LETTERS: Clinton under no obligation to donate UNLV speaking fee
To the editor:
The first president of our time to receive outrageous speaking fees was Ronald Reagan. He shocked the nation by charging an obscene fee for speaking in Japan. Would the UNLV Foundation have asked Ronald Reagan to donate his obscene speaking fee to its foundation? Would any politician, on his or her speaking circuit, donate a speaking fee to the host’s foundation? For that matter, would any speaker, politician or otherwise, donate a speaking fee to the host’s foundation?
So why should Hillary Clinton? The foundation, or anyone in college, should know by now that after politicians leave office, this is the way they generate income.
RUTH BAKER
LAS VEGAS
Armchair quarterback
To the editor:
This is in response to Thomas Glennon’s June 28 letter (“Had Joseph Wilcox stopped Jerad Miller, he would have been a criminal, too”). One of the terms for using a gun in self-defense (and, no, I am not a lawyer) is proving to a “reasonable and prudent person” that the life of someone is being threatened. Does Mr. Glennon believe that defensive action in that store should have been postponed until someone was actually shot?
The Millers had already shown ability and preclusion when they shot and killed two officers, and Jerad Miller’s firing of his weapon in the air in the store, to me, would prove there was no doubt that they could or would kill. And as much as the people in Wal-Mart did not know that two officers had been killed, I’m sure when the whole story was brought to light, the Millers would have enough evidence against them to prove their abilities as mass murderers.
And no, I don’t believe Amanda Miller would have been acquitted on grounds of self-defense. A crime had already been committed by the Millers and was continuing upon them entering Wal-Mart.
I do not believe that every private citizen who legally owns and carries a gun should be inspired by “Dirty Harry” movies and act as such. The police should be left to professionally do their job when possible. But to condemn Mr. Wilcox as “rash and impulsive” because he felt the need to possibly save the lives of others prior to Metro’s arrival is, in my opinion, wrong.
If instead, Mr. Glennon, you had been there and “proceeded out the door quietly” after Jerad Miller pulled a gun and just fired a round into the ceiling, and the Millers then turned around and shot a family member of yours, what would you have thought then? Or, if possible prior to that action, Joseph Wilcox shot the subjects before they shot your family member, would you feel the same way about Mr. Wilcox?
It is easy to play armchair quarterback when you have hours to review and re-review a situation in the comfort and safety of your home. It is another thing to make a split-second decision when people’s lives are threatened, with the realization that you may lose yours in the process. Mr. Wilcox took a chance and sadly lost. I wish he had won. I don’t believe a jury in this state would have sent him to jail or ruled against him in a lawsuit. I wouldn’t have.
NEIL A. DICKINSON SR.
HENDERSON
Wilcox’s brave decision
To the editor:
The letter of Thomas Glennon was an exercise in absurdity, and it also exhibited a strange clairvoyance into the purposes of those involved, and ignorance of Nevada law (“Had Joseph Wilcox stopped Jerad Miller, he would have been a criminal, too,” June 28 Review-Journal). Mr. Glennon wrote that a competent lawyer would admit that the actions of Joseph Wilcox to stop Jerad Miller in Wal-Mart were illegal, and that Amanda Miller was legally justified in killing Mr. Wilcox to protect her husband. His arguments are based on his opinion that Jerad Miller was not posing a threat to anyone in Wal-Mart, even though he had fired a shot and was screaming “revolution” while ordering everyone out the store.
Was Mr. Miller a real threat to those in Wal-Mart? Nevada law defines a threat as “circumstances which are sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person.” Mr. Glennon, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, evidently feels he is a more reasonable person than Mr. Wilcox, but then proceeds to rebut his own argument. He states that if he were in Wal-Mart at that time, he would have felt reasonably safe proceeding out the door quietly. If Mr. Miller didn’t pose a real threat to anyone, why would Mr. Glennon feel it necessary to leave the store?
As for Amanda Miller, according to Nevada law, her killing of Mr. Wilcox could never be justified, as she was engaged in conduct in furtherance of a criminal activity. Even though Mr. Wilcox was not aware of the murder of two police officers by the Millers, the fact remains that the Millers were engaged in criminal activity. No competent attorney would consider the actions of Mr. Wilcox to be illegal.
Furthermore, however you feel about Mr. Wilcox’s brave decision to confront a violent, armed maniac, we can never know exactly what the Millers would or would not have done if Mr. Wilcox had not interrupted their actions.
JIM BROWN
NORTH LAS VEGAS
