Defending Police in Fatal Shooting

The article “Man in Park Fatally Shot by 2 Officers” (Sept. 28) contained inappropriate information. It initially describes a tragic sequence of events that culminated in the unfortunate death of a man who reportedly brandished a firearm at officers.

Instead of ending with these facts, the article offers a summary of recent police officer-involved shootings. The summary continues by blaming the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana for using deadly force the most often in Orange County.

The story then states that these shootings have “prompted at least 15 lawsuits and liability claims alleging wrongful death and excessive use of force. The legal actions sought millions of dollars and damages and raised questions about police conduct. . . .” Any case involving use of force by a police officer, especially requiring “deadly force,” will almost always result in a liability claim. This practice of suing police officers for “wrongful deaths” and “excessive force” is becoming standard practice in Southern California.

What is the purpose of going beyond the reporting of the facts in this situation? I felt the article was strongly biased against the actions of the San Clemente police in this incident, and Orange County law enforcement agencies in general.

Shouldn’t The Times allow the police officers the full benefit of the legal system to determine if their actions were appropriate? These are the same rights that The Times demands for persons accused of other crimes. By mixing facts of this incident and the accusations of excessive force in other incidents, the tone of the article pronounces guilt on these officers. At least allow them the benefit of the doubt, until the facts prove otherwise.

Maybe The Times should spend more time supporting those who are working hard to keep our community safe, rather than undermining their efforts.

JAMES M. BANKS

La Habra