MAILBAG - Sept. 14, 2006

Why was so much force needed?

Reading the first of several articles in the Independent about the incident involving the police shooting the girl, I did question how many shots were fired, and where, so that they caused a death (“‘A shy and naïve girl,’” Sept. 7).

Well the latest article gave me the answer: 15 times. I am very perplexed as to how two officers can feel so threatened by a single female who is about 5 feet 4 inches tall and 120 pounds, even with a knife. And from what I read, not much of a knife that could really cause major injury to an officer. Yet the officers fired 15 shots.

I’m sure these officers outsized Ashley MacDonald, are much stronger physically and wear a protective vest that the knife could not have penetrated, and if so not cause much harm. So why the deadly force? I begin to wonder if the officers advanced toward MacDonald in a threatening manner where she felt the need to defend herself. Are we getting the truth from Jim Amormino, Orange County Sheriff’s spokesman?

I wonder this after observing our officers several times in the downtown area and seeing how poorly they present themselves and behave. Please keep in mind, we do have quite a few officers who are pleasant and I watch talk with people to make sure all is well.

One thing comes to mind: I can never understand, when two or more officers are involved in a situation, why so many must use their firearms? Why not assign one or two officers to use the fireman if needed, not all of them? In this case one should have stood back ready to disable the person (note I said disable, not terminate) while the other negotiated. Can our officers engage in a physical combat, are they strong enough or is discharging their firearm the only thing they know?

I do have one remaining question: Was one of the officers involved the new hire from the Inglewood incident?

CHUB DOMOTOR

Huntington Beach

In tough job, police deserve support

I think enough is enough and people should stop chastising and lambasting police officers and understand what a law enforcement officer faces each day, not just in Huntington Beach but throughout our country.

I do admit that there are some rogue cops out there, but for the most part these are the folks with high morals who are there to protect you from people who make very poor choices by society’s standards. Would you like the job? Could you make split-second decisions on the safety of others? When you call 911 do you want a psychologist to disarm a knife-wielding person or armed home-invasion person, or a cop? No, you call a cop, right? Cops are not shrinks and can only react to the situation at hand as best they can.

Well let us stop bleeding our hearts out for those folks who make irresponsible choices and show a little more support for the 24/7 folks who keep us safe. Our law enforcement officers are our troops in our cities to protect us. If you think you can do a better job then go sign up and put the shoe on your foot and see if it fits and your response.

DEW KOVACS

Huntington Beach

Letter didn’t have all center facts straight

I read Vi Cowen’s letter to the editor in the Sept. 7 Independent. Unfortunately her Item 1 information is in error in all respects. According to the Community Services Department, they would need a Measure T-type vote to increase the size of the existing senior center. Soil sampling and liquefaction studies would have to be done. A new building at that site would have to go to the Coastal Commission for their approval. The city owns the site and does not pay a fee to anyone for its use.

Fortunately, there are a number of good reasons why the consultant, LPA, did not select the current senior center site high on the list of prospective sites. First, the additional cost to destroy the current center and replace it with underground parking and a two-story building would significantly raise the construction cost far above the $18 million quoted as construction and soft costs. Secondly, the length of construction time, probably a year, would put undue stress on the neighbors, with trucks and other construction activities using the streets bounding the existing center. There would be the construction noises in the surrounding neighborhood with which to contend. Thirdly, the anticipated 64% growth in the senior population could reasonably be expected to add a 64% increase in the current neighborhood traffic caused by senior center use after construction and during the useful life of the building.

The consultant-selected site at Talbert and Goldenwest would have none of these disadvantages. The cost would be as quoted or less (the consultant used $300 per square foot for the construction cost and that is an extremely high number). All traffic, both construction and use of the senior center, would be handled on Goldenwest, a major thoroughfare with very little or no impact on the surrounding neighbors.

While the addition of a pool is a reasonable suggestion, it is not included in the current design concept and within the 45,000-square-foot footprint. While desirable, this suggestion would add both size and cost to the project.

The final fact is that Measure T on the November ballot asks for the setting aside of five acres of land only. There are no taxes, bonds or fees associated with this Measure T vote. Funding sources are a separate issue to be handled through the normal City Council deliberations and prerogatives.

ROBERT O. DETTLOFF

Huntington Beach