To: Ms.

Larsen
From: Deven Bryan
Date: 5 May 2015
Subject: Portfolio Major Revision
For my major revision in my portfolio I decided to completely re-write major
writing assignment 1 from the opposing side of my argument. Since this was the lower
of my two grades for individual writing assignments I figured it would be best for me to
do the major revision on this paper since it obviously needed more work. Originally I
had written my paper in defense of the veterans who did not agree with a recent bill that
had passed in New Mexico. The bill proposed a marker that would go on veterans
drivers licenses. Many veterans were offended with this and originally I had decided to
side with the veterans who were offended. Now for my revision I felt the best way to
make my writing stronger would be to completely rewrite it, but from the position of the
people, and veterans who were for the bill. I have not changed my beliefs about the bill
and am still against it, but it was interesting to me, as a person who is not very easily
persuaded to change my mind about things, that I could completely rewrite a paper from
an opposing side.
I started my revision by looking the points I had made for each side of the
argument. I decided that I would take a couple of the points out like my paragraph
explaining about the disorder talked about in my paper, posttraumatic stress disorder. I
decided this paragraph was unnecessary, and didn't contribute to my paper in any way. I
still list the symptoms of the disorder which I think is enough background information for

my readers to understand the basics of PTSD. Looking at my original points I decided

that it would be best for me to revise my points so they contributed to being for the bill
that was up to be passed. This was relatively easy for me to do. It was a lot more
interesting to write from the other side of the argument. An example of this is in my
original argued that the marked on licenses would cause everyone to profile veterans
and assume they are a threat because they have PTSD when in fact most of them do
not. In my revision, I changed it around so this was a good thing. I made it seem more
positive in that most veterans do not have PTSD so it is not that big of a problem and
has more benefit then costs. This made my entire paper more persuasive and I think
my revision is way better then my original. It was more persuasive because it was shed
more light on the topic other then being negative and thinking people will be harmed
from the bill that was passed.
My next point I took into account for this revision was how in my original I
referred to personal experience too much so it actually hurt my argument more then
benefitted. I decided to cut those parts out and add in only reference to me being a
daughter of a veteran with PTSD. I was able to add that in when I was talking about
veterans relating to police officers because they are veterans as well. I figured my best
chance of showing this is through first hand experience so I just said how I have seen
that happen myself with my father. That was the only time I referred to personal
experience. I could write a book on personal experience with PTSD and its effects but
for this argument it was better left out, and I see that now.
In my revision I did leave my two examples of when PTSD is under control, and
when it isnt. I did change a couple sentences so they were more for the bill then

against it. Basically, I used the same examples just changed how I used them. This
was pretty easy for me to do. Overall, I think I made the examples stronger for this
argument then I had before in my original argument. For example, in the original I said
"The officer wrongfully shot the man because he had a lack of training in how to deal
with a person suffering from a mental disorder.". I changed this to "I believe the officer
wrongfully shot the man because he had a lack of training in how to deal with a person
suffering from a mental disorder and because he did not know Ellis had the disorder in
the first place. ". This was beneficial to my new argument because I did not talk about
how the officer who shot the man with PTSD before, and if he was trained properly, and
saw the marker, he might have known how to handle the situation better then to have
taken a life of a sick man.
The last revision I did for my major revision was I added a new point to benefit
my argument. Before, I hadn't thought of this point but the marker could take place of
veterans having to use both a military ID and regular ID when getting a military discount
or whatever other use they find for it. This made my argument stronger and more for
the side of my new argument.
Overall, my new argument blows my other out of the water. It is easier to follow,
and doesn't have so much unnecessary information. If I had to choose between the two
now, I would definitely pick the new stronger argument.

