Share This Page

He has no excuse

| Friday, Feb. 21, 2014, 8:57 p.m.

Regarding Eric Heyl's column “Heyl: Former Woodland Hills player Randall shows he's a punk” : I find the actions of Harry Randall completely inexcusable.

I am a senior at Woodland Hills High School who had a few classes with Mr. Randall. The words “funny” and “bright” are the last words I would use to describe him. Harry was inappropriate, disrespectful and immature. Once, we were assigned to work in a coed group on an assignment. The first words out of his mouth were inappropriate comments about the female anatomy.

You might not agree with the way Heyl wrote his column, but you cannot deny its truth. Just because Harry Randall is young, might have had a tough life growing up or is on the football team, that should not soften his punishment if he's convicted.

This was not a first offense. He had a second chance. He had a bright future ahead of him. He had every reason to better himself! But he still allegedly threw it away.

Harry Randall is old enough to be accountable for his actions. He is old enough to know right from wrong. He had the power to turn his life around after his first arrest, but he seemingly didn't. There is no defense for his alleged criminal behavior.

Megan Owens

Churchill

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.