Horrific reasoning in plea bargain

 Having grown up in Yuma, and knowing first-hand its very conservative political nature, I suppose I should not be terribly surprised at the proposed plea bargain now before Judge Andrew Gould. Judge Gould is to decide whether to allow Solorio Valenzuela relief from a second degree murder charge in the slaying of Amancio Corrales.

  After all, Corrales was just a drag performer, cosmetologist and gay; no need to indict Valenzuela for more than manslaughter. As Levi Gunderson said, Valenzuela acted only out of "the heat of passion" and of "rage and humiliation."

  I guess we are all to understand that such a deep offense against Valenzuela’s "machismo" perfectly justifies his actions, and all our sympathy should immediately go out to him?

  What horrific reasoning, if it may even be called such! Not only was Amancio stabbed numerable times by Valenzuela but his body was abandoned by Valenzuela in the river. How, may I ask, did a grand jury decide that a deliberate stabbing was simply manslaughter?

  I can only surmise that such a decision was garnered through the worst sort of bigotry and anti-gay sentiment. How else can one explain the enraged stabbing of a human being as simply manslaughter?

  Our sympathy must lie with with Maribel Corrales. She said through an interpreter:  "He didn’t kill a person but a whole family... It’s not fair."  I most definitely agree.

DONALD W.F. LARSON
Yuma