Here is the typical scenario. Something happens that brings together a group of Minneapolis or other Twin Cities metro area police officers, and a person of color, probably a male of a certain age.

There is a certain chance the man has in fact done something to attract legitimate attention of the police, but maybe he hasn’t. Either way, he now has the attention of the police. This is scary for many police officers who happen to have a racist streak, because black people of all sorts are scary to many white people. Add to that the fear that naturally comes along with being a police officer, etc. etc., and you end up with the cops shooting the black person. It is even scarier for the person of color because he or she is now confronting a real chance of violence, injury, or death.

This is not good set of circumstances for a rational and productive conversation.

There are usually two other elements. One is the idea that the black person has a gun, or that it looks like the black person has a gun, or in some cases, the black person is “acting in a way consistent with having a gun,” a formulation recently seen in the media that would totally make me laugh if it wasn’t so utterly un-funny.

The other element is a video, either taken by a passer by, or a dash cam or cop cam video.

And, in the cases of these meet ups that we usually hear about, the cops end up shooting the citizen. Usually killing the citizen.

Now we come to the political elements.

First, acknowledge that a black person shooting at the cops with a gun is liable to get shot to death. But, a black person with a gun in his or her possession is likely not violating any laws. Minnesota is a conceal and carry state, and as a country, we are gun happy and love guns and everybody could have a gun, nearly. So putting the gun in the hands of a black person does not justify their death on the street. Keep that in mind.

When we have a police shooting in the news, there will be all sorts of information, often contradictory (and thus not that reliable) about what happened. Pretty quickly, the prospect of a video of some kind comes into play. Investigators justifiably want to keep the video under wraps for a period of time in order to not influence witnesses. Community members, the family of the slain, and others, justifiably want the video released. But, the people who have the video, such as the State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension or a County Prosecutor or similar, get to choose when to release it.

I strongly suspect that the cops and prosecutors hang on to the video longer than the absolutely need to. A little bit of that extra time may be in an abundance of caution. But I suspect that most of that extra time is some sort of power play, and is inappropriate.

The mayor of the city in which this happens is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The mayor likely wants to please the citizens by releasing the video sooner than the cops do. But the prosecutors make the point that if it is released too soon, and this ruins the case, then the mayor would be responsible. And so on. So, the mayor tries to put the issue off, making the claim that we simply have to do what the police do, and not interfere with the investigation.

You know the drill. We see it every week or so somewhere in the US. The Twin Cities Metro has this happen every few months, it seems. It is happening right now, as I write this.

Which brings us to three elected individuals, what is happening to them, and what I opine about it.

Mike Freeman is the Hennepin County Attorney, and thus, responsible for making many of these decisions about what to do. He just now decided to not prosecute the police after a recent police killing. There was a video, there was a gun, the community is angry,etc. There is a good case to be made (though I’m not saying this is what happened) that at the moment the cops emptied their guns into this particular black man, they were justified, because maybe he had this gun pointing them. But there is also a good case, it appears, to be made that the entire incident was botches by the cops, and that the police essentially goaded this man, who was clearly having some problems of his own, into this confrontation.

Mike Freeman has been County Attorney for a long time. (Full disclosure, I’ve known him as a politician, and was a member of a group he represented in private practice.) I am not entirely sure what happened at this year’s County nominating convention, but Freeman did not get the endorsement of the Democratic Party, as one might normally expect. Another guy got that endorsement (though Freeman is still running in the primary). I strongly suspect this pushing off of the established candidate was because of a general feeling among the population that we’ve had enough. I don’t know if giving the endorsement to the other guy was definitely that, or if it was the right reaction. But I suspect the idea that black lives need to matter more was behind this fairly stunning political shift.

Betsy Hodges was the Mayor of Minneapolis. She lasted one term, then got replaced with a new guy. A major contributing reason for this was almost certainly because of a string of events in the city where black lives were being shown to not matter, and with Hodges not jumping in on the side of the community. She said good tings, but when push came to shove, she did not march into the police chief’s office, grab the video off her desk, and give it to the press.

Now, with this latest shooting, we see the new mayor, Jacob Frey, under the political gun. I don’t have an opinion on Frey. But I do see him doing some of the things Hodges did. He is, I suspect, being cowed by the police establishment. He is not coming down hard on the side of the community. He will not last as mayor if this happens one or two more times this term. And yes, it is unfortunately likely that the opportunity for Mayor Frey to tell the Minneapolis cops to shove it will arise two or three times in the upcoming term. I hope he does. But I expect him to not.

