A higher standard; put kids first; law’s real purpose

A higher standard

As a father, husband or son, how would I respond to a police officer or any man, tossing my daughter, my wife or my mother around as the officer was observed doing in the McKinney incident?

Absent color, how would you react to such a sight? As a real man, I am not sure I could stand idle and allow a loved one to be treated that way.

I realize there would be consequences, but instinct would lead me to protect my family. Lord forbid, I would ever be faced with such a situation.

The officer’s apology through his attorney confirms his actions were based on poor judgment. Even the usually protective police association, in a roundabout way, admitted he did not use good judgment.

Police officers should be held to a higher standard of conduct. The officer’s conduct could have led to a different reaction in another neighborhood, and whether you would admit it or not, he would have contributed to that reaction.

— Willie R. Hargis, Forest Hill

Put kids first

I have taught on the west side of Fort Worth for 15 years.

One thing I have never understood is why the kids, many of whom I’ve taught, are always out on the street.

Part of the area is a high-crime area.

These are not bad kids.

Many simply hang out on the corners of Las Vegas Trail and Calmont Avenue, roam “The Trail,” and end up being exposed to a negative environment.

When I worked on teacher certification in another town, I worked for Boys and Girls Clubs. Three clubs were either adjacent or on school district property.

Not only would they be waiting on summer mornings for clubs to open, but hung out at them after school since it was a short walk.

I cannot speak highly enough of the impact it had on the kids.

Sports, a game room and a library kept them busy. Even camping trips to get them out into nature.

Many community leaders have asked the same question I have. Why are these kids left to wander?

— Thomas Michael Hall,

Fort Worth

What is most irritating about Cynthia Allen’s argument, (see: “HB 2 does not impose ‘undue burden’ on women,” Friday) that abortion restrictions were passed for the safety and concern for women is its complete intellectual dishonesty.

The goal of these laws is is to close down abortion clinics and make all abortions illegal.

An early-term abortion is possibly one of the safest medical procedures available — you’re probably more at risk getting your periodic colonoscopy.

HB 2’s requirement that abortion clinics meet hospital standards was designed to force the closure of clinics that cannot meet the enormous costs associated with the required and medically unnecessary upgrades.

Research shows that the availability of contraceptives is the single most effective factor in reducing abortions.

— William M. Brown, Fort Worth

This story was originally published June 15, 2015 at 5:43 PM with the headline "A higher standard; put kids first; law’s real purpose."