Regarding Eddie Dean’s article (“Alleged Killer, Proven Killer,” 11/22), I’m confused. It reads: “Ebert, you see, is an avid hunter, just like the sniper. His hobby is shooting quail and waterfowl, but his full-time job is hunting killers.”
I haven’t seen any information suggesting that John Muhammad was a small-game hunter. And I didn’t know that any of his victims were killers. So how in the name of reason can you call Ebert an avid hunter, just like the sniper? That doesn’t make any sense at all unless Dean somehow thinks that the life of a mass murderer and the life of an innocent victim have the same value.
But he can’t think that, can he? That’s simply not rational.
I’d suggest you read over his work before you print it.
Sierra Madre, Calif.