ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Biased view of police |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Biased view of police

Letter To The Editor
| Saturday, December 1, 2018 10:03 a.m

Shawn Inlow’s op-ed “Why police shootings happen” (Nov. 28, TribLIVE) gives uninformed readers a biased view of police and their mental state.

I am a retired Pennsylvania State Police trooper currently working in the security field alongside other retired police officers. Having worked for the PSP for 25 years at four different stations, I came in contact with hundreds of troopers and local police officers. I never experienced any of the personal problems described by Inlow, nor did I observe them in any of the officers with whom I worked.

Police work isn’t for everyone, and it can be brutal. However, the men and women I worked with did their jobs professionally and without prejudice. They handled the stress and rigors of the job without resorting to alcohol, drugs or abusive behavior. The PSP has a Member Assistance Program that provides counseling for officers that is free and confidential. All Inlow had to do was call.

The personal problems he experienced were just that — personal problems, not indicative of the overwhelming majority of police officers.

Thomas Hanna

New Castle

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.