Gillespie defies Use of Force Board

Sheriff Doug Gillespie owes the taxpayers who pay his department’s costs a more expansive answer for choosing to suspend officer Jacquar Roston, rather than firing him as the department’s Use of Force Board recommended (“Officer suspended in shooting,” July 23 Review-Journal). According to the sheriff, Mr. Roston changed his attitude in the months after shooting unarmed Lawrence Gordon. Changed from what to what?

Clearly, the board determined that Mr. Roston didn’t have the temperament to be a police officer — he shot when he thought Mr. Gordon had a gun in his hand but did not. So why did the sheriff arbitrarily undermine the board’s judgment and credibility by retaining Mr. Roston, who only clearly changed his attitude when facing unemployment? If Sheriff Gillespie plans to ignore the board, why have a board?

There were reports that on July 25, the board met in closed session, and some members were thinking of quitting because they feel the sheriff made a mockery of the board. And indeed, four board members quit on Wednesday. Personally, I don’t blame them, because as a retired journalist who covered police chiefs in Washington D.C. and other places, I’ve never seen a police head who is so insulated and doesn’t feel the need to be fully accountable to the public for his and his officers’ actions.

I see that Mr. Gillespie views this action as an example of Metro’s growth. Seriously? Mr. Gordon was fortunate, since he was only shot once, not multiple times; Metro has the reputation of shooting not to wound but to kill.

I’m not anti-cop, but I am against officials such as Mr. Gillespie feeling no need to be accountable. I do want to send my most profound condolences to the family of officer David VanBuskirk for their loss. He went above and beyond his call of duty.

RUDOLPH W. BREWINGTON

LAS VEGAS

Police-citizen relations

To the editor:

I read with great frustration about the case of Metro officer Jacquar Roston (“Officer suspended in shooting,” July 23 Review-Journal). Another officer in trouble, while the suspect gets to sue the police department and make money on the shoulders of the taxpayer. Is it because slick attorneys see a fast buck in suing the police, knowing full well that it’s cheaper for the police department to settle than to go to court? Police officers don’t go out on patrol with the attitude, “Who can I shoot today?” They do an often thankless job which entails answering calls for help that often put them in harm’s way. When dispatched to a call, an officer has nanoseconds to make decisions that armchair quarterbacks can take months to dissect.

Guilty offenders will often run, resist arrest or try to shoot it out. Sadly, other shootings start out as more innocent issues, such as a traffic stop or a domestic confrontation. But through a citizen’s failure to comply with simple police instructions, such as, “Don’t move, put your hands up, don’t reach for a weapon,” the incident elevates to a higher threat level.

As a former police officer, my recommendation to help eliminate many officer-citizen confrontations would be to initiate a new, proactive education program. We teach health, sex and other sensitive social issues in school. Why not police-citizen relations? While officer-friendly programs are fine to introduce grade-school kids to the police, once children reach 16 and want to drive, there should be a required driver’s education class on how to react should you be pulled over or detained by officers. The class would teach them everything from what their rights are upon being stopped to how to conduct themselves, so as to avoid escalating an incident.

If our children are taught at an early stage on how to deal with law enforcement, it should serve them well throughout their lives, not only in traffic stops, but in any situation. If one life is saved, it would be worth it.

RON MOERS

HENDERSON

Dialysis budget cuts

To the editor:

I read, “Let the free market save health care” (July 19 editorial), but sadly, neither the free market nor the government is saving my patients. I care for some of the sickest patients in Nevada, those who need dialysis three times a week to stay alive. In July, we were shocked by a Medicare proposal that could reduce reimbursement for dialysis by a devastating 9.4 percent.

Most dialysis patients, regardless of age, have Medicare. For those with kidney failure, Congress delivered some relief in 1972 by enacting Medicare’s End Stage Renal Disease benefit. But the new proposal to cut dialysis reimbursement goes entirely the wrong way. If enacted, cuts would lead to restricted care, clinic closures and surely a decrease in quality of life for my patients. This could be considered cruel and unusual punishment for this vulnerable population.

Dialysis professionals have worked hard to improve health outcomes. In 2011, the industry adopted a cost-effective payment system which became a Medicare model. Yet Congress still insists on balancing budgets on the backs of the critically ill. This is heartbreaking, unjust and unusual, considering the lifesaving nature of dialysis. Even people with cancer or heart disease have options. My patients have transplants (which are rare), dialysis or death.

The Medicare cuts are disappointing and puzzling because kidney disease is rising. Nevada leads the nation in kidney failure growth, with a 29 percent increase since 2005. Chronic kidney disease impacts 26 million Americans and is now the eighth-leading cause of death. I hope Congress will remember its kidney care commitment. My sick dialysis patients deserve protection. They deserve life.

MARY JANE MCDONALD

LAS VEGAS