Zimmerman at fault for creating conflict
To the editor:
In response to Bruce Alexander’s letter (“Martin, Zimmerman families wind up losing in the end,” Saturday Review-Journal), whether Mr. Zimmerman had the right to claim self-defense should be brought back to the very basic concept of what started the confrontation in the first place. The most basic question therefore should be: Mr. Zimmerman, why did you exit your vehicle?
I’m certain that any rational-thinking individual can assess that Mr. Zimmerman exited his vehicle because he had no fear — because he had a gun. Mr. Zimmerman is the one who chose the aggressive disposition after ignoring directions from the 911 operator to not continue to follow or make contact with this individual, and to let the police handle the situation. But instead, this wannabe cop chose to confront Trayvon Martin, who was already fearful because he was being followed by some creepy white guy who was not in a police vehicle, one who made contact (verbal or otherwise) only after he exited his vehicle and one who was not wearing a uniform representing security or a form of law enforcement.
If there were ever a moment for any young African-American male to be in fear for his own life, the moment would look exactly like the situation that cost Mr. Martin his life. In essence, Mr. Zimmerman created the circumstances that caused this young, scared, African-American male to feel that he needed to be in self-defense mode. The one who initiated the confrontation shouldn’t also be the one who has no obligation to retreat. I would hate to be walking in my neighborhood if I were black, and have someone confront me and shoot me because I object to his actions toward me.
CURTIS HUDSON
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Work on ObamaCare
To the editor:
I read your editorial several times regarding letting the free market save health care, and have yet to understand how it would help the masses (“Let free market save health care,” July 19 Review-Journal). Perhaps my inability to relate to these patients — who can pay for travel and yet have thousands of dollars to pay up-front for a procedure — is because for 47 years (seven in the military), I practiced oral surgery for people of modest means, many of whom never had thousands of dollars at any one time.
The Review-Journal’s Paul Harasim wrote an excellent article (“Pound of prevention, trounce of cure?” Sunday) that explains how we, as a nation, have fallen into such dire straits regarding medical care, thanks to the arbitrary will of the American Medical Association and the closing of many schools of medicine.
Many presidents tried and failed to get a Medicare bill passed. ObamaCare is not perfect, but instead of all the niggling remarks, we would all be better off if efforts were made to improve it, so that all could benefit, not just those with lots of money. Understandably, young, healthy people don’t see a need to pay, but if one drives a car, insurance is required. Likewise, one buys fire insurance when a home is purchased. Insurance companies do not refund your money if you never make a claim.
It seems as if the free market, as presently proffered, will aid only those with money. I think the will of the people is to increase the number of doctors, approve expanded duties of aides, and dictate that doctors who have been aided in schools must practice and remain for some time in underserved areas. The strong should help to bear the infirmities of the weak.
WILLIAM V. LOFTON
NORTH LAS VEGAS