Hodges did stand up to the police union, but she did not stand up to the prosecutors. She should have risked the case being damaged, if necessary, to get at least one of the videos related to a shooting while she was mayor out to the public. If the public, the community under threat here, is actually making a mistake by demanding early release of videos, then so be it. Let’s find out if releasing a video two days after the event really does mess up the case. Personally, I doubt it would. But even if it does, we know broadly that the problem here is deep, wide, and systemic. What happens to a cop in a given shooting, with respect to the criminal justice system, is actually not as important as forcing overall, deep, systemic change in how the system works.

Hodges, down. Freeman, threatened. Frey … figure it out.

The answer that comes from the anti-safeguard lobby, those who mainly want guns to be unregulated with respect to ownership, safety, use, or disposition, is that such laws would not have stopped the tragedy that prompted the conversation.

They may be right (but see below). But they have missed the point. The problem is, the people who suddenly want to do something about senseless gun deaths have also missed the point.

About 33,000 times a year, in the United States, a bullet fires out of a gun, penetrates a human, and kills them. The number of times that a bullet leaves the gun and penetrates a human and only wounds them is considerable.

Since the difference between being dead and being alive is mostly random (with respect to the variables at the scene) and partly a function of the excellence, and presence or absence of, trauma specialists, it is worth noting that about 50,000 times a person is shot in some manner in the United States. But when working with gun relates statistics, we tend to focus on death, because in most cases, as tragic and horrific as a death may be, it will usually have one good feature: The data point representing it is well behaved. An embarrassing accidental discharge of a firearm resulting in a minor injury is unlikely to be reported at all. But when you are showing off with your Glock and a bullet is fired through the wall of your apartment and the toddler next door is blow away, that data point is going to exist and it will be carefully examined, verified, reported, and curated.

Of the ~33,000 killed each year, only a tiny percentage (but see below) of those individuals are killed in any kind of mass shooting, including school shootings.

In other words, the sad and macabre fact is that if we were given the choice of eliminating school shootings as they currently happen, vs. all the other shootings, we would be foolish to pick ending just the school shootings. We would be better off with the Watership Down alternative. Stop the carnage overall, but pay the price of a few of our children for that freedom from violence.

But you might be thinking, “Those 33,000, they were criminals shot by good cops, and gang member shooting each other, so who cares?”

Stop thinking that.

The statistics on gun violence are hard to get a handle on for several reasons, but what I’m going to tell you here is close to the actual reality and verifiable. I’ve included some sources below. These numbers are based on estimates from the last few years of available data.

Over the last five or six years, 33,000 people in the US died of a gunshot per year. Most of them, ~21,000, killed themselves intentionally (suicide). Of the rest, about one tenth of a percent were cops killed by gunfire in the line of duty (most cops who die in the line of duty are killed accidentally in car accidents, etc.). About 2% were citizens killed by cops. About 24% were murdered in the usual ways.

The number of times per year a person dies because of a simple accident, like the gun goes off while being cleaned, or in a hunting accident, is probably just over 300 (a little less than once per day). The number of people killed each year, on average, in a mass shooting roughly similar. This is about three quarters of one percent of the total gun carnage.

If we wanted to reduce the gun carnage as quickly and efficiently as possible, we might do things that reduce the largest of these numbers: suicide. We immediately realize that this is a mental health issue, and by the way, mass shootings may often be a mental health issue as well. Heck, considering that homicide is often an extension of day to day interpersonal violence which can go even worse, maybe a lot of those 11,000 shootings are also mental health issues. Putting it another way, if we could wave a magic wand and make all the mental health issues go away, assuming most suicides are in this category, then the number of dead per year would drop to a few thousand instead of a few tens of thousands. That would be great. So lets do that.

But while we are busy shoring up our approach to mental health, lets look at other ways to address the gun carnage.

Let’s start with the largest number, suicide.

When I bring up reducing gun carnage by addressing suicide, I often get push back from poorly informed libertarian-thinking people who are angered that I would want to take this basic right away from people. If someone wants to kill themselves, they should be able do to it. What about someone with a terrible, painful, disease who just wants to end it? What kind of monster am I to deny them of this right?

The other push-back is this: If someone wants to commit suicide, and you “take away the guns,” they will still kill themselves.

