PUBLIC TRUST
Response to “The public trust frayed” Opinion, July 14
As I read the editorial board’s conclusion that citizens no longer have trust in public officials, I could only reflect on a recent discussion at church concerning the good Samaritan.
Most people know the story of how the good Samaritan stopped and helped the bleeding and beaten man by the side of the road. Others had passed the man. Perhaps they, too, were good, but decided conditions were too dangerous for them to help. Only the good Samaritan decided to “do what is right” and he did, even providing continued care for the injured victim.
That is what this editorial board asks of our public officials: Just do what is right. Politicians and officials may be “good,” but they must go beyond that. Just as the good Samaritan went beyond “good,” they too must also do what is right. The standards of our government were founded on that premise. That demand has not changed.
CATHERINE BOONE SHEALY, ATLANTA
Smokers should face anti-litter crackdown
Thanks to the AJC for “Smokers: Keep our country clean” (Metro, July 14).
To best educate smokers of the perils, and consequences, of discarding cigarette butts into our environment, something needs to happen to force their attention on their actions. Asking them not to butt-litter is not enough.
Law enforcement is the answer. Across the U.S., law enforcement does little to ticket those who butt-litter, compared to littering of other items. If law enforcement would make a concerted effort on cigarette butts, our problem would be significantly impacted. Imagine the boost local governments would enjoy in additional revenues from these litter citations.
I ask that the AJC start in the Atlanta area by asking city councils, mayors and law enforcement leadership to consider taking an aggressive and consistent approach to cigarette butt litter.
STEPHEN JOHNSON, ATLANTA
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL
Nothing ‘Goofy’ about jurors doing their duty
Mike Luckovich’s cartoon implying — no, peremptorily averring — that Florida justice is “Goofy” is unwarranted and offensive (Opinion, July 17).
There was a fair trial, the jurors did their duty, and a verdict was rendered in the Zimmerman case. That it was not to Luckovich’s liberal liking is understandable, but irrelevant. Though I have no access to 1995 copies of Luckovich cartoons, I doubt he similarly limned the O. J. Simpson verdict — and, by association, the California justice system — as “Goofy.”
DAN COWLES, CUMMING
Feds should look into unanswered questions
The big trial is over. Neither party is fully satisfied.
I believe one question has been underplayed: Why did Zimmerman pursue Martin, despite police instructions not to? While it is true that the state of Zimmerman’s mind that evening cannot be proven, his tracking Martin is a fact. While a fight to the death was not inevitable, Zimmerman’s provocation escalated the situation. Further, why did Sanford police not immediately send a squad car just to check out the scene?
These questions, and others like them, justify federal government intervention. Though we may never know exactly what happened, we might appreciate better why it did. The implications of the trial are far greater than its verdict.
RICKS CARSON, ATLANTA
About the Author
