sleepystork.com

What readers saw: The killing of driver in Minneapolis

Re: “ICE officer kills driver,” Jan. 8 news story

On Wednesday, a 37-year-old citizen was shot by agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We don’t know why she was where she was; that will come out in the days ahead. And there is plenty of video. So Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, Vice President JD Vance, and even President Donald Trump can spin their lies, but we will know what occurred.

What’s disturbing is the rush to cover their asses and disparage the victim. Makes me want to throw up. This is what our nation has to face daily: an administration of liars and an agency that appears to believe they can do whatever they want and face no accountability. What’s next?

Deborah Harvey, Thornton

I am writing to express serious concern about recent public attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement following an incident where a woman attempted to use her vehicle to strike an ICE agent and completely disobeyed law enforcement instructions. Regardless of immigration policy views, attempting to injure or kill law enforcement is a grave act of violence and must be unequivocally condemned.

What is troubling is the rhetoric from some Democratic officials and commentators appearing to excuse violent conduct directed at ICE personnel. This is deeply problematic. The rule of law depends on consistent moral standards: violence and attempted homicide are unacceptable regardless of the identity of the victim or the political controversy surrounding their role. Clearly the vehicle was driven toward the agent.

Social science research on political violence and moral disengagement shows sustained rhetorical delegitimization of institutions increases the likelihood of real-world harm. When elected officials frame federal agents as inherently illegitimate or malicious, it erodes public trust and lowers social inhibitions against attacking them. This dynamic has historically preceded escalations in political violence, domestically and internationally.

Criticism of federal agencies is legitimate in a democratic society. However, ethical leadership requires a clear boundary between policy disagreement and the normalization — or tacit justification — of violence.

I urge our society to publicly affirm attempted vehicular assault against any law-enforcement officer is indefensible, and to encourage responsible rhetoric that does not endanger public servants or the public at large.

Silence or equivocation in moments like this is itself consequential. Clear moral leadership matters.

Kriss Perras, Colorado Springs

As a former member and chair of our city’s police Citizen Review Board, I am sharing thoughts on the Minneapolis ICE shooting videos I have watched. It did not appear to me that the ICE agents were in any physical danger unless they placed themselves in it.

I did not hear any commands from the agents to the driver who was killed. There were no de-escalation tactics, instead they escalated to the lethal use of force.

There are rules for the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies that direct officers not to pursue fleeing cars unless life is in danger or similar.

The assessments from the president and his administration do not comport with the evidence I have seen.

To me, this was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force that resulted in an unnecessary death.

As to the protesters who were maced, if you impede the legal actions of law enforcement, you can be arrested, or they can use non-lethal means such as mace.

The killing leaves me wondering whether ICE agents have been trained properly and I suspect there will be civil and criminal litigation to sort out officer immunity issues.

John W. Thomas, Fort Collins

Interfering with a federal ICE agent is a serious federal felony that can result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Assuming that the Colorado resident driver had a Colorado state driver’s license, the recommended actions when stopped by law enforcement are to stay calm, keep hands visible, provide your physical license, registration, and insurance when asked, but politely decline searches and self-incriminating answers. Comply with exiting the vehicle if ordered, but do not argue; dispute violations later in court. This AI-Gemini generated advice does not recommend trying to run the officer down!

The Colorado resident, nice as they might have been, made a fatal error in judgment.

No one should be defending activists who engage in the most foolish and dangerous actions! These activists would be much wiser to write letters to the editor of local papers or to relevant federal and state legislatures and officials. Officials should not be supporting kinetic protestors at all!

Take note of successful non-violent protests that worked (i.e., Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.). Once violence is initiated by the protester, much of the argument is lost.

In this case, a life was lost by not complying with law enforcement. One can contest law enforcement in court, but not adjudicate from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. To support such actions is irreverent and, for an elected official, malicious.

Steven D. Kalavity, Fort Collins

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

Military at its best when it demonstrates ‘strong moral values’

Re: “Second-strike scrutiny obscures larger question on boat strikes,” Dec. 7 news analysis

Almost all war crimes are “executed” by personnel well below the top of the command structure. War crime prevention usually requires almost instantaneous moral action. Waiting for appeals up the command chain will almost assuredly be hopelessly too late to stop atrocities such as the Vietnam My Lai massacre.

