Taking Exception to Inquiry, Reporting in Deputy’s Death

* The information published about the sheriff’s and district attorney’s offices’ investigation(s) of the Deputy Brian Scanlan shooting upsets me (“Why Secrecy in Shooting Probe,” Platform, April 1).

Although it does not appear that Deputy Scanlan intended the death of Deputy Darryn Robins, it does appear that he acted without caution and he certainly violated department training policy by using a loaded weapon. It has been noted that Deputy Robins’ concealed weapon was unloaded.

Is Deputy Scanlan above the law that protects citizens like Darryn Robins from careless and deadly acts? Would ordinary individuals be given the same consideration if they accidentally, but carelessly, hit a child with their car?

The investigation was not conducted in the normal manner, and the need for the grand jury investigation was unusual, according to (your Platform article by) a former deputy district attorney. Why was the district attorney’s initial recommendation for a manslaughter charge not pursued?

GENE P. MORRIS

Lake Forest

* With respect to your story about the Orange County sheriff’s deputy who shot his partner, I can only wonder why you chose the word “cocky” to lead your article with (“O.C. Deputy Felt ‘Cocky’ During Fatal Exercise,” March 24). There was, to my knowledge, 5 1/2 hours of testimony from Deputy (Brian P.) Scanlan, numerous other hours of testimony from the others at the scene and involved in the subsequent investigation, not to mention the videotapes. Perhaps this was the only word out of all the thousands of words that would throw a bad light on the situation. Perhaps your intent was to put the issue to the public in such a way as to do the most damage to the deputy.

If it was your intent to slant the news, you did a fine job. If it was your intent to belittle an individual, ditto. If you hoped to make a terrible situation worse, you accomplished it.

STEPHEN H. WHITSON

Anaheim

* I can’t begin to tell you how disgusting I found your article on the Scanlan shooting. The story was rife with innuendoes and pejorative language, which seemed to imply that the deputy was somehow indifferent to the fact that he had just killed a fellow officer.

Instead of treating the information which the district attorney released factually, you appear to go out of your way to create controversy, seemingly indifferent to the fact that Deputy Scanlan was no doubt in severe shock during the initial interrogations.

In an age when we have more than enough controversy and racial tension to go around, it is a shame that your reporters found it ethical and appropriate to attempt to create more.

JAMES M. JACOBS

Laguna Niguel

* Thanks for the article “Jury Refuses to Indict Deputy in Fellow O.C. Officer’s Killing,” March 11) on the not so accidental killing of Deputy Darryn Robins last Christmas Day. Same also for your editorial March 12.

How in God’s name can your reporters keep from laughing in the faces of the police spokesman? Do the police actually believe the public is that stupid? Their silence, followed by obscene explanations, is beyond belief.

PHILIP CURTIS

Costa Mesa