Let me tell you right now, that most of the time, when you hear either of these arguments, you are hearing from someone who, because they’ve had this conversation with people like me before, knows they are lying. They are simply trying to seed doubt, to dampen the anti-gun argument, because they are anti-protection. For all I know, they may even like the carnage. Certainly, they are willing to ignore basic facts in order to not have to be restricted in any way in the pursuit of their dangerous hobby (or business, in the case of those who trade in these weapons of death and mayhem).

Many people who attempt suicide are young and very few are sick and in pain. A large percentage of those who attempt suicide with something other than a firearm fail. Most who attempt suicide with a gun manage to kill themselves. Most people who attempt suicide and fail then get mental health care and they do not ever end up killing themselves. Across all age groups, 90% of those who make an attempt of suicide and survive never end up committing suicide. A large percentage of suicides are impulsive. It is estimated that 71% of the time, the suicide is decide on in less than one hour before the act.

OK, now, I’m going to take a break and go unload the dishwasher or something while you put those facts together and see what you come up with.

… tick … tick … tick … tick …

A partial but important solution to reduce the gun carnage is to first reduce the number of available guns, but also, to firmly secure the guns that to exist. Lock them up, and lock up the ammo in a separate place, and make the use of a gun for anything something that requires more thought, and not something that can be easily done by a non gun owner by simply grabbing an available firearm from Dad’s dresser drawer or a neighbor’s coffee table hidy-hole.

In the US, in the majority of households that have both children and guns in them, the guns are not stored safely away, and are often loaded and unlocked. A minority of US gun owners with children in their homes store the ammo separately and keep it all locked up.

May people who kill themselves with guns decide at the last minute to do so, and their access to the guns is unfettered. Often, this is a young person living in a household where an adult has a loaded firearm readily available, “just in case.”

The reason to have a firearm readily available and loaded is this: If someone comes into your house that you did not invite, you get your chance to shoot them to death. Yay. But what happens far more often is that your child or some neighbor or some other person in your household decides to kill themselves, and they use your gun to do it. Or your teenager offspring sneaked out of the house to party and is sneaking back in through the bathroom window, so you wake up, groggily grab your gun, and start shooting. Or as happened a while back to my neighbor: you are a recluse living in what the neighborhood kids mistake for an abandoned house, one of the kids sneaks into the house on a dare, and you grab your gun off the nightstand and blow him away.

What needs to happen instead is that it is required by law that you not be a knucklehead. You should be required by law to keep your gun unloaded and locked up, and the ammo also locked up at a different location. You, yourself, since you have the key or combination and know where everything is, can easily put it all together and eat a bullet any time you want to, so don’t worry about that right being taken away from you. But hopefully the extra work you need to go through to do so will allow your forebrain to catch up to your limbic system and call off your own suicide. More importantly, your hobby as a gun owner will not as easily allow someone else to use your gun to die or to kill. The total number of suicide deaths would go down dramatically, and we will have tackled the largest number among those cited above.

The next biggest group of gun deaths is homicide. Having guns more secured would probably reduce this as well. Just as suicide can be impulsive, and thus, aided by having loaded guns laying around, some homicides are impulsive as well.

A fair number of homicides involve violent criminals shooting at each other and killing either the other bad guy, a cop, or an innocent bystander. Some, perhaps many, of those guns are stolen. They are stolen from gun owners who did not secure their guns. You might say, “a determined criminal can yada yada yada… so it does not matter.” But you are wrong. Properly secured houses are burglarized far less often than improperly secured houses. Properly secured and hidden items in the house are stolen less than items left around in obvious places. When a criminal breaks into any home, one of the first places they check for stuff are the obvious places people are known to keep their loaded guns. The criminal wants to take that gun right away in case the home owner shows up, and because it has real value as a stolen item.

So, once again, properly locked up deadly weapons would reduce those numbers. I’ll even suggest this: Of those 300 or so accidental discharges per year (some of which result in death), a good number are little kids finding your boy-toy (gun) and pulling the trigger. That can’t happen with properly secured firearms.

“But it is not enforceable” you lament. “You are legislating what people do in their own homes and you can’t enforce it anyway” you cry out from your Libertarian perch!

Bull. First, any time there is a criminal act involving a gun, it is possible (not always, but often) to trace back the source to see if that was ever a properly secured gun. Every time there is a suicide there is an investigation. Frequently, it will be possible to determine if the gun was improperly stored. A set of widely known best practices with an accompanying law can and will be enforced sufficiently that there will be deterrence against sloppy gun storage.