Controversial Bill on Drivers License Marker for Veterans

If you're a resident in New Mexico, you might have herd about a recent bill that
was passed in congress. The bill is for a new marker that will tell if a person is a
veteran, or not. This marker is an option to veterans, and is not being forced upon them
in any way. The public, and veterans are split on how they feel about the bill. People
feel that the bill could cause harassment and profiling of veterans, but I believe it will
benefit everyone more then anything. It will benefit officers by knowing if a veteran has
a medical condition like Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, or if the officer is a veteran
themselves, they will relate to the veteran more. Many veterans already have some
type of marker that identifies them as a veteran like a license plate or decal sticker on
their cars, so why not add another one to their drivers licenses?
In defense of the veterans who do find this bill offensive, the marker would cause
people to question if every veteran does have Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. This part
of having the marker was brought up to be a benefit to the public, but I do believe it
could cause veterans to think of the unpleasant memories of war if they do, in fact, have
PTSD. Luckily, majority of veterans do not in fact have the disorder. Statistics show
only 20 out of 100 veterans from Operation Iraqi Freedom have PTSD according to the
National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. (What is PTSD? par. 2)
The veterans that do have the disorder will have to be treated with extra care since
asking about the disorder does naturally bring up memories, whether you are trying to
or not, it is unenviable. That's where the person dealing with the veteran needs to be
respectful, and treat them with the proper respects because they do have a disorder
now from going to war and defending our beautiful country, and our freedom.

It is believed that veterans with PTSD are all a threat to the public because they
can have moments where they lose control and mentally are back at war. Veterans
living with PTSD suffer in many different ways. Some have night terrors, others have
extreme anxiety, or flashbacks of being in war. Some veterans are able to cope better
than others. For example, recently there was a movie released off the biography on
Chris Kyle. Chris Kyle was a war hero who defended our country for many years in
Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2003-2008. Kyle had 160 confirmed kills, which made
him a legend. In the movie named American Sniper, some light is shed on the reality of
PTSD, and shows how Kyle is changed after the war. His PTSD has specific triggers
and he becomes distant from his family. Kyle is able to cope and finds comfort in
assisting veterans who just came back from war deal with their own PTSD (American
Sniper).

Another reason the marker was suggested because it is believed it would benefit
police to know if someone it a veteran. For example, so the officer can know the
veteran has PTSD. 2010 here, in Albuquerque, New Mexico an incident took place
where officers would have benefitted from knowing the status of a veteran. The incident
occurred when Kenneth Ellis, a veteran who was diagnosed with PTSD was shot by a
police officer. He was at a gas station, and had a gun pointed to his head. Ellis was
shot when he took a step toward the officer, and had the gun pointed at himself. The
man was a harm to himself, and potentially to public. The family of the victim was
awarded 10.3 million dollars for wrongful death and punitive damages against the

responding officer(APD par. 2-5). I believe the officer wrongfully shot the man
because he had a lack of training in how to deal with a person suffering from a mental
disorder and because he did not know Ellis had the disorder in the first place. This is a
common problem we are finding in New Mexico. Our officers are wrongfully killing
people because they dont have training on dealing with mental disorders, hopefully
these markers can help with the problem.

A perk of having this marker is the recognition veterans do get for what they have
done. It was said that a benefit of the bill is that many police officers are veterans
themselves so they will relate to veterans. Personally, I have seen it many times where
my father will get out of a ticket because he is a veteran. Now my father does not have
and type of marker on his license, but I believe it would benefit him. Any time a person
has to show their license and they have the veteran maker they can get discounts, and
use the perks of being a veteran. You might ask yourself, well isn't that what a military
ID is for? Well yes, but when you are retired you might have an expired ID or not have
replaced it any time recently so that marker cuts out the need to always have your
military ID on you as well as your license. That alone should make it worth having the
marker on drivers licenses.

In conclusion, the bill that has been passed is meant to benefit everyone
involved. The bill can help officers to better deal with mentally ill people. It can also
help officers recognize that a person is a veteran so they can better relate to them, and

understand what they're going through. It potentially cause veterans to be profiled as all
having posttraumatic stress disorder, but the likeliness of them actually having it is very
low. In this situation I believe the benefits are definitely greater than the possible costs.
Veterans have done so much for this country already, and deserve to be repaid for all
they have done for the United States.

Works Cited
Abdollah, Tami, and Sam Hananel. "Supreme Court Weighs Rights of the Mentally Ill, Disabled
in
Confrontations with Police." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 21 Mar. 2015.
Web.
02 Apr. 2015.
American Sniper. Dir. Clint Eastwood. Prod. Peter Morgan et al. Malpaso Productions, 2015.
Film
"APD Under Fire Incident Summaries | Albuquerque Journal News." APD Under Fire
Incident Summaries | Albuquerque Journal News. Albuquerque Journal, 13 Jan. 2010. Web. 02
Apr. 2015..
PTSD: National Center for PTSD." What Is PTSD? -. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 17"
.Jan. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2015