Slain teacher deserved protection from law
Editor, The Times:
After reading the article “Infatuated man shoots, kills teacher” [NWSaturday Feb. 27] about yet another young woman being killed by a rejected ex-suitor — or non-suitor — I feel physically ill. How many more young women must die at the hand of a jilted suitor before we change our laws to reflect the seriousness of these situations?
She had done everything correctly: She repeatedly told him to leave her alone in front of witnesses, she had had someone else warn him off verbally — indicating that others knew about his behavior and that she was not the only one who thought his actions were wrong — she had a one-year-old court order for him to keep away, she let her co-workers know about her sense of vulnerability, he had been thrown out of her workplace before, she had the courage to call the police herself when he showed up at her workplace in the past. What else was she supposed to do?
Besides the predictable gun lobby and the NRA getting headlines saying she should have gotten a gun to protect herself or gotten some training, what else could have prevented this?
Recently, we have seen legislative bills arise because police died or were wounded by someone with a bad record who was out on parole. Prosecutors are clambering for declarations that no bail be allowed in these special cases.
How about extending the same courtesy to women at risk who have followed the letter of the law? Let’s change our laws to save them before they are killed in situations that clearly demonstrate a high risk.
— Jeff Wedgwood, Issaquah
Misused label of killer as ‘infatuated’
Regarding another case of coldblooded killing of a kind and accomplished woman by a spurned male, my dictionary defines infatuated as “characterized by foolish or irrational love or desire.” Synonyms listed are “fond, doting and overaffectionate.”
Jed Waits — the coward who laid in wait with a gun and shot special-education teacher Jennifer Paulson — was not infatuated. He may have been dangerously insane, cruelly power hungry or filled with rage, but “love” or even “irrational desire” does not begin to describe such depraved and wanton disregard for life.
Infatuation implies innocent puppy love but Waits wasn’t foolish, doting or fond of Paulson — no matter how many teddy bears he sent her. He was brutal and The Times should be more careful of the words it chooses for its headlines in order to avoid diminishing the magnitude of the outrage and avoid excusing violence against women.
— Michael Schein, Seattle
Arming teacher might have prevented murder
How in the world could Jennifer Paulson have been brutally murdered by someone who had an anti-harassment order in force against him? Oh I get it: Criminals don’t have to obey our laws.
All U.S. citizens — even if they are teachers at a public school — should have the fundamental right to defend themselves. As a local news commentator said with respect to this sad event, “Cops can’t be everywhere.”
So why shouldn’t we be given the right to act as our own cop anytime, anywhere?
— Mark L. Holmes, Kenmore
Giving guns to teachers akin to arming airline passengers
After reading Joy Mauser’s letter about arming teachers [“Guns and teachers: Roach is right,” Northwest Voices, Feb. 27], I just had to submit another point of view.
Forty-some years ago on the TV program “All in the Family,” Archie Bunker generated a big laugh when he said that the way to end hijacking was to issue each passenger a gun as they boarded an airplane. The irony, of course, was the realization that the damage caused by the solution would be worse than the small risk of a hijacking. Unfortunately, far too many gun advocates might actually support that position today.
For example, take Mauser’s suggestion to “arm our teachers.” She provides no evidence that such an action would be beneficial. It wouldn’t have prevented Jennifer Paulson’s shooting in Tacoma. It wouldn’t have prevented the recent shooting in Littleton, Colo. — in this case the suspect was subdued by unarmed men. It wouldn’t have prevented the shootings at either Inskip Elementary School in Tennessee or the University of Alabama shooting — in both of those cases the shooter was a teacher.
Arming the teachers would more likely result in the teacher being the first person shot. Then, not only would the adult leader be eliminated, but the shooter could obtain yet another weapon.
— Evan Stoll, Kingston
No time, money to train teachers in gun etiquette
Sen. Pam Roach says arming teachers would cut down on school shootings. Huh? How much gun training can be jammed into the full schedules of our educators? Will teachers have to pay for ricochet-proof ammo out of their own pocket?
Seventy percent of the trained law-enforcement officers who die in the line of duty do so without ever touching their weapons. In chaotic moments, even they make life-and-death mistakes. Will teachers with limited training do better? Let teachers do what they are trained to do: teach.
Refine the curriculum so that all understand that the ax, the plow, the telegraph and the small-pox-infested blanket played a role equal to that of the gun in “conquering” a continent. The gun is not a sacred national icon and it entitles no one to be judge, jury and executioner.
The NRA tells us the answer to every problem is more guns. But an arms race with criminals and the mentally unstable benefits no one but gun manufacturers. The safety of our children is best served by treating the gun like the dangerous tool it is and by giving our children — and perhaps Sen. Roach — other strategies for handling problems.
— Mark Griswold, Mill Creek