Letters to the editor for Sunday, Dec. 14, 2014



An open letter to Rep. Amodei, Sen. Heller, and Sen. Reid —

Net neutrality should be a bipartisan issue that all could agree upon. All consumers of the Internet want fair and unfettered access to the websites of their choice. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing revolving door from corporate lobbyist to governmental agent fairness is not about the people, but rather their own private interests.

Currently, former cable lobbyist and FCC Chair Tom Wheeler and other key decision-makers aren’t listening to the millions of Americans who have spoken out in favor of net neutrality. That is why my letter is addressed to those that are supposed to represent their constituents (that means citizens, and not your own corporate backers).

The big Telecoms, such as Comcast and Verizon, are lobbying hard against net neutrality, not on the behalf of their consumers, but rather for their shareholders’ bottom line, and FCC is dragging its feet on the decision of net neutrality hoping to find a sneaky way to give giant telecoms new powers to slow down our favorite websites whenever they like.

Big Telecoms want new rules that would make our Internet more expensive, while slowing every website that can’t pay expensive new prioritization fees. Without the ability to have continued net neutrality, it will eliminate our ability to have free discourse across the Internet. Bottom line, freedom of speech would be eliminated.

Dina Porter, Fernley



My name is Pari Hendricks. I suffer from PTSD, anxiety, depression, dyslexia and high blood pressure. In the past I have suffered a heart attack and bells palsey.

I have been looking into getting a service dog for more than a year now, and it has been challenging. I have letters from my doctors stating that I need one. I found a breeder in Pennsylvania, who has the puppy that would be perfect for me. These dogs are pure breeds, come from champion blood lines. the cost is, $600 for the dog and $350 for shipping. I found a service dog trainer who is willing to help me, as training a service dog is very expensive. Because of my medical conditions, the mental health clinic and the trainer are willing to help with the cost of training the dog.

I am unable to work. I am on medication to deal with my anxiety, PTSD and blood pressure. I live alone, so it is very scary for me, I mainly isolate myself in my home. I have friends who try and get me out and go for walks. I have a fear of being outside by myself or in public places. Having a service dog will help improve a quality of life that I have been missing for many years. For all those who will help me, I am forever grateful, and God bless all of you.

I have set up a page at https://fundly.com/disabled-person-needs-help-funding-a-service-dog?ft_pid=cmxqu28i

Pari Hendricks, Carson City



Sen. Harry Reid’s blunders have resulted in permanent injury to the United States Senate, contributed to the defeat of Senate Democrats and damaged Nevada Democrats.

A hyperpartisan Democrat, Reid’s 2013 decision to detonate the “nuclear option” in the Senate was a naked attempt to stack the federal courts. It ruptured relations with Republicans.

To protect Senate Democrats from controversial votes, Reid became “obstructionist in chief,” refusing to consider bills passed by the House. In sidelining popular bills, Reid gave Senate Democrats no achievements thereby losing 9 seats and their Senate majority.

While railing about the “Koch Brothers,” Reid’s own Senate Majority PAC spent $26 million using desperate measures against Republicans.

Reid maneuvered Democrat candidate withdrawals; intervened in Republican primaries; and his PAC produced negative ads deemed “deceptive,” “nonsensical,” and “false” by fact checkers.

In Nevada, Reid broke his promise to recruit a “credible” Democrat candidate against Gov. Sandoval. Reid’s failure contributed to suppressed Democratic turnout and a Republican sweep.

Reid’s popularity has fallen to 21 percent favorable (Gallup). After their drubbing, Senate Democrats vented against Reid but retained him as leader with six voting “no.” Reid insists he will seek another term in 2016 ­— during which he would turn 82. It’s past time for Reid to go.

Jim Hartman, Genoa

Understanding use of force

In response to Bo Statham’s Dec. 11 commentary, I believe that the media and the public have not been informed as to how law enforcement is governed in the use of force.

As a law enforcement officer for 25 years and a professor of criminal justice for 15 years, I feel the need to explain a key element involving use of force incidents such as we recently witnessed in Ferguson and Cleveland.

Law enforcement use of force is judged according to Supreme Court case “Graham v. Connor.” In that case the court articulated how a law enforcement officer is to consider use of force. The court stated an officer must take into account whether or not the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or others, whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

Here is what the court said in its decision: “The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving-about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.”

Split-second decisions regarding use of force have to be made by officers and the courts understand that fact.

Bill Schroeder

Carson City



Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment