of something." I find it hard to believe that all of these people can be called witnesses when all they saw were some shadows and what looked like a struggle.
There is rebuilding going on in Los Angeles and the police are trying to improve relations with the public. What is The Times trying to do? I would like to see The Times report on facts and leave the trials and convictions to the courts.
DEAN E. FLEIG