Second, having a law and accompanying training, information, learning, and a general cultural shift towards being smart rather than stupid about something, does and can work even without a lot of enforcement. When seat belts were first deployed by regulation, a lot of people balked at the idea. They didn’t want the restrictions, the wrinkles, the trouble. Two things happened early on in the history of seat belt adoption. First, there were many apocryphal scare stories about how if you wear a seat belt in certain kinds of accidents, you would actually die instead of live. Second, they started making cars that automatically put your seat belt on for you (remember those?). Tensions rose.

But then a third thing happened. Laws requiring the use of seat belts started to spread. Once there is a law about something, that aspect of an event (an accident or a crime) is automatically addressed by investigators. It became routine for the seat belt wearing status of an accident victim to be reported. Then the news started to regularly report whenever a fatal accident happened and the person was not wearing their seat belt. Over time, the reporting seemed to indicate that mainly reckless youth and drunk-out-of-their-mind drivers were the ones not wearing their seat belts, and thus dying. In other words, foolish people were making foolish decisions and suffering the ultimate consequence, in such a way that all can see and all can learn and all can quietly eschew that behavior. Seat belt compliance continues to rise, and many lives are saved.

That is what we need with guns. We need a decade of reporting on how Uncle Joe effectively killed his niece by having a loaded gun around that she used to kill herself at the age of 14, and how he got fined or jailed for his role in her death and, worst of all, had his permit to own a gun revoked. We need a decade of reporting about how this or that wanton criminal was convicted of homicide, but that the owner of the stolen gun he had used had never secured that gun, so it was easily taken from his home by a burglar, and the original gun owner was held partly liable for that act, and fined and his gun rights taken away. We need a decade of stories distributed by suicide prevention groups about all the kids who lived because Dad and Mom had their weapons secured. All that.

So again, regulations requiring proper storage of firearms and ammo will reduce a good portion of the next largest parts of the gun carnage.

The cops kill nearly a thousand people a year. Why? In part because there are so many guns out there that the cops are constantly on edge. In the old days, it was rare for a cop to pull their gun. Now, they have their guns out frequently. In fact, when a cop walks over to pretty much anybody these days, they have their hand on the gun so they can pull it out instantly if needed. The other day, a community resource cop, a cop who’s job it is to sit with kids and read them stories and talk about safety and stuff, felt the need to be heavily armed in the classroom, with a gun designed to be discharged instantly (no safety) just in case. When a kid grabbed that gun and fired it in the classroom, it made me wonder if something was wrong with our system…

The point is, if guns were routinely secured, and their sales better regulated, and yes, this would take a few decades but this will matter to future generations, there would be fewer illegal guns in circulation, and fewer legal guns in criminal hands, and that would cause a down-cycling of how many people carry guns around out of fear, and that would make it less likely for those 50 cops that get murdered by gun a year to be killed, and then maybe the cops would not shoot 1000 people a year.

Which brings us to the mass shootings. The mass shootings, including the ones in school, happen (apart from previously discussed mental health issues) because we have a culture in which we eschew any regulation on guns. Anybody who wants to be a school shooter can easily get the guns, partly because there are so many, partly because we don’t regulate guns very effectively. We have no problem as a society allowing people to own thousands of rounds of ammo and dozens of assault style weapons.

Also, our gun culture stops us from asking important questions or taking important actions at key moments. The most recent mass school shooting, one of the worst ever, was apparently carried out by a guy who was known to be a gun nut, known to be threatening others, known to be hanging around the school he did not attend in a threatening manner.

Why did no one bother to check out this situation, to discover his gun cache, to stop him before he killed all those children? I do not know, but I’ll toss out a guess for you to consider. Our pro-gun culture, especially in rabidly pro-gun states like Florida, where any person can murder any unarmed person if they “feel threatened,” fetishizes the gun and all the freedom it implies to a greater degree than fear of the gun and all the killing it can do imbues caution in our actions. Maybe nobody wanted to look like they were anti-gun.

So, sensible regulation of gun sales, ownership, and storage will probably reduce the number and severity of school shootings from several different angles, including changing the culture of expectations surrounding the gun fetish, and including access to massive arsenals.

The final remaining argument against my position that guns need to be responsibly sold and owned, is this: If someone invades my home, I want my gun loaded, freely available, and by my side right along with my freedom!!!

That might sound to some like a reasonable statement, but in fact, it is ignorant yammering.

