The topic of "legitimate political discourse" is a ruse meant to change the subject from criminal activity ("GOP calls Jan. 6 insurrection 'legitimate political discourse,'" front page, Feb. 5). I am sure there were many people in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, whose views I disagree with but who were peacefully showing their flags and signs in protest. Neither the Department of Justice nor the Jan. 6 Committee is going after those people, so the Republican National Committee statement is an intentional ruse.
What we are finding is that many people broke the law and illegally entered and vandalized the Capitol building. They also terrorized elected politicians and their staff members. We are also finding there was an organized, corrupt attempt to overthrow a legitimate election ("The ignoble censure of Cheney, Kinzinger," editorial, Feb. 9).
The RNC is trying to protect criminals by grouping them with peaceful protesters who never entered the Capitol and had nothing to do with planning a coup. Democrats are not letting them get away with it, and neither should the American people. I would hope most Republicans are confident enough in their own values to try to win these elections fairly.
Joe Fraser, Minnetonka
•••
Saying the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was "legitimate political discourse" is like saying looting is a legitimate shopping strategy. Who are you playing for fools, RNC?
Becci Dawson Cox, Stillwater
•••
If the GOP labels the Jan. 6 insurrection "legitimate political discourse," it will be interesting to hear how it intends to retrain debate teachers to teach their classes.
Andrea Nelson, Mound
•••
The RNC officially declared that the party would cease all support of Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for their participation in the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol a year ago. The declaration condemns "their behavior, which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House ... and our republic ... ."
So, the Republican representatives examining the causes of the assault are to be censured, while the Republican president whose exhortation ("[I]f you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore") was unquestionably one of those causes is still a leading light of the party. This action by the RNC serves as proof that the GOP has successfully transformed from a political party to a cult.
Roger B. Day, Duluth
PRESS FREEDOM
A settlement for what now?
It seems that every day I read headlines about some autocratic regime jailing journalists for exposing the truth, with the numbers rising every year. Then I read this headline in the Feb. 9 Star Tribune: "Settlement bars State Patrol from attacking, arresting journalists." Wait — what? Let's do a quick rewrite: "Settlement bars State Patrol from violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." Do we really need a legal settlement to prevent the kinds of police actions used in Myanmar? Apparently so. We seem so focused on Second Amendment rights for gun owners that we are neglecting an inalienable right that affects everyone. How did we get here, and how do we get off this horribly slippery slope?
Eric Weinberg, Mora, Minn.
AMIR LOCKE SHOOTING
Justice system played an early role
I'm trying to understand why Hennepin County District Judge Shereen Askalani would allow Mekhi C. Speed out on the street after he shot a teenager at a Brooklyn Park gas station in September 2020.
The original sentence was three years in prison. Judge Askalani — a former Gov. Mark Dayton appointee — decided to stay the sentence and placed him on extended juvenile jurisdiction. He was later put under the supervision of his mother.
If the judge had followed through on the three-year sentence, Amir Locke would be alive. Otis R. Elder, whom Speed has been charged with killing, would be alive. The police, Mayor Jacob Frey and the City Council would not have been put in this position.
These lenient sentences by progressive judges and district attorneys across the country are costing lives.
Jim Piaggi, Minneapolis
•••
In the wake of yet another death at the hands of the Minneapolis Police Department, no-knock warrants are under scrutiny. People want to know: Was this death preceded by an appropriate heads-up by the police? What exact amount of notice is legally required before cops enter a home very early and fatally shoot someone?
These are the wrong questions.
What we know is this: Locke is dead, and should not be. The police do not comply with reforms. Discipline is not meted out for most infractions. The MPD is actively hostile to change. If we allow this to keep happening, we are complicit in these deaths.
Placing another restriction that will inevitably be ignored — by a judge granting a warrant, or by officers on the job — is an empty accomplishment. It is, at this point, an insult to the memories of those we've lost and to the communities that survive in the wake of this violence.
We must hold each other to higher standards than mere legality. We must demand real change from our elected officials and from our community. We have to find a way forward that does not rely on armed agents of the state to maintain order at the cost of human lives. We need to ask better questions. How do we work toward real safety for everybody? How do we enable real accountability in the wake of harm? How do we make police obsolete?
Gus Gustafson, Minneapolis
•••
Richard Greelis' commentary "What if the police acted properly?" (Opinion Exchange, Feb. 9) highlights why I no longer trust the police. He paints a picture based on innuendo and assumes armed confrontation is the only approach appropriate to gather evidence and arrest someone. He does not address why the MPD portrayed Locke, the victim, as a suspect, besmirching his reputation and inflicting pain on his grieving family.
His commentary exposes the flawed and dangerous thinking of the MPD, implying guilt by association and that Black men should not have Second Amendment rights. What he does not question is why the MPD uses extreme force as its first course of action and puts police officers in life-threatening situations.
I don't want police officers to be killed. I also don't want the MPD to take the law into its own hands and commit killings. I know there are criminals out there who need to be arrested by police and then given their day in court to determine innocence or guilt. I would like to trust that the MPD is on the side of Minneapolis citizens and wants to help create a safe city. But I can't because of the MPD's words and actions.
Current and retired police officers need to drop their defensive stance and engage with the citizens they purport to protect to make progress toward a safer, more just city.
Judy Zaunbrecher, Minneapolis
•••
I read Greelis' commentary. I am a great believer in using common sense, because everybody has at least some of it. If you, Black or white, introduce a gun into a confrontation with the police, it is not going to end well for you. Everyone knows this.
Jim Weidner, Minneapolis
We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.
