This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

I could not disagree more with Ken Gourdin's "Prosecutors don't simply rubber-stamp police decisions" (Opinion, Feb. 5). In my 36 years of practicing law and defending many people who have reacted identically to police officers using nondeadly and deadly force under virtually identical circumstances, the police officer is never charged with a crime and the citizen is forced to defend himself or herself in court.

When confronted with issues of self-defense, defense of a third party, or defense of a habitation, the presumption of innocence should apply equally to both police and non-police officers. The reality is that there is a super-presumption of innocence when it comes to police officers acting in the line of duty, and there is little similar presumption for the citizen who is legitimately armed and reacts in an identical fashion.

Compare the sheer numbers of police officers who are cleared under these shooting circumstances with the cases of others who are legitimately armed and act in self-defense. Prosecutors don't just rubber stamp police decisions to shoot, but also accord police actions a greater presumption of legitimacy than regular citizens in this culture that allows almost every citizen to carry a gun for self-defense.

Ronald J. Yengich

Salt Lake City