LETTERS: Had Joseph Wilcox stopped Jerad Miller, he would have been a criminal, too

To the editor:

Any competent lawyer (there are a few) would admit that when Joseph Wilcox pulled a loaded gun and prepared to use it on Jerad Miller on June 8, he broke the law. Miller did not directly threaten anyone inside the Wal-Mart with his gun, did not point at or fire at anyone, and did not restrain or take anyone hostage with his weapon.

He did pull a gun, fire it into the ceiling, verbally claim the start of a revolution and order everyone to leave the store. But because he did not pose a deadly threat to anyone, an intervention by another with deadly force was not legally justifiable. Had Mr. Wilcox successfully closed on Miller and shot and killed him, the law would, at a minimum, have required that he be charged with manslaughter.

The true irony is that Amanda Miller’s actions in shooting and killing Mr. Wilcox were legally justifiable because another person was acting illegally in preparing to kill her husband. The Millers’ brutal execution of two Las Vegas police officers at a pizza parlor was, legally, a separate event from what occurred at Wal-Mart. Those at Wal-Mart, including Mr. Wilcox, were unaware of the Millers’ terrible actions earlier.

But community leaders are determined to paint this rash, impulsive guy as a true hero. The truth is that when Mr. Wilcox pulled his gun “to end it,” he seriously endangered everyone remaining in the store, because with what the Millers had just done at the pizza parlor, they could have easily concluded that others were willing to stop them and could have just as easily started blasting away. Had I been in the store, and lunatic Miller had just fired into the ceiling and ordered us to leave, I would have felt reasonably safe as long as I proceeded out the door quietly, but with Mr. Wilcox playing hero and preparing to shoot Miller, I would have been extremely nervous about my/our prospects of now being allowed to vacate the premises safely.

These thoughts on Mr. Wilcox do not remove the terrible pain inflicted on the community through the loss of the officers; without people like them, we’d definitely live in a state of anarchy, as the Millers desired.



Why didn’t she speak up?

To the editor:

I read the June 19 letter to the editor, written by James O’Rourke, and was thrilled to see that someone else feels the way I do in the aftermath of the June 8 shootings. I believe the Millers’ roommate, Kelley Fielder, is culpable in the shootings that occurred at CiCi’s Pizza and Wal-Mart. She had their guns in her home and had heard from the Millers that they were going to kill cops that day. She watched them leave with their backpacks.

Shame on her and those like her. In this day and age, when this type of shooting and the shootings at schools seem to be on the rise, it’s imperative that we hold others accountable for knowing something will or could occur. As Mr. O’Rourke says, “Initiate legislation that addresses this issue. Enactment of appropriate laws may very well save lives somewhere down the line.”




To the editor:

Regarding your June 17 article, “Rate review considered for customers using solar systems”:

Homeowners like myself who install (at great expense) solar panels on their homes are now being punished. The state Public Utilities Commission is going to “review” whether I should be charged more because I don’t pay NV Energy for power. Obviously, since NV Energy shareholders are guaranteed a substantial rate of return by the PUC, as a net zero solar-user I am not contributing to the wealthy and connected shareholders’ dividends.

It’s only a matter of time until our politicians and the PUC (with the help of energy lobbyists) will require solar users to pay the “lost dividends” to NV Energy so its investment will be safe. This will make Warren Buffett very happy (and richer).

Of course, the fact that our investment in solar systems will be worthless doesn’t matter to the PUC or politicians; their jobs and investments will be safe.



Equitable cost sharing

To the editor:

In response to the June 17 article, “Rate review considered for customers using solar systems”:

Today solar system owners benefit greatly at the expense of everyone else. Currently, residential solar systems receive a 30 percent federal income tax credit against their total installed cost. Someone, the installer or homeowner, with a $15,000 solar installation, receives a $4,500 reduction in their federal income tax. There is no free lunch. Other taxpayers must make up this deficit.

When solar electricity is generated, it is always use-it-or-lose-it. There is no on-the-grid storage capacity for excess generation. Therefore the local utility must somehow dynamically accommodate and adjust their generating capacity, otherwise this already-paid-for generation simply goes unused. It is lost forever.

Then there’s the issue of access to the existing power grid by these systems. The construction and maintenance of a power grid is very expensive. Currently residential solar systems do not reimburse the power utility for these costs, yet they receive full credit for any electricity they generate either by usage or an excess returned to the grid.

So what will the Nevada PUC do about private solar installations? Who knows, but it needs to do something to make this situation equitable for all. I’m sure our Legislature will be addressing all of this soon, right?