It is crucial in both military and civilian organizations for personnel to refuse illegal orders forcefully and immediately. Rep. Jason Crow, Sen. Mark Kelly, and others who have courageously spoken to defend resistance to illegal orders are moral patriots. Our military, perhaps the best in the world, is stronger when it disseminates strong moral values to personnel and inhibits blind obedience to illegal orders so often found in dictatorships.

Ronald L. Puening, Centennial

Bleeding heart liberals prove weak on American safety

Re: “Death for smugglers, freedom for kingpins — Hegseth and the Department of War (crimes) prove Jason Crow right,” Dec. 7 commentary

All of this uproar about air strikes on speedboats laden with lethal drugs racing towards our shores to kill tens of thousands of Americans is just another case where bleeding heart liberals put those who want to do America harm above those who seek to protect American lives, aka President Donald Trump and the Department of War. They cry about the flood of guns into our cities, yet are perfectly fine with smugglers ferreting deadly drugs to our shores. Where were the cries about war crimes when Obama dropped bombs on a wedding in Yemen?

Trump likes results; Democrats want chaos.

This can all be summed up by what Pete Hegseth said when asked about continuing strikes on drug-laden speedboats racing towards our shores: Strikes will continue if they can find any more boats. “It’s hard to find boats to strike right now.”

The drug kingpins got the message loud and clear.

Scotty Gardner, Aurora

Rep. Crow deserves apologies and gratitude

Re: “Crow should be charged with treason,” Dec. 7 letter to the editor

The letter writer owes Rep. Jason Crow a sincere apology for her five-paragraph, fact-free, vitriolic personal attack, and you owe him an apology for printing it. While the writer feels there have been “no illegal orders given,” killing civilians and ensuring there are no survivors (all without proof of the military’s justification of “drug smuggling”) certainly seems illegal.

We are not at war with Venezuela. Their civilians did not fire on our military. Killing civilians under these circumstances is murder, not a war crime.

Murder is still illegal, isn’t it, no matter how much people like the letter writer attempt to deflect and place blame elsewhere?

Nicolett Darling, Kersey

Try as I might to simply ignore outrageous letters that appear in The Post, I cannot allow the letter to go unanswered. Treason may be punishable by the death penalty. Congressman Jason Crow is a hero and a patriot. He risked his life during tours of duty as an Army Ranger and paratrooper. He courageously helped his fellow representatives escape to safety during the Jan.6, 2021, insurrection. He was elected to Congress with 55% of the vote in a previously Republican district.

A treason conviction means he could be put to death for saying out loud that our men and women in the armed forces should refuse to follow illegal orders. Calling for such a conviction takes shame to a new level.

Richard Strauss, Centennial

Re: “Democrats’ video did the military a disservice,” Dec. 7 commentary

An interesting contrast of opinions in last Sunday’s Perspective section:

Ted Diadiun’s op-ed chided the Democrats’ political strategy when they published, with additional commentary, a video of their members of Congress advising military personnel that they must not obey illegal orders. Yet Diadiun did affirm that their advice was, in fact, spot-on.

A letter writer asserted that the Democrats’ advice that the military obey the law was actually suggesting that they “violate the chain of command, the U.S. Constitution, and their military oath.”

So, whom are we to believe? On one hand, the members of Congress with military and intelligence experience and a columnist whose article demonstrated his non-partisan outlook, or, on the other hand, a letter writer drawing the opposite conclusion from the same set of facts?

I think that The Post printed the letter only to try to uphold a journalistic mandate to represent all points of view, regardless of how ridiculous some of them may be.

David Wolf, Lakewood

Attention all passengers: It’s too loud in the airport

Re: “DIA seeks to lower noise across airport,” Dec. 7 news story

In 2005, we traveled through Hong Kong’s new airport. The first thing we noticed when entering was the peaceful silence. At the check-in counter, there was a sign informing the traveler of how long it took the average person to walk to their gate. The noise level in the whole airport was truly more like a library. Thus, if there was an announcement made, people listened, because it was truly important.

Kudos to Denver International Airport for finally realizing the obvious: the more noise, the more announcements, the more passengers will try to tune out the noise. Already many are using earbuds to lower the noise level for themselves.

