Police Use of Force

I’m not a use of force expert and neither do I claim to be. However, as a concerned citizen who voices an opinion and also indirectly pays the salaries of those who affect my life, I have a right to question those in authority. Whether or not Capt. Jim Tatreau believes The Times reporting has an agenda against the police (“Police Shooting in Pacoima,” Letters, Dec. 6), I do not. I want answers.

Why do police, with all the sophisticated gadgets that they display every year to the media [and] that they claim will save lives, still find it necessary to kill someone? This latest incident causes me to think that deadly force is the first alternative.

Where was the other officer and what about backup? I know police have batons and know how to use them--hence Rodney King. The police officer, according to Tatreau, perceived a naked man a threat, With what? The officer killed a person in cold blood because of an abstract perception. Tatreau takes issue because The Times is questioning the history of police tactics used on people with mental disorders. It should as well as any concerned citizen. And anyone who has a comment shouldn’t be disarmed by Tatreau’s opinion. I think if The Times were an entity that could be killed, the police would have already done it. Of course, I am entitled to my perception, aren’t I, Captain? Lucky for those not in authority, there happens to be a 1st Amendment, which isn’t a perception.

MICHAEL FOXEN

Canoga Park