Shooting was morally unjustifiable

To the editor:

In his Thursday letter to the editor, Andrew McAlister supported the Henderson police officers who gunned down Deshira Selimaj, a hysterical, slightly built, middle-aged woman holding a cheap steak knife, as a justified use of force. He stated he was a police officer who was "saddened by the lack of knowledge that the citizens of Clark County have regarding our job." Well, as a citizen of Clark County, I am saddened about Mr. McAlister's obviously incorrect and self-serving statements.

First, he states that had Mrs. Selimaj stabbed one of the officers present, "it probably would have killed one of them." He either misunderstands the difference between "would" and "could," or is intentionally misleading the citizens he is pledged to serve. While it is possible that one of officers present might have been injured or even killed, the likelihood of a simple stabbing resulting in death is very remote. For goodness sakes, this is a police officer; he should know that even most shootings do not result in death. I challenge anyone to find any kind of valid scientific or medical study that demonstrates that most stabbings result in death.

More disturbing, however, is his conclusion, in which he categorizes the officers at the scene of this tragic killing as "ones who would, without a moment's hesitation, give their life to save yours." Well, the facts prove the opposite. The reason Mrs. Selimaj is dead is that not one officer at the scene was willing to take the slightest risk of injury to save her. They shot her because they were allowed to, and the alternative would have been to risk being cut with a slight but real risk of serious injury or even death. Her being dead at no risk to them was far more acceptable than the slightest risk of injury, so they shot her like one would shoot a dangerous animal.

These officers have been trained that they are allowed to kill anyone holding a knife who is within seven yards. This woman was no trained ninja assassin, and while there is ample legal justification to kill her, there is little moral justification. I am pushing 60 years old, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I could have disarmed this hysterical woman using a police baton and riot shield, or a nearby trash can, or a folding chair, or a push broom, or a 2-by-4, or one of any innumerable common objects.

John M. McGrail

LAS VEGAS

Skip this holiday

To the editor:

On April 15, Republican presidential candidate John McCain proposed a "gas tax holiday" from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

There are many reasons why this is not a good idea and the proposal should be viewed with skepticism.

First, the federal gas tax is only used for the Highway Trust Fund, which maintains the nation's transportation infrastructure, and the fiscal impact on that fund would be serious if such a proposal were to move forward. Such a "holiday" would eliminate billions of dollars nationally for investments in infrastructure at a time when, especially in light of last year's Minnesota bridge calamity, such investment is already below where it needs to be.

Estimates show Nevada's share of that loss could be close to $52 million, and could well result in a loss of 1,800 Nevada jobs as construction firms are forced to reduce their work force. Given the well-publicized funding challenges here in Nevada under existing circumstances, anything that exacerbates the problem is something that we cannot afford.

Another point that should be made is that this cut might not even offer relief at the pump anyway. By reducing the tax, the demand for fuel will increase. This is especially likely during the peak summer travel period. That uptick in demand would move the price of fuel back up and erase practically any benefit motorists might receive.

Simply suspending the gas tax is not the right way to go, and this political gimmick would lead to troubling ramifications for Nevada.

Danny Thompson

HENDERSON

THE WRITER SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE NEVADA AFL-CIO AND A BOARD MEMBER OF THE NEVADA HIGHWAY USERS COALITION.

The right call

To the editor:

Way to go, Nevada Supreme Court. Baseball "fan" Kathleen Turner should be embarrassed and ashamed of her lawsuit against the Las Vegas 51s over being struck between the eyes by a foul ball ("Injured fan strikes out in court," Friday Review-Journal).

Every player and fan, from their first introduction to the game, hears over and over, "Keep your eye on the ball." Ms. Turner took up valuable court time blaming somebody else for not heeding one of the very basic rules of the game, on or off the field.

Jeff Thomas

HENDERSON