Perhaps the airlines can collectively find a way to convince TSA that less is better. The constant nag over the loudspeakers is about as effective as a parent nagging a teenager.

One challenge will be to encourage seniors like me to feel comfortable using our phones for airport information, but that would be a good thing because we don’t understand half of what comes over the cloud speakers anyway.

Thanks in advance, DIA.

A. Lynn Buschhoff, Denver

RTD is making real improvements

Re: “Safety an issue on buses, trains,” Dec. 6 news story

In a 5-year period, from January 2016 until July 2021, I was without a car, and an Eco Pass from my employer and the convenience of RTD buses and light rail made my life much easier.

In the earlier days after the pandemic ended, I witnessed a lot of drug abuse on the light rail. However, RTD stepped up to the plate and made the needed changes.

First, by hiring many more security officers to place on the trains and to patrol stations with elevators, the drug users virtually disappeared.

Second, when I use the light rail, I go to the Sheridan Station for the W line. When the elevator stops on a floor, the door stays open until the elevator is used again. This keeps the elevator from being used as a shelter.

Keep up the good work, RTD!

Mike Filion, Lakewood

RTD should rethink BRT plans for Colorado Boulevard

You have to sympathize with RTD.  Ridership is down more than 40%, and not even adding a burgeoning security force to deal with drug users, vagrants and troublemakers who are prevalent on buses and trains (at a cost of $50 million) can make up for it.  But RTD thinks that if more people decide to ride the buses, safety in numbers will make things better.  And so will Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which has devastated businesses on East Colfax and most likely will result in RTD’s unsavory passengers getting from place to place faster.

Maybe it’s time for RTD to reassess the wisdom on doing BRT on Colorado Boulevard.  Doesn’t it make sense to see if BRT achieves its desired effect on Colfax — and whether RTD can solve its ridership challenges — before engaging in another massive project that seems to have so little chance of success, and will create so much hardship for Colorado Boulevard businesses?

Dan Danbom, Denver

Call penalties on the coaches

Re: “Protect high school athletes and focus on coaches,” Dec. 7 editorial

You hit the nail on the head! Coaches should be held accountable, and punitive measures should be taken when evidence of cheating is proven. This is a step in protecting the have-nots from the elitist, those above the law.

Kent Morgan, Big Timber, Mont.

Mansion feature tone-deaf to society’s troubles

Re: “Welcome to Pondbank,” Dec. 7 feature story

It’s amazing to me that there are people so narcissistic and out of touch as to write a book bragging about their tacky, multi-million dollar mansion. As if that isn’t offensive enough, imagine the chutzpah it takes to then further brag in an ego-stroking newspaper article with no news value.

It’s shameful to see an article like this in The Denver Post when the majority of Denver residents are struggling just to afford housing and basic necessities.

Let the one percenters stroke their ego somewhere else and focus on the news, please.

Jeremiah LaRocco, Boulder

Choosing the right path

Last night I had the strangest dream. I was at a roundabout and there were four different exits I could choose. I woke up this morning and thought, maybe I’m losing my mind. Then it hit me: I have four different ways that I can handle the current state of affairs in our country.

1. I could choose not to read the news or listen to news channels, bury my head in the sand and not see the horrors going on in our country.

2. I could accept that even if I chose to read and listen to the news, I could try and block out the hardships and hatred happening.

3. I could open my mind and heart and hope that change would be coming soon, just wait for things to get better.

4. I could reach a helping hand to those in need, help to provide food, reach out to organizations working to help with housing and utilities. Be a helping hand and fight back against hatred and prejudice. Be a voice for everyday, hardworking Americans.

Most Americans are descendants of immigrants. Why do so many turn their back on what is happening?

Too many people do not have a home, a place to call their own, food, health care, and someone speaking out for them. We are much better than this. Let’s work together.

Nita Schissell, Loveland

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

Block this threat to public lands from heading the BLM

Re: “Western senators cannot support Trump nominee who wants to liquidate public lands,” Dec. 3 commentary

Coloradans appreciate and value our protected public lands upon which a natural balance and protection of wildlife depend. We are angry that Trump has nominated Steve Pearce to run the Bureau of Land Management. Pearce is simply an unapologetic and unabashed public lands pillager.

Pearce has consistently worked to privatize and undermine our public lands. As a New Mexico Congressman, he sponsored several bills to dispose of our national public lands. If confirmed, he could conduct massive sales of our natural lands in fire sales to corporations, developers, and land speculators intent on destroying these important lands for private profit.

As reported in the opinion column published by The Post, his intent is amply demonstrated in his 2012 letter to House leadership where Pearce declared that the federal government owns vast land holdings that we do not need and called for a massive sell-off. Pearce’s vision for our public lands is liquidation. The columnist is also correct in stating that Steve Pearce’s nomination is a referendum on whether Congress believes our shared lands still belong to all Americans.

It is absolutely time for Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate, who care about our public lands and wildlife, to draw a red line that this nomination will be rejected and if not, that not one piece of legislation will pass the Senate be it a CR, budget appropriations, or any Trump appointments until the nomination of this public lands pillager is reversed!

Jessica Talbot, Arvada

Pissarro’s dedication and integrity on display in exhibit

The scope of the Pissarro exhibit at the Denver Art Museum is unique in showing the progression of his dedication to the art of painting and its manifestations along the course of his life. Equally impressive is his dedication through the travails of an aspiring artist to provide sustenance and guidance for a growing family. His wife, Julie, is equally admirable. The exhibit is titled “The Honest Eye: Camille Pissarro’s Impressionism,” which the paintings reveal well. The understory of his life is one of determined human integrity.

Robert Porath, Boulder

Touching surprise while shopping for children in need

While shopping with my wife recently, I spoke to the approaching store manager about how we were filling our cart with gifts for children whose parents are in prison. The manager responded softly, “Oh, that is nice; others shopped for my kids while I was in prison.” In that moment, my 73-year-old heart was touched, and I felt compelled to hug her.

Mike Sawyer, Denver

Take it easy on white-collar criminals

The state of Colorado and the entire U.S. should change how felons are punished.

Murders, rapists, violent criminals, and repeat offenders must be sent to a prison at an approximate cost of $50,000 per year to us taxpayers.

But there are some crimes that are not a physical or dangerous threat to others. This includes making a wrong decision against our laws, embezzling, money theft, Ponzi schemes, etc.

Two cases that bring to mind are the former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich for trying to sell the former U.S. senate seat held by Barak Obama.  He was sentenced to 14 years in prison at an approximate cost of $700,000 to us taxpayers.  Rightly so President Trump pardoned him during his first term.

Another is Tina Peters, the former Clerk and Recorder of Mesa County, CO.  She was sentenced to prison for 9.5 years at a total cost to us taxpayers of approximately $475,000.  She was sentenced to prison for allowing a friend to have access and examine the internal workings of the election process in Mesa County.

The right solution to both of these cases along with thousands of others is to punish the convicted criminal with a substantial monetary penalty along with community service.  This would punish the individual and save substantial money for us taxpayers.  The person should be required to work as a productive part of society.  This person would also pay different kinds of taxes from their work.

It is a disgrace that the U.S. incarcerates more people per person that any nation in the world. .

It is time that our entire judicial system in all states and our country make these changes immediately since they would be best for the taxpayer and the convicted felon.

Jim Welker, Loveland

Editor’s note: Welker was a state representative for House District 51.

Get rid of the presidential power of pardon

President Donald Trump started his 2nd term off by pardoning thousands of January 6th rioters, and has continued a steady pace ever since. However, the flurry of recent ones — former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández (convicted on drug charges), David Gentile (convicted of swindling thousands of investors), and now, potentially, Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar (a Democrat) and his wife (charged with money laundering) are even more troubling. The stench of corruption hangs over these pardons. Has money been paid to someone, somehow, for them?

Regardless, it is now obvious that the power to pardon is too powerful to bestow upon any president — especially Trump.  Therefore, the time has come for we, the citizens, to amend the U.S. Constitution to delete the presidential pardon power (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1).

At the moment, Republicans will obviously oppose such an amendment, but a long-term perspective is needed for this or any constitutional amendment. Democrats should discuss – and hopefully embrace – the idea, with candidates and existing office holders asked to take a position.  And once a Democrat takes the White House again, Republicans will quickly get on board.

Perhaps this may seem like an overly simplistic approach to curbing the exploding powers of the American president, but it is an important one.  It is time to amend the Constitution to delete the Presidential pardon power.

Bradley Cameron, Denver