EDITOR: My first reaction to Jack Rannells' letter ("Catering to protesters," Tuesday) was anger. Then I realized that his statements probably are echoed by others, and they need to be addressed.
Rannells asks for the citizenship status and vocations of Andy Lopez's parents. What possible relevance could Andy's parents' citizenship status or vocations have to his being shot by a deputy? Based on a mention of Andy's schooling, Rannells makes certain assumptions and asks if Andy was a "problem child"? There are multiple reasons for a student to switch schools. What relevance could Andy's schooling have on the situation? It's irrelevant. The deputies had no knowledge of his history to base judgments on, and his behavior on the day of his death was age appropriate. Yes, even if he was playing hooky.
I cannot figure out how any of these questions could possibly be relevant to the situation. The fact is, we are all members of this society, and we all have the right to not be shot without just cause.
I find Rannells' questions to be prejudiced, irrelevant and offensive. I can only hope that the deputies didn't have these same irrelevant questions clouding their judgment on that tragic day.
More than peeking
EDITOR: I read that, in Windsor, a boy entered a young woman's bedroom without his pants after tampering with a screen ("Intruder awakens sleeping Windsor girl," Tuesday). How much do you want to bet he gets charged with more than peeking? Lucky Efren Carrillo.