FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WAS WRONG PLACE FOR A DRUG BUST

On June 12, 2000, my youngest grandson turned 2 years old. One of my
greatest pleasures has been to have him accompany me, once a week, as we
sought out a fast-food place to enjoy our lunch together.

I wasn't on the parking lot of the Jack in the Box where the demise of Earl
Murray and Ronald Beasley took place that day. However, it is my opinion
that what happened there was that one policeman felt he had a reason to
shoot toward the drug suspect, so the other officer simply jumped on the
bandwagon and emptied his weapon, too. I never have read which policeman
killed which man or if the same policeman killed both.

Greg Freeman aptly pointed out in his May 7 column that drug dealing is not
a capital offense. And it certainly isn't a capital offense to be in the
same car with a suspected drug dealer.

I hope that additional efforts will be made to determine exactly what
happened so that we can minimize the likelihood of such a tragic occurrence
in the future. At least we are still talking about it - instead of just
sweeping all of it under a rug, as was the case for 16 months.

In reading Sunday's article, I was saddened to read that the police and the
DEA indicated that while their arrest effort ended tragically, they would
not hesitate to plan their next arrest in exactly the same way - including
doing it in another public spot.

Their assertion that no bystanders were at risk is ridiculous. Did all 21
bullets fired hit the suspect's car or the passengers? Has anyone ever
heard of ricochet?

I do not believe that our legal system intends that arresting officers will
be judge, jury and executioners. Everyone should be entitled to his or her
day in court.

My grandson and I don't go to a fast food place as much now as we did
before, and when we do I look around the parking lot more than I have in
the past. I certainly don't want my grandson or me to prove that the police
are wrong in saying that bystanders are not at risk.

John F. Bernosky

St. Charles

Accepting Responsibility

Is it too much to expect the black leaders of our community to speak
honestly to their people? Why can't they bring themselves to say that
dealing drugs is wrong, that disobeying the direct orders of police
officers is wrong, that attempting to injure or kill police officers is wrong?

Do these black leaders understand how much their criticism about police
turns off white people when the facts clearly do not support the criticism?

How can we ever expect to achieve racial harmony when blacks and their
leaders refuse to accept responsibility for their actions?

Benedict G. Janson

St. Louis

Protecting The Evidence

The May 7 editorial on the tragic deaths at Jack in the Box chastises me
for, among other things, releasing the evidence only after 18 months of
prodding from the Post-Dispatch.

You know, of course, that I stated soon after these deaths and on many
later occasions that I would release all the evidence to anyone who wanted
it as soon as the investigation ended. The federal investigation ended on
Oct. 3 at 1:30 p.m. I released all of the evidence on Oct. 3 at 3 p.m.

Your paper isn't big enough for me to address all of your factual errors
and misrepresentations.

No responsible prosecutor would release the evidence and taint the
testimony of witnesses before the conclusion of the investigation.
Additionally, you know that the United States attorney specifically
requested that I not release any evidence until his investigation was
completed because it would jeopardize his investigation.

You know this because I gave the letter from the U.S. attorney to the
Post-Dispatch long before your story and editorial were written. If you
lost it, please go to my Web site at www.co.st-louis.ml.us/pa/ to get
another copy.

Robert McCulloch

Prosecuting Attorney

St. Louis County

Clayton