I know that the person who truly believes this now, in 2018, is a nonredeemable gun nut so I don’t mind offending you. Such individuals need to be forced to do the right thing and jailed when they fail. But for those watching form the sidelines, it is a bogus argument. Having guns readily available for self defense in the home rarely works as a self defense strategy, but often leads to wounding or killing of household members, in the case where the gun is actually deployed as a killing machine. Often that is totally separate from the context of a home invasion. But even when there is a home invasion, the chances of the gun owner or a family member being killed or injured might actually be higher than the chance of the invasion being thwarted or the invader killed or wounded. The statistics are hard to analyze here, but at the very least, the chances are very close or overlapping.

But that is not the main point I want to make. The point is that playing fast and loose with guns is immoral and bone-headed. It is how we kill our children, not how we protect them. You think you are protecting your home and family, but actually, you are endangering them AND you are endangering everyone else.

But you can still have your cake and eat it too, if you must. In order to address home invasions in a way that also allows you to play with your big gun, simply follow these two procedures.

1) Lock the damn guns and ammo up.

2) Secure your home with an alarm system that will warn you that someone is breaking in. It need not be a fancy expensive system. Anything that makes lights go on and noises happen when someone is trying to get in. Also, do the other things you can do to reduce the chance of a robbery to being with. You can find out what those are from your local police department, or google it. Yes, “a determined thief will break in anyway yada yada yada” but the truth is that if you are the low hanging fruit, you are asking for it, and if you make it hard, you will be better off. You have to be an idiot to allow someone unfettered access to your home in such a way that your only recourse is to reach over to your night stand, grab your gun, and start shooting.

Or, perhaps you are not an idiot. Perhaps you are just waiting for a chance to kill someone, so you arm yourself and make it easy for someone to break into your house. Leave around clues that you have great prescription drugs ready to steal. Then lay in wait. There is that, and perhaps some version of it is not terribly uncommon. People who think that way …

But wait, now were are back to the mental heath fix, so we’ve got that covered as well.

One more thing, something I hinted at above, and if you’ve gotten this far into my rant, you get to hear all about it. School shootings are small part of the overall gun carnage. And, mass shootings in general may be the most difficult of all the gun related violence to actually address with laws, regulations, and tactical responses. Since gun death is large (33,000 a years) and mass shootings in schools is small (a couple of hundred a year) then the school shootings may seem unimportant in the long run, even if they are very shocking when they happen.

So, since that idea is totally wrong and misguided, I want to propose a thought experiment. Suppose we lived in a society with very few guns, and not much gun violence overall. In this imaginary place, we’ll call it Nacirema in honor of the Anthropologists who are known to have worked there and the Naciremas who live there, mental health care is widespread and effective, and many of the problems that cause mental health problems, whatever they may be, have been addressed by ensuring a healthy and fair economy for all, great health care and nutrition, effective early childhood care, and all of it. It is rare for someone to die because of a gun shot.

Then, suddenly, there is a mass shooting at a school. Then another. And then more. After a few years, we realize that a few hundred children are being killed each year, but never before did this happen.

Pause for a moment and substitute my thought experiment with the alternative thought experiment of your choice. Every year, we learn, 300 Nacirema children are killed in exploding school buses. Or, High School football stadiums built by a particular contractor start to collapse, killing dozens of student at a time to add up to 300 a year. Or a mad poisoner is operating in the school cafeteria to the tune of 300 deaths a year.

This should be obvious but in case it is not: a few hundred victims per year of mass shootings, many in schools, is not made less horrific or smaller because others happen to die at the muzzle of a gun.

Selected resources and other posts:

The Truth about Suicide and Guns

CDC on Homicide Data (various links, start here)

CDC on Suicide Data (various links, start here)

Guns and Suicide

Gun violence by the numbers

How much like Byron Smith is the average gun owner?

Various WaPo pages on number of people shot dead by cops.

US police shootings: How many die each year?

Causes of Law Enforcement Deaths

A selection of my posts on gun violence and related topics (This blog has recently been re-worked, so only those posts I’ve gotten around to re-tagging are on this list. Use the search bar at the top of the page to find more.)

Later that day, a Saint Anthony Village police officer pulled Castile over for a broken tail light, and then, at the first opportunity, fired several bullets into his arm and torso. A few moments later, Castile fell into unconsciousness, apparently dead. The police then apprehended Castile’s companion, who was in the passenger seat, and, treating her like a criminal, handcuffed her and stuffed her in the back of a police car. Later, it was confirmed that Castile was killed.

