READ OUR RIGHTS

Upon reading two Dec. 16 articles, I was alarmed by the actions of two
of the area's police departments.

North Richland Hills police fatally shot a young man who was pointing
a handgun at an officer. I am not questioning the justification of the
officer involved in the shooting, but I am wondering why 17 police
officers stormed a home because of an informant telling them that
there was a quantity of marijuana in the home.

The reason police gave is that the deceased was arrested once on
grounds of possession of a weapon. `But the charge was dropped!'
Doesn't this mean that under the law that person was innocent of any
crime?

In the second article, I read that a Marine corporal was accused of
sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl, but the grand jury declined to
indict him. Still, a Keller police spokesman stated: "I don't know why
the grand jury declined to indict him. By no means does their decision
mean he is innocent."

It doesn't?

If we have reached the point where police declare the guilt or
innocence of citizens, then we have reached a very dangerous time in
our society. Maybe these two departments should send their officers
back to Basic Law 101, and begin the course by reading the amendments
to the Constitution.

Does "To Protect and Serve" mean anything anymore?

Hal Gerhardt, Watauga