Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
What can only be described as an homage to Winston Boogie Smith Jr. troubled this solidly left-of-center liberal ("A death Winston Smith saw coming," June 5). I fully recognize that racially biased killings by law enforcement have occurred multiple times in the Black community and should be brought to light. Was Winston Smith one of them, and was a public special honor of his life in this newspaper warranted?
It's been said that "our lives are the sum total of the choices we have made." Smith was his own worst enemy. According to the article, he chose to commit a "long string of misdemeanors." Next, he chose to commit a felony, aggravated robbery. He received a four-year prison sentence, but the judge gave him the gift of reducing his sentence to three years' probation. Smith chose to squander that gift. He chose not to show up for a subsequent 30-day workhouse sentence. He chose to post death threats on social media, encouraging others to "kill them dirty ass cops." He chose to possess a handgun even though it is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. When police tried to arrest Smith for gun possession, he chose to flee and led police on a high-speed chase. He chose not to appear for sentencing for his gun possession conviction. On the day of his death, perhaps his worst choice was not to follow law enforcement commands to exit his car, choosing to brandish his gun instead.
On the day Smith died, law enforcement encountered a felon who had a history of making death threats against cops, fleeing police, failing to comply with court orders and was known to possess a gun. In light of all that, who could argue that the show of force by law enforcement that day was unjustified? Smith's choices had proved time and again that he was a danger to himself and a threat to others. It was time to get him safely off the streets, but unfortunately, a long string of bad choices led to his inevitable death instead.
Steve Millikan, Minneapolis
GUN VIOLENCE
That essay didn't matter. Here's what really does.
The whole nation now has gun violence on its mind. A good first step. What took you so long? The long gun-violence commentary by David Banks, however — "No stranger to guns, just not good with them," June 5 — ignores the 800-pound beast in the room: assault rifles and their kind. He trivializes it by talking about how as a kid he had a fake military-style rifle.
Sadly, that's the central issue, along with handguns that can carry a dozen or more cop-killing bullets. I say this having been a Star Tribune crime and courts reporter for most of my 27 years at the newspaper. Here's a statistic I'd like to see reported: How many times has an assault rifle successfully stopped a break-in or a violent assault?
There's an old but true saw in newsroom culture: Follow the money. That applies to this gun-violence debate. How many politicians are willing to ignore or deflect the assault rifle-large handgun bullet magazine issue because they are more self-servants than public servants? And how long are we going to let politicians of all parties get money for campaigns without knowing who is buying them? And who is making the money from giving America the guns to create a crisis? Inquiring minds want to know.
Paul Gustafson, Minneapolis
•••
Thursday's testimony from Officer Caroline Edwards of the U.S. Capitol Police during the hearing investigating the attack of Jan. 6, 2021, was compelling and powerful. Some have made the point contrasting the performance of the Capitol police to that of the police officers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. It's a fair point, and like many people I'm truly disappointed by police in Uvalde. But I can't help wondering what would have happened if the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers had shown up at the Capitol with AR-15s. The horror of that day would have been immeasurably worse. Who's to prevent them from coming fully armed next time?
Denise Eng, St. Louis Park
TWIN METALS PROPOSAL
Beyond talking points on mining near the BWCA
As the former chief of the U.S. Forest Service who initially declined to renew Twin Metals leases at the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area due to the risk posed to this irreplaceable wilderness, I read with interest Julie Padilla's June 5 editorial counterpoint "A few more facts for the mining debate." Her claim that "the Twin Metals project will not negatively impact the BWCA. It cannot by law, and it will not by design" caught my attention because it is the kind of pablum mining companies always say, and they always fail to deliver.
Here is a troubling fact for Twin Metals: A 2012 review of water-quality impacts from 14 operating U.S. sulfide-ore copper mines found that 100% of the mines experienced pipeline spills or accidental releases and 13 out of 14 mines experienced failures to control contaminated mine seepage, leading to harmful water-quality impacts. Despite assurances to the contrary.
In a 2019 update to the report, records reflecting the performances of 15 U.S. copper mines were examined, and it found that 14 of the top 15 copper mines (93%) failed to capture and control wastewater, resulting in significant water-quality impacts. Recently, a report of five hardrock mines in Alaska, some identified as "model" mines by Twin Metals, documented 8,150 spills from 1995 to 2020.
This is the challenge with mining. Even with the best of designs and best efforts, spills and leaks happen. Mining occurs in the natural environment, not in a controlled factory. The Boundary Waters is too important to risk.
Tom Tidwell, McCall, Idaho
•••
I am a registered professional geophysicist. Since 2009 I have been reviewing the potential for mine proposals within the Duluth Complex to produce pollution, including but not only acid mine drainage (AMD). Contrary to recent talking points from Padilla, a Twin Metals mining company executive, the Duluth Complex contains disseminated metal sulfides proven to generate acid. If built, Twin Metals has the potential to generate AMD.
The risks have been well-known for decades, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota's state agencies and by mining companies. AMD is still occurring at the nearby and now-closed Dunka mine, where millions of tons of Duluth Complex rock were blasted and stockpiled and have been leaching AMD since at least the early 1970s. Despite steps taken to neutralize the acid, the Dunka mine drainage still carries sulfate and dissolved metals at concentrations hundreds of times higher than background levels for northeastern Minnesota.
Water contamination from mining wastes can still be an unanticipated problem, despite all the planning involved, money spent and good intentions. There is no 100% guarantee that AMD won't cause off-site contamination.
The Twin Metals deposits contain sulfides at higher concentrations than other Duluth Complex deposits and could be expected to produce the same contaminants at higher rates and concentrations, in mine drainage more likely to be acidic. Suggestions that we can guarantee the prevention of AMD do not represent the risks of AMD, and the caution that is needed to protect the Boundary Waters watershed.
David M. Chambers, Bozeman, Mont.
