Shove was clearly case of police brutality

I am very angry about the lack of prosecution ["No charges in slamming case," NWSaturday, August 1] against the police officer who brutally attacked Christopher Harris, the young man currently in a coma after being thrown into a wall by this policeman.

This is totally unacceptable. The surveillance video of the incident shows it is clearly police brutality; the victim did not even have a weapon. The officer could have caught this man easily and applied handcuffs without a problem.

If this is "standard police procedure," as the news report stated, we are all in big trouble!

-- Carol Meyer, Seattle

All too often, police escape consequences for their actions

Police misconduct is rampant in this country, as indicated recently by the devastating injuries to Christopher Harris by a sheriff's deputy. In this case, an officer was cleared after dealing a paralyzing blow to Christopher Harris against a concrete wall.

The county prosecutor said the officer could not be prosecuted because he had done it without malice, held a good-faith belief that the act was justifiable and used a standard takedown procedure.

A police spokesman referred to it as a tragic accident. A video of the incident demonstrates the assault was completely unnecessary and that the violence of the police assault was beyond all reason.

Rarely are police officers held accountable for questionable killings, torture, beatings, profiling and denial of civil rights.

Even before a police-misconduct issue is investigated, police organizations circle the wagons to deny any wrongdoing and complain they have a dangerous job, are underpaid and unappreciated.

This all may be true, and yes we should do something about it. However, none of this justifies the police using their special power to kill, injure or deny people their fundamental rights.

This happens largely to the poor and minorities now, but others in society will be next as the police problem escalates. It could even happen to college professors!

-- Malcolm D. McPhee, Sequim

In a kiss, a violation of trust

Thank you for publishing the story ["Civilian panel backs move to suspend police officer," NWFriday, July 31] about Officer Rob Mahoney's suspension for kissing an Explorer.

As a former Seattle Police Explorer, all I can say is shame on Mahoney, and thank you to Heather Newstrom for having the courage to speak up.

Even if Heather was 18 years old, it was still a terrible thing for an officer to take advantage of his position and do something like that. The kids in the Explorer program trust and look up to the officers. The parents trust the officers to supervise their children on ride-alongs -- and even overnight training activities.

This is yet another example of the deep-rooted problems with the Seattle Police Department, and I hope the sergeant in charge of the Explorer Program takes the initiative to sweep it clean.

What a shame for all the kids who thought these officers were going to teach them to be good cops.

-- Erin Wenzel, Seattle

Big Brother alive and well thanks to cameras

I wonder, does anyone believe Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr's assertion ["Suit alleges red-light camera fines are excessive," NWThursday, June 25] that red-light cameras were installed strictly as a deterrent against red-light runners?

The fact that red-light camera fines are the same as that of a police officer issuing a fine for the same infraction suggests not. State law says cities should fine car owners no more than what they can fine them for parking tickets. An average parking ticket is around $40. Carr uses the logic that half of the maximum fine for parking in a handicap zone --$250 -- is reasonable.

While studies may have shown the number of people running red lights where cameras have been installed have declined, I'm curious how much the number of rear-end collisions increased from people slamming on the brakes to avoid running a stale yellow light?

Red-light cameras, and now more recently speed cameras, are nothing more than revenue-generating devices, depriving motorists from confronting their accusers at the scene of the alleged crime.

George Orwell's nightmare vision of Big Brother watching over our every move is alive and well in 2009.

-- Gene Davis, Lake Forest Park

Chief went back on his word

I am writing in regard to the May 25 article "Muslims criticize producers of Seattle police training program" [NW Monday].

First of all, the headline is misleading; it is not just Muslims who are critical of the Seattle Police Department using this program. About 70 concerned citizens, including Christians, Jews and Muslims, attended a meeting with the SPD on May 7. Most of us, including several members of Jewish Voice for Peace, objected to the use of a program created by a center that promotes hatred and fear of Muslims.

At this meeting, Chief John Diaz informed us that SPD would only use this training if the Simon Wiesenthal Center agreed to have its name taken off all the materials. When questioned, he reiterated several times that if the SWC refused to have its name taken off the training, the SPD would not use this training.

Diaz went back on his word when he decided to use the training with the SWC name on it. The SPD did not get "caught in the middle" of a dispute. Even after hearing community concerns, they chose to use a program created by a group that endorses hatred of a minority religious group.

As a Jewish resident of Seattle, I object to the department's implicit support of a group that advocates bigotry.

-- Wendy Elisheva Somerson, Jewish Voice for Peace, Seattle Chapter

When minority group is target, all should care

Although I may not be happy about the Seattle Police Department's decision to use a training developed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center despite the opposition of NAACP-Seattle and numerous church groups, it certainly has the right to do so. However, to dismiss this communitywide concern stemming from the center's active promotion of hate as "someone else's feud" is indefensible.

When a minority group is targeted by a powerful interest group, we should all be concerned. When an organization produces rhetoric questioning a minority group's allegiance to the land it inhabits and promotes conspiracy theories of secret plans to subversively take over that land, it should be strongly condemned.

All of that was done by the Nazis to Jews, and ironically is now being done by the Simon Wiesenthal Center to Muslims through the films "Ever Again" and "The Third Jihad."
Because of its activities, the center loses all credibility to teach tolerance.

There is a line between educating the public about an issue of importance and spreading hate. Where is the center's hatred of gang violence, which takes some 15,000 American lives annually? Where is its condemnation of hate speech by a controversial Dutch politician in U.S. synagogues? Where is its criticism of the Tamil Tigers, which according to research by Dr. Robert Pape, have committed by far the largest number of suicide attacks from 1980-2003?

The facts show that the center unfairly targets Muslims and for it to teach tolerance to our police forces is wrong.

-- Muhammad Ayub, Olympia