This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated.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.
In "Favoring the police" (Forum, Feb. 22), Ron Yengich states that citizens using deadly force are treated differently than police when they react "in an identical fashion." Just how identical two sets of circumstances are depends on how thinly one slices the salami.
Yengich ignores important differences between officers and citizens: Police are far better trained in the use of deadly force, they have more resources and, most important, they are tasked by the state with initiating the administration of justice to lawbreakers.
I am justified in using deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into my home obviously intent on harm. Once that intruder flees, the threat and my justification cease. I am not then justified in shooting him regardless of whatever threat he may pose to the general public.
Conversely, if I notify the police who later stop someone matching the description, he must obey officers' commands to stop, surrender any weapons and submit to further investigation or arrest.
If he does not, officers may use deadly force because they reasonably believe that he, having already threatened someone, poses a continuing danger.
If Yengich does not like that distinction, he's free to argue to change the law.
Ken K. Gourdin
Tooele