Allow me to offer a contrary "d" word to the Sept. 5 letter lamenting the shortage of 90-degree days this summer (he called it "disappointing, discouraging, and disagreeable").
Delightful!
ROBERT W. CARLSON, Plymouth
FERGUSON
Debate rages on about the proper response
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus called for an investigation of the Ferguson (Mo.) Police Department. Now the U.S. attorney general is going to launch an in-depth investigation of the police and their actions following the shooting.
My question: Will they also investigate the individuals who looted and burned businesses? How about those who threw Molotov cocktails and shot at the police? Are they going to be investigated? After all, many of them were seen on videotape broadcast on nationwide television. Many Ferguson citizens are demanding "equal justice" — is that equal justice for all parties involved, including those whose lives were in danger and those whose property was destroyed by those individuals involved in the riots?
TERRENCE A. LOGAN, Minnetonka
• • •
I'd like to agree with the Sept. 5 letter writer who wrote that we must leave militarization to the armed forces and not arm our police force as if they were in the midst of a war zone. He asked: Who is the enemy, "an America public, where any citizen can at any time become a threat?"
As a matter of fact, yes. Thanks to the National Rifle Association, any citizen may be armed with an unconcealed or even a concealed weapon that he or she could pull at any given moment. Citizens are not yet required to wear badges reading "I'm a criminal with a gun" or "I'm a law-abiding citizen with a gun." How am I to tell the difference when I see a gun on a citizen? I'm sure the military arming of our police force is a direct result of the lax (or rather nonexistent, or, as the NRA would have it, "not enforced") gun laws in our country. Can't have one without the other.