The Jazmir Tucker case is indeed a tragic one. A gun was zippered into this jacket pocket. There was no reason to fire upon an apparently unarmed person.
However, there is another side to the story, in my opinion. Why was a 15-year-old out running around the streets of Akron, in a recognized unsafe neighborhood, at 11 o’clock at night? And why did he own, much less carry, a loaded weapon? Surely it can’t be legal for a child that age to go around the streets armed.
One has to wonder what kind of parents that kid had who would permit their son to go out and do whatever, wherever he pleased at that hour of the night. People who grow up with such a lack of social structure are bound to raise children the way they were raised, with few if any restrictions on dangerous behavior.
There are more people besides the police officers present that night who are responsible for this unfortunate event.
Laurel Gress, Wadsworth
More thoughts on the fatal shooting
What disturbs me the most about the Thanksgiving late-night shooting of 15-year-old Jazmir Tucker is that people such as at-large councilman Eric Garrett are saying Jazmir did not brandish a weapon. This tells me that at least Garrett was there at Miller South Thanksgiving night.
No one except police on scene knows if Jazmir Tucker brandished the weapon that was found in the zipped pocket of Mr. Tucker’s jacket. It would have taken no more than 15-20 seconds for Mr. Tucker to put the handgun in his jacket pocket (I timed it).
I will say that Mr. Garrett and others were wrong for saying the name of the policeman that shot Mr. Tucker. Doing that put the life of the police officer and his family in danger.
The only thing Garrett and others are right about is when they say Ohio is a right-to-carry state, but the truth that they did not say is that Ohio, along with 49 states that make up the United States, does not permit a 15-year-old child to carry a weapon. So, Mr. Garrett and others, before you speak, do some research and find out the facts before you open your mouth.
I would say in regards to the police department, do away with officers purchasing their own weapons − no assault-type weapons.
This is not a Black or white issue. The issue is, how does a 15-year-old get away with carrying a weapon?
On April 1 of this year, a 15-year-old was walking in the neighborhood of Newton Street, and police asked to see his hands. The 15-year-old didn’t, so the officer shot him. After he was shot is when he says the gun is fake.
As I said in an email to Councilman Phil Lombardo, I was always taught to listen to police officers. Thinking about my adult life before and after I stopped drinking 28 years ago, I listened to and followed what the police said. To the Akron Police Department, thank you for protecting me and my loved ones.
Keith J. Elrod, Kenmore
A notable difference
It’s important to note that the CEO allegedly murdered by Luigi Mangione was not a health care executive. Rather, Brian Thompson was a health insurance CEO.
This isn’t some pedantic nonsense. Thompson’s annual compensation, more than $10 million, came from providing as little health care as possible.And except for its profit-generating ability, health insurance is unlike anything that should be called an industry. It’s really a collection of criminal enterprises bringing debt and suffering to the mix, and nothing else. If the factors affecting one’s actual health could be represented on an accounting ledger, health insurance is all the red ink.
In America, for-profit health insurance is the opposite of health care. And it’s about time every American realizes it.
Mark Ira Kaufman, Silver Lake
Don’t skip background checks
Donald Trump and the Republican-led Senate say they may skip the FBI background check process for his Cabinet nominees. This would be very dangerous and could leave lawmakers and the public in the dark about issues that may compromise the administration officials’ ability to do their jobs or even their loyalty to America. The Senate must not allow any nominees to be confirmed without scrutiny, including FBI background checks. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about ensuring that our leaders are trustworthy and fit for office.
The need for rigorous Senate consideration of nominees is crucially important. Without it, the president and his appointees could run roughshod over the government and over Americans’ lives unchallenged. Across party lines, the Senate must make clear that it won’t consider nominations without an FBI background check. This process has been in existence for years. Why change now?
In the past, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation process had a reputation for being brutal. But disagreements over nominations never extended to the background investigation. No nominee would have moved forward to a committee hearing or vote without it. President-elect Trump’s nominees should be treated no differently.
Jeff Reeder, Akron
Mobilizing the military
Our next president plans to mobilize the United States military for mass deportations. That will not only be an abuse of authority, it will also undermine the public perception of the military. No longer will our military be an apolitical force that acts in our collective defense, but an extension of Donald Trump that is pulling families and friends from a community by force. All of this is known.
It’s horrifying. But it’s probably only the beginning. Deploying the military on American soil for domestic purposes will allow him to normalize the use of the military against American citizens. What is next on the slippery slope? Using the military to put down lawful protests against the administration? How about those dissenting Democrats?
He was clear on the campaign trail that this was his goal — and he said it repeatedly. This is what he promised. And, whether voters were listening or not, this is now our third-world strongman reality.
We who love America’s promise of liberty and justice for ALL, may not be able to stop him, but we will fight him every step of his misguided way.
Russ Smith, Strongsville
This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: More questions about the Jazmir Tucker case | Letters
Read the full article here