(Thinkstock)
Re: “Why aren’t cops prosecuted?,” Jan. 4 Vincent Carroll column.
Vincent Carroll should be complimented for his excellent column. He presents many of the facts about the use of excessive force by police. However, when he says, “Like it or not, the second explanation is probably closer to the truth” — meaning that evidence against policemen who use excessive force is usually ambiguous — he is making a value-judgment. That ambiguity should be assessed only in a court hearing where both sides of the issue can present evidence, where witnesses can be cross-examined, and where witnesses can’t lie with impunity. If the accused is indicted, a judge will evaluate the case and decide after hearing all the witnesses on both sides who only testify under oath whether or not the charges should be dismissed. The ambiguity should not be determined by a district attorney, who knows on which side of the bread has the butter, or by a grand jury, where acceptable evidence is determined by the district attorney.
Kendell Dickinson, Lakewood
This letter was published in the Jan. 11 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
