Controversy Over Tagger Shooting
Like many Angelenos, I am still confused with regard to the William Masters-Rene Arce incident. Having read the perspectives of attorneys on both sides (Commentary, Nov. 27), I understand only one point: William Masters shot Rene Arce.
What I don’t understand is this--when did Arce’s parents tell him that “tagging” is an acceptable form of self-expression? If I miss my guess, it was probably around the time Masters’ parents told him that carrying and firing a concealed weapon at an unarmed assailant is also an acceptable form of self-expression.
If any good can come out of this tragic incident, I hope it is these two messages: 1) Taggers, knock it off! No one is really impressed that you can “tag” a wall with the same amount of alacrity that my dog does at every fire hydrant! 2) Just because you have the brains to buy a gun, doesn’t mean you have the brains to use it!
For all the people on both sides of this issue: Stop pointing fingers after the incident and start pointing these people toward our common goal--a city we can all still be proud of.
RODERIC P. KAVANAGH
Van Nuys
* I agree more with Luis Carrillo than Chuck Michel. Masters’ attorney Michel conveniently ignores the issues of possible murder to peddle the NRA position of inalienable rights in regard to concealed weapons. When these rights to weapons’ clauses were written, it was a completely different America. I would fear for my life if anyone could get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Los Angeles. Homicides would increase.
If Masters acted defensively, why did he shoot the two in the back at 30 feet? Why did he kill Arce, who didn’t even have a screwdriver? Why didn’t he shoot a couple warning shots? I don’t like graffiti! I would try to turn in anyone I caught tagging, but I wouldn’t kill them.
GERALD ORCHOLSKI
Pasadena
* Carrillo has picked the wrong target for his charge of discrimination. Masters was merely acting in self-defense when two graffiti vandals threatened him. And now Masters is being punished for having the foresight to arm himself.
The true victims of discrimination are all the honest folks--Latinos, blacks, women, elderly, handicapped, etc.--who are terrorized by the thugs who roam our streets.
Roughly 90% of the concealed-carry permits in California go to affluent, politically connected white males. But the minorities who live in crime-ridden inner-city neighborhoods with woefully inadequate police protection are at greatest risk. They’re the ones who most urgently need firearms to protect themselves, and yet they are unjustly discriminated against when they seek permits.
By forbidding us the tools of self-defense, California’s unconstitutional gun control laws attempt to turn law-abiding people into defenseless, helpless victims.
SANDI WEBB
Simi Valley