Wait for facts before judging police officers

The story "Video contradicts city police; charges against driver dropped" (Oct. 2) was an account of an incident involving two St. Louis police pfficers and their arrest of a suspect in the 3100 block of Delmar Boulevard. A video clip was online.

The video does appear different from what was reported that the police report said. However, perception is the key. I have not read the police report.

Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce's point that the angle of view can make a difference was valid. I applaud her stance that she wanted her office to make a thorough review of the incident before making any decision.

What matters, though, is what the officer perceived, nothing else. Missouri State Statute dictates that an assault against an officer occurs if the suspect:

"... (p)urposely or recklessly places a law enforcement officer, emergency personnel, or probation and parole officer in apprehension of immediate serious physical injury...." If the victim perceives a threat of bodily harm, an assault has occurred.

If a thorough review of the incident revealed that the officer falsified the report, then let the chips fall where they may. I hope the police department made that thorough review prior to firing an officer.

Police work requires split-second decisions. Mistakes made in good faith should not be used against officers. If they are, police officers will hesitate in critical situations, which could give criminals the upper hand.

Police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct. We accept and welcome that. We are second-guessed more than any other profession. When we make split-second, life-changing decisions, we ask only that we be judged fairly and impartially, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances.

Kevin Ahlbrand — Jefferson City

President, Fraternal Order of Police, Missouri State Lodge



Wash. U. should end

its abortion program

We appreciate "WU apologizes to SLU for wrong abortion info" (Oct. 1) about the Family Planning Fellowship program at Washington University. This program, operated in partnership with Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Planned Parenthood, trains medical students to become "expert" in all methods of first- and second-trimester abortions. Students gain "expertise" by performing abortions at the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic and at Barnes-Jewish Hospital. The director of this fellowship is Jeffrey Peipert, the medical director for Planned Parenthood-St. Louis.

We find it abhorrent that Washington University is training future physicians to destroy the lives of unborn children. The purpose of any medical training program should be to educate students in healing and therapeutic disciplines. Instead, this program instructs students who are supposed to be practitioners of the healing arts to end life.

We also find it reprehensible that Barnes-Jewish Hospital is a clinical training site for this program. Abortion is not health care, and no self-respecting health care institution should engage in the odious practice of performing abortions on potentially viable or near-viable fetuses.

It is shameful for Washington University to attempt to dignify the dirty business of abortion by awarding academic fellowships to future abortionists. We call on Washington University and Barnes-Jewish Hospital to terminate their partnership with the abortion industry. It is a disgrace that these institutions are engaged in this vile attack on the human rights of our youngest citizens.

Joe Ortwerth — Chesterfield

Executive Director, Missouri Family Policy Council



Timid action

It was startling to learn that St. Louis University canceled David Horowitz's talk. If it objected to the term "Islamo-fascism" in the talk's title, it might ask itself what better way there is to describe the relatively small portion of Muslims who promise to eliminate Israel, destroy the United States and offer all infidels the choice of converting to Islam, becoming subservient to Islam or death.

The notion that Mr. Horowitz might be allowed on campus if the event included a balancing speaker representing the other side is absurd. Hamas, for example, can make its case for the above choices and for raining rockets on civilians in Israeli cities in a separate talk to the students of the university.

The university's timid action puts me in mind of the 1930s, when there was much fearful tiptoeing around whether Herr Hitler really meant what he said.

Phil Baker — Kirkwood



Roosting secularism

It is national outrage for the political powers of St. Louis University to cancel David Horowitz's address to SLU Students because of the speech's content. Is St. Louis University intimidated? This Jesuit Catholic University again has demonstrated its independence from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Maybe the university needs another multi-million-dollar government grant to study social diseases and female prostitution. Secularist socialism is roosting at the university, apparently.

Jim Vondras — Florissant



Class acts

One of the classiest acts I've ever seen was Frank Bommarito's full-page ad in the Post-Dispatch praising Dave Sinclair, his competitor. (Mr. Sinclair also was a class act.) This action by Mr. Bommarito is unheard of in today's tough business climate. My question is where will we get the Sinclairs and Bommaritos of tomorrow? Mr. Bommarito has shown everyone what St. Louis class is all about.

Bob Evans — St. Charles



Put to better use

With the upcoming sold-out Cardinal playoff games here in St Louis, is there a reason why the Cardinals could not better use Ballpark Village? Instead of having some folks playing catch at the former Lake Dewitt, how about big inflatable screens such as the ones used to show movies at many local parks; food and drink carts; moon bounces for the kids; a tent selling "My favorite Holliday is Matt" T-shirts for the gals. All profits, including a small admission fee, could be applied to a "Let's Keep Matt" fund. The sounds and electricity from the game would be free.

Jonathan Kiesling — St Louis

A familiar ring

Recent letters have sought to give President Barack Obama advice on how to win the war in Afghanistan. The letters bemoan the fact that we're losing or mourn the loss of a loved one in that conflict. I hate to tell everybody, but we lost the war in Afghanistan the day then-President George W. Bush took his eye off that ball and decided it was more important to go find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Since that moment, Afghanistan has been second place in money, men and strategy. Now we are facing a corrupt local government, an enemy that has sanctuary in a neighboring country, areas of Afghanistan that are supporting the Taliban against the government and a U.S. military that apparently only recently has realized that we are fighting an insurgency in which you can defeat the enemy only by convincing the Afghan people that there is a better alternative than the Taliban. Sounds an awful lot like a war that was going on when I was in the military in the 1960s. That one didn't end well either.

Miles T. Barnett — High Ridge