Aurora police need a clear directive about the sanctity of life
Re: “Aurora police need more training,” Aug. 9 editorial.
As a former police officer, police chief, and a mediator for the U.S. Department of Justice, I have found that no other event raises the public consciousness as the police use of fatal force. This awareness is exacerbated when the person against whom fatal force is applied is an African American, Hispanic or other minority person.
The Denver Post editorial calls for more training and a public reckoning. In my experience, training is only one factor. Community trust is critical and must be developed over time through an open and honest relationship with the community that is served. The editorial mentions that the department culture must be changed. This is a key factor and originates with the attitude of the chief.
If the police chief stresses conduct that respects the sanctity of human life and follows up with close administrative review, the officers will respond accordingly. If the public believes that fatal force is used indiscriminately, then that trust cannot be achieved. The department’s mission statement should clearly state and emulate the respect for safeguarding human lives, police officers included. The Aurora Police Department’s mission statement, as indicated on its website, is: “To make Aurora safer every day.”
This would be a good step forward, create a mission and values statement which emphasizes the value of every human life and echoes the police code of ethics: “As a law enforcement officer my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all men(persons) to liberty, equality and justice.” Police training should start with and include the mission statement and the values of the department.
Philip Arreola, Denver
Ask yourself in November if it really belongs in the Constitution
Re: “Fall Ballot Chock-Full,” Aug. 9 news story.
I was disturbed to read that as many as 10 of the citizen-led initiatives headed for our November ballot are constitutional amendments. When approached to add my signature to one of these, my response has been that the state Constitution is becoming a junk drawer stuffed with issues of the moment.
Some clearly collide – a proposed amendment to shift Colorado income tax from its flat rate to a graduated rate where high earners pay more, faces off against another amendment that would cap the state’s income tax.
Then there’s the “right to hunt and fish,” purporting to be a method for managing wildlife – which, letap be honest, it is not. Letting individuals decide how many fish or game animals they can kill is the opposite of wildlife management. This free-for-all disregards impacts on wildlife from climate change, habitat loss due to human encroachment, and the big picture of herd health and land carrying capacity. This is also a “solution” in search of a problem, and as a Coloradan, I already have a right to hunt and fish.
A right to use natural gas for cooking and heating? Does this really belong in the Constitution?
When you get your ballot, review these citizen referenda carefully and if they involve amending our Constitution, vote No.
Nancy B. Weil, Denver
Hunters can’t manage wildlife populations alone
I fully support the spirit of the Colorado Right to Hunt and Fish Initiative, but I take issue with proposing harvest regulations as the preferred population management method. Hunting is one tool in the wildlife manager’s kit and is not nearly as effective as might be expected.
As an ecologist who has primarily studied white-tailed deer, I have seen legitimate challenges to the assumption that hunting controls deer populations. There are simply too many other factors involved for hunting to play a primary role in population regulation. Even intense, targeted hunting has a very limited impact.
It is fruitless and possibly counterproductive to assign first-line responsibility to an activity that demonstrably cannot achieve desired results. But the wording of this amendment would prioritize hunting and fishing regulations as the preeminent tool for population management. This is a mistake.
If populations are low due to poor habitat quality, would hunters want the state to be forced to first try lowering bag limits and shortening seasons to reduce harvest and let more deer live to the next season? Of course not. Any sensible person would prefer to see effective habitat management begin immediately as the first step in recovery. Overabundant populations may be reduced somewhat by increased harvest, but even those results are typically small and transitory.
Let our wildlife professionals be free to choose their most effective strategies to provide sound, effective wildlife management benefiting the wildlife resource and the public (including hunters and fishermen!) seeking to enjoy it.
Phillip D. Jones, Grand Junction
Don’t make immigrants fear police
Don’t be fooled by Initiative 95, which is on the ballot in November. Initiative 95 will not make Colorado safer. This amendment would alter our constitution to require local law enforcement to collect and share information with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerning any immigrant who is arrested for a felony or violent crime.
Immigrants in our communities are less likely to report a crime if they live in fear of local law enforcement. Immigrants historically have similar or lower crime rates as citizens. In fact, studies indicate that communities with high rates of immigrants are safer. Also, any person in America is innocent until proven guilty.
Of note, the League of Women Voters is against this initiative. They state, “a person charged with a violent crime is not necessarily guilty.” They also note that racial profiling could be used to locate immigrants charged with a crime.
Do not be taken in by the fear-mongering language of Initiative 95. What makes us safe and what makes us better is our humanity, our understanding that immigrants are people and that all of us are created equal.
Bill J Fyfe, Denver
Did voters know what they were signing?
Re: “Colorado voters are being tricked into signing billionaire-backed petitions,” August 2 commentary.
When I saw petitioners outside our local King Soopers, I assumed they were collecting signatures for a good cause — why else would the store allow it?
Friends later told me the petition was for “voter ID.” Next time, I told the circulator that Colorado already requires some form of identification for in-person voting and verifies every mail ballot by signature. There is no documented fraud to justify changing the law.
He replied: “Tell that to Georgia.” That struck a nerve. Georgia’s 2020 fraud claims were investigated and repeatedly disproven, so hearing this from him felt like a tell about this petition’s purpose.
So I wondered who funded this ballot measure. The answer: Advance Colorado, a 501(c)(4) “dark money” nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors. The circulator is paid, not a volunteer. At their table, you could also find #95 (immigration reporting), #232 (locks in the current flat tax, blocking a graduated system), and #251/252/256 (blocking Colorado’s redistricting response). Voters needed to know what they were signing!
King Soopers isn’t endorsing anything — the sidewalk outside is a public forum. But voters deserve to know who’s funding what before they sign.
I support secure elections. I also support knowing who’s asking for my signature, and why.
Lorraine O’Hara, Thornton
Decades-old trope from Marx supporter was antisemitism
Re: “Victor Marx and Melat Kiros are horrible candidates but probably not antisemitic,” Aug. 9 opinion.
Sean Pond, Republican Montrose County commissioner, posted an antisemitic poster of Democratic Governor candidate Phil Weiser wearing the horns of a devil, and Krista Kafer passes it off as an “artless effort” by a Victor Marx supporter. She further instructs us that there’s “no point getting exercised by it.”
These comments come after reporter Kyle Clark had pointed out that it is a well-documented, centuries-old, ugly, antisemitic trope that’s been used to demonize Jews around the world, thus justifying violence against them, and Kafer still contends it was harmless?
Pond claimed he didn’t know that Weiser was Jewish. Does that imply he wouldn’t have done it had he known? Therefore, he knew the demeaning and dangerous nature of that image; we can’t know for certain.
But what I do know is we owe it to each other, to society, to any group that’s been marginalized or threatened, to educate ourselves and call out hate whenever we see it and demand that any image of it be taken down. When we know better, we must do better. That goes double for anyone who has a public forum.
Lynne Popkowski, Littleton
America’s tax system perpetuates inequality
Income inequality and affordability are real-life issues for at least half the country. Yet our income tax system rewards the wealthy and high earners, including large corporations, with generous loopholes and write-offs. This is the opposite of what is needed. Flip it upside down and give income tax write-offs to the lower half of earners (or thereabouts) for health insurance, childcare, rent or mortgage interest. Eliminate loopholes, gimmicks and write-offs for (as an example) those whose annual gross is $400k as individuals, $600k as a couple. Eliminate the same for large corporations and give the break to small businesses.
You would see the economy rapidly take off and the social safety net enhanced without creating another bureaucracy or agency to do oversight. No need to raise income tax rates either.
John W. Thomas, Fort Collins
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