I would give you a trigger warning for the following video, but I don’t care if it triggers you. I want it to trigger you. You and everybody else needs to see this.

I used to live a block from this incident. It is a city called Falcon Heights, which is the location of the inaptly named “Saint Paul Campus” of the University of Minnesota, and also the home of the Great Minnesota Get-together, the Minnesota State Fair. In fact, the intersection at which this killing occurred is at the north entrance of the fairgrounds. This makes me think that it would be a good idea to put a monument there, a monument to how dangerous the police can be, for all the fairgoers to take note of when they go to the fair, from now on.

Back in the old days, a few years ago and on back, when I lived walking distance to the fair and the site of this shooting, the police would be at this intersection in numbers, helping people cross the street, controlling traffic, keeping people safe, during the State Fair. Then, one year, there was a bogus terroristic threat against the fair, so the police apparently redistributed themselves and stopped protecting people at that intersection. Or, perhaps they changed their policy for some other reason. Crossing the street, pulling your car out, etc. was then a matter of every person to themselves. (There were always a few cops standing around watching the chaos, but not helping.) Now, that intersection is added to the ever growing list of American Police killing grounds. Yes, a monument, at this intersection, to remind the people and whatever police might remain controlling traffic during the two week long fair event would be appropriate.

A couple of blocks from this intersection are two or three blocks or corners that are in Saint Paul and that have a bad reputation for crime. As I noted, I used to live there, and after I was no longer living there, my daughter lived there part time for several years. This is the school district she went to. I also worked on that campus for two years. I know the area, and the neighborhoods.

The exact location of the shooting, and to the west and north, is a palatial residential community with small single family houses, and a few bunches of condos and apartment buildings, mainly down the street from where this killing happened. I should mention that Falcon Heights, as well as nearby Lauderdale, and Saint Anthony Village, are all patrolled by a sort of amalgamated police department. These various cities (which adjoin the well known Roseville, MN) share various such services, including police fire, etc. and tend to be umbilically connected to Saint Paul, where the major utilities come from.

The immediate neighborhood is occupied by many people who are connected with the University, a fair number of retired people, some students. Most are white, but there is a strong Asian presence, because this is one of the main neighborhoods into which the Hmong immigrated back in the day. Also, many apartment dwellers in the area are from countries all around the world, because the are connected to a major university. My daughter’s grade school, another block north of the shooting beyond where we lived, is famously international. Each year they hang flags representing all of the countries from which the students come, and there would always be dozens of them.

So that’s the basic cultural context. A neighborhood where bad things don’t happen, filled with people who probably carry out their share of white collar crime (or who are academics, and thus have other problems) but otherwise pretty quiet. Nearby are the scary neighborhoods, the neighborhoods that are actually pretty typical urban zones, with varying degrees of charm, development, decay, all that. Nothing exceptional. But I have the sense that the people of Falcon Heights, Saint Anthony, Lauderdale, and this part of Roseville, a generally liberal and highly educated enclave, collectively identify, label, and talk about those other neighborhoods, which are blacker, crimier, scarier, bits of the “Inner City” (a term disdained by Twin City dwellers, just so you know) creeping out into the “better neighborhoods.”

The victim, of course, was a school employee and citizen of good standing who didn’t live in any of those nearby scary neighborhoods, and was not part of an inner city creeping, even if such a characterization was valid (which it only barely is). But he and the others in the car were black, and they were driving down a street where the city police probably feel a duty to keep the Inner City away, keep the blackness away. One good way to do that is to encourage black people to avoid driving down that particular street, a major local thoroughfare, and instead, stay south and in the city. Let Saint Paul take care of its own problems. Don’t be driving through our quiet neighborhood. How do you do that? Pull over black people with broken tail lights, obviously. Then shake them down. Make them regret driving down that particular street.

People who live in the area know that this is a zone where the cops pull people over all the time. For years I drove down that street twice a day or more, and very often saw people pulled over. The cops even have a trick with traffic speed postings, changing abruptly between 30 mph and 40 mph in a couple of places, allowing them to stop “speeders” more easily. I regard this traffic stop as part of that process, of the police policing the blackness impinging on a neighborhood of special snowflakes.

It is rather shocking that a murder of a citizen by a cop on this street did not happen sooner.

Here is a piece by Shawn Otto that you should have a look at.

This also: