I've read some of the articles on the fatal police shooting of Korryn Gaines and am dismayed by yet another killing of a civilian by police ("Woman killed by Baltimore county police ignored pleas from boyfriend to surrender, mother says," Aug. 2).
I also see discrepancies between police encounters with aggressive white citizens versus black citizens. Whites can be aggressive, and even threaten officers with guns, yet live through the encounter.
But I want to address another question: Why is it that in 2016 authorities still appear to have no other recourse except using lethal force? Even if we accept the premise that Gaines was behaving threateningly toward officers and that they feared for their safety and that of her son, why was it necessary to kill her?
Why didn't police continue to wait out the situation like federal authorities in Oregon waited out Ammon Bundy and other aggressive protesters occupying a national wildlife refuge there? Why was Gaines' mother not allowed to talk to her daughter and attempt to convince her to stand down? Why didn't police send in tear gas to disable Gaines? If it was possible to shoot her with a bullet, why not shoot her with a tranquilizer?
With the technology and scientific knowledge available today surely it would be possible to come up with as many non-lethal ways to disable a suspect as there are ways to kill.
While these officers were not wearing body cameras, from the moment they attempted to serve the warrant it was clear that this situation was going to escalate. There should be a protocol that such tense situations must be monitored and recorded for later analysis.
Police are here to serve and protect. The taking of civilian life by the state must be the absolute last option. We can do much better in coming up with many more non-lethal options that will keep police officers safe and reduce civilian killings. Why haven't we?
Kathleen Callaghan, Baltimore