Tough call — the right call — by judge in Quintonio LeGrier wrongful death trial

The seemingly confusing verdict by the judge involving Police Officer Robert Rialmo in the tragic shooting death of Quintonio LeGrier gets less confusing if you understand what it’s like for cops when confronted suddenly with a split-second decision when it comes to fear of death or great bodily harm (“Courtroom confusion: Conflicted jury verdict means no damages for LeGrier family” — June 27).

Let’s be realistic and realize that cops are humans and most times do not have the luxury of hindsight. Cops are not trained to run from danger — it’s not part of the job — nor should they be. In my 33-year career working Chicago’s streets, I never saw a cop flee when confronted with potential death or great bodily harm.

Imagine if every cop fled at the first sign of danger to themselves or the community. Would their motto change to “We Serve and Protect (except when faced with the fear of great bodily harm or death)”?

In my opinion, the judge ultimately made the right decision — a very tough situation for everyone involved, but in my opinion the right one.

Bob Angone, Miramar Beach, Florida

Glad to see Mike back

As Mike Royko’s rewrite man at the old Chicago Daily News in the 1960s, I assure you that Mike would not spend his drinking time at some fancy “club.” He liked his beer at the Billy Goat Tavern, where he could pontificate and curse with his buddies.

And what was a “rewrite” man? Back before computers and cell phones, Mike would call in about midnight, half-baked but rational, and I would hold my telephone up against my left ear with my left shoulder while Mike reported his column. I typed as he spoke. He even told me where the commas and periods were in case I didn’t understand his nuances. I was selected as Mike’s rewrite man because I had survived 12 years of Catholic school, eight years with the Dominican nuns and four years with the Irish Christian Brothers, and if I missed a comma, a semicolon or a period, I would hear about it. Good to see Mike’s stuff get some fresh air. Keep it up.

Jim Dwyer, Bisbee, Arizona

Unfortunate moves

In recent weeks, the Supreme Court ruled on three separate cases about redistricting voting districts. In each of the three cases, many, if not most, of us hoped that the court would substantively rule on the issue of gerrymandering in our political system. However, in unfortunate but unsurprising moves, the Supreme Court first opted not to rule substantively and punt for another time in Gill v. Whitford. In that case, the court’s majority opinion ruled that challengers to Wisconsin’s redistricting scheme lacked standing to bring the claim. Although the court has allowed the plaintiffs a chance to prove standing in the lower court, the ruling did not address the merits of the plaintiff’s case.

The Court on Monday strengthened protections for gerrymandered districts. The Court ruled in Abbott v. Perez that a state is presumed to act properly when enacting a redistricting scheme. What this means is that the burden is on plaintiffs challenging redistricting to show that a legislature intended to discriminate when enacting a redistricting plan. These cases, while not barring the chance of a future ruling to limit gerrymandering, indicate that the Supreme Court is not going to be the savior on this issue. Therefore, instead of only hoping for a new legal scheme that prohibits this practice, the solution to the problem exists at the ballot box.

And here’s the thing, this is a non-partisan issue. Democratic voters hate gerrymandering; Republican voters hate gerrymandering. I’d venture to say that any typical voter that learns about the issue hates gerrymandering. So what’s the problem? The problem, simply, is that the political parties love it. Gerrymandering, when done effectively, all but ensures that the party in power stays in power.

If you still think it’s a partisan issue, just look at the cases decided this month. Gill v. Whitford was a challenge against Democrats gerrymander in Maryland. Meanwhile, Abbott v. Perez was against a Republican gerrymander in Texas. The question we need to ask is: If we’re all against gerrymandering, why do politicians keep getting away with it? The answer: Because we don’t hold them accountable.

Sure, we’ll complain about it once every couple of years when one party or the other creates an unreasonable map, but we never blame it on the candidates that benefit from these maps. So, let’s start blaming them. Let’s hold our candidates responsible. Let’s make our candidates take a position on this issue. Let’s make them definitively tell us if they’re for or against gerrymandering. Let’s make this issue more than just part of our conversations, let’s make it part of every campaign.

Lance Neyland, Logan Square