Police reform starts with weeding out bad cops
My late husband, while a deputy sheriff in the 1960s, interfered with another deputy’s beating of a downed suspect, for which my husband received a letter of reprimand. He quit and went on to become a firefighter and paramedic.
I’ve known a number of people in law enforcement. Most wanted to do good, but others simply sought to carry guns and speed through red lights without rebuke.
While many police departments perform a psychiatric evaluation of applicants, a more concerted effort should be made to weed out powerseeking bullies. There should also be periodic reviews throughout their careers with special attention to posttraumatic stress disorder, which can impact rational judgment and is a frequent byproduct of such a high-stress job.
There also needs to be a national database noting those who have been dismissed for abuse of power, to keep them out of potentially lethal professions.
Mary Nelsen, Zephyr Cove, Nev.
Turn away from video
Regarding “Why you absolutely should not watch the Tyre Nichols police killing video” (Open Forum, SFChronicle.com, Jan. 28): I couldn’t agree more with Julie Scelfo’s plea not to watch the video of Tyre Nichols killing. As a curator, I felt obliged to watch it. And yet, I simply wish I could unwatch it.
The experience reminded me of the scene in “A Clockwork Orange” where Alex is forced to watch filmed scenes of violence, his lids immobilized so can’t close his eyes.
I come from a country with a horrible history, and I have been exposed to themes and expressions of violence for a long time. As kids, we watched films and read books that today’s teenagers may not be able to stomach.
I’ve been working for a year with Ukrainians and felt the psychological impact of the war myself, and yet I wish I didn’t watch Nichols’ beating. This particular footage can do a lot of harm to the entire society; it violates us in a whole different way than things we’ve seen before.
And yet, I cannot support the idea of censoring it. We want transparency, and we got it. Only successful reforms could justify my carrying this senseless death in my eyes forever. Monika Fabijanska, New York
Payments make no sense
While the mission is noble, I question how the San Francisco reparations task force is going to curry favor after its ridiculous $5 million cash payout recommendation made headlines recently. It made them look like a farce.
Personally, I believe this is a federal matter. Regardless, the focus should be on low-cost or no-interest loans for housing and small businesses and subsidized education to start. But cash payments? That’s plain stupid. Jay Elliott, San Francisco
Insure gun owners
Regarding “How you and everyone you know can help stop California mass shootings” (Open Forum, SFChronicle.com, Jan. 26): When a person purchases a vehicle there are laws requiring that insurance also be acquired to provide liability coverage. Owning a car and owning a gun are analogous privileges, possibly even rights, except that a car is not intended for killing while a gun is.
Legal gun ownership should have a similar insurance requirement. Given the purpose of a gun, the minimum insurance should be substantial. For example, start with $5 million in coverage for a handgun and let insurers figure out how much is needed for other, more potent weapons.
My support goes to insurers who will insist on $1 million in coverage for each bullet that can be fired in one minute.
Roy Hodgkinson, Orinda
Hiding in plain sight
The sad plight of the farmworkers and how they live can’t possibly be a secret. Do you really believe that the city of Half Moon Bay, the county of San Mateo and even the state didn’t know of these conditions?
They, along with the farmers, turned a blind eye to this and now with the spotlight on them, maybe the workers will get somewhere decent to live.
Leonard Dorin, Lafayette