Thank you, New Times, for Colin Rigley’s piece on stolen jewelry (“Diamonds, gems, and gold in the rough,” Dec. 16). It’s fascinating to learn how it all works with second-hand dealers and the law enforcement. I agree with the deputy district attorney that the thief should be responsible for the pawn fee, not the jewelry owner.
What I find most interesting in this article, however, is that the reporter chose to write “Hamilton ... a stout man with the top button of his shirt open to reveal a slim, gold-chain necklace winding through his white chest hair.”
What is the point, really, in sharing this? None of the other characters were described by their appearance. What does this comment add to the pertinent facts of the story? It just strikes me as biased. As a reader, I felt reduced to creating an unnecessary stereotype in my mind and then catching myself! I take responsibility for my own thoughts, indeed, but once I cleared my head of the stereotypical character I conjured up, I realized that my intelligence had been compromised, because why is the writer putting this in the story, really?