The failures of the media to report accurately about Chicago police officers begins with their false assumption that they understand what it entails to accomplish the police job. This belief is equally unsuitable for me to explain to a surgeon how to preform an operation. It looks simply on T V. The mechanics are easily understood. The goals are clear. But, the nuances of the job are unbelievably difficult to develop.
Television falsifies the difficulty involved in making split-second decisions of which video is played and replayed in the comforts of your office. Officers are required to be emotionless until emotions are demanded of them and only after the fact will the need be known. Officers are well trained but not all-knowing. They are supposed to produce super-human accomplishments while maintaining a human quality that makes them trustworthy and likable. They are to be infallible in every endeavor and accountable for other people’s actions. They should be strong but never aggressive. They should withstand enormous amounts of pressure from criminals and thugs, but maintain their professional composure. They are to allow people to do things to them at such a standard that the common citizens would take immediate offense to. Their bosses continually throw them to the wolves and demand perfection while excusing the criminals that continually violate officer’s inalienable rights. Laws that protect the police are ignored while laws that protect thugs and criminals are exaggerated and stretched to fit the currant political purpose.
The day of reckoning is here. Do you give more credence to the criminal than you do to the police that protect you? When an officer makes what should be a typical traffic stop and is met with F U, I don’t have to talk to you. When every arrest turns into a battle with video flowing. Or when the officer is sitting at home with his family and on the news protesters are shouting, “Kill the pigs.” Then you expect the officer to whistle while he works.
Larry Casey, Forest Glen
Why is it when I think of Gov. Bruce Rauner I think of the captain of the Titanic? A person who chose a course and speed to impress the wealthy and industrialists, without considering disastrous results or careing for the poor or working families.
Scott R. Zuhr, Park Ridge
Running for president
In Thursday’s Michael Sneed column, an unnamed source was quoted as saying Bruce Rauner would like to run for president in the future. Why? Is he afraid poor students in the other 49 states might be able to get a college education unless he steps in to stop it?
Joel Ostrow, Deerfield
Favor for Clinton
Hillary Clinton should send Mitt Romney a big fat check. What Romney actually said is that all that have voted for Trump in the recent primaries and caucuses are fools. If the Republican party is divided, now it is more so. High fives in the Hillary camp!
Well done, Mitt!
Joseph A. Murzanski, Palos Heights
Aid the deaf
I am offended that Donald Trump does not have someone helping the deaf understand his political views. Such “signing” is important in this day and age of reaching out to everyone. Why omit such communication to those who are handicapped? As a billionaire he can certainly afford to.
Vincent Kamin, Loop
In a number of Western European countries, citizens and politicians have been struggling against the rising power of ultra-nationalistic, xenophobic, extremist, and faschistic parties. I am dismayed to note that this movement has now jumped across the Atlantic Ocean to the United States in the candidacy of Donald Trump and his populist supporters.
Mary F. Warren, Wheaton
Reason to worry
During an interview, Republican presidential primary candidate Donald Trump claimed he did not recognize David Duke’s name and did not know about the Klu Klux Klan. Later he backtracked and blamed a “defective ear piece” that did not allow him to hear the questions. Under pressure, he finally “disavowed” those two notorious and historically egregious forces against minorities in the United States.
I just hope that, if Trump does become president of the United States, he will not use similarly defective communication equipment while he has his hand on the nuclear trigger.
Karen Wagner, Rolling Meadows
Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Mike Quigley, both lawyer-Democratic politicians from Illinois, write in the March 2 Sun-Times about cameras in court (“Court cams would lift shroud of secrecy”).
The thread of their article is that the U.S. Supreme Court should allow cameras in that court during public hearings, and Durbin and Quigley have introduced legislation to accomplish that.
To buttress their argument, they point to the Illinois Supreme Court’s recently amended order “allowing cameras into courtrooms around the state.”
Durbin and Quigley got it wrong.
The Illinois Supreme Court’s order pertains only to the trial courts; permits cameras as authorized by the chief judge and judge presiding over the trial; and is in force within counties in only 15 of 24 judicial circuits.
As to cameras in reviewing courts, such as Durbin and Quigley propose for the U.S. Supreme Court, the Illinois Supreme Court has allowed cameras in its court and the Illinois Appellate Court since 1984.
[Also, Durbin and Quigley, in arguing for transparency and accountability in the U.S. Supreme Court by having cameras there, point to the example of Congress where “every bill we debate is televised.” The example is wrong-headed. It confuses the workings of courts of review with those of the trial courts which are somewhat similar in nature with legislatures in that trial courts and legislatures are the initial bodies hearing the facts and making decisions. But appellate courts, like the U.S. Supreme Court, are typically just reviewing the trial court decisions.]
Dennis M. Dohm, retired judge