I've read and reread the March 12 commentary "To whom it should concern," about the shootings going on in north Minneapolis. I have been through the article three times, actually, thinking that perhaps I missed something. But I didn't; what I was hoping would be there wasn't.
The chronology of shootings and murders reported by the writer, Mickey Cook, was disheartening, to say the least, and tragic for sure. And at the end, she states: "So these broken-record responses aren't getting the job done. We need more than coddling and political correctness from our local government. We need consistent and firm resolve. People are dying, our neighborhood is still in dire need of help, and your feigned concern is simply not enough."
Here's where I was expecting her definition of "dire need of help." What did she think should be done? What would she lay out that would constitute "more than coddling and political correctness"? But, nothing. No definition of the problem, no underlying considerations, no thoughts on changing this or that, no "here are some steps to take."
Nothing. It seems like this would have been the perfect time to advocate for help, from the writer's perspective. And a writer with credibility — someone who lives in the neighborhood, who has been a homeowner for nearly 10 years, is a community activist in north Minneapolis, and has a front-page Opinion Exchange forum. A missed opportunity for sure.
C.T. Killian, St. Paul
• • •
I had these takeaways from Cook's interesting commentary:
There were 17 shooting incidents referenced in the contribution. (1) I did not see in any of them any involvement of police shooting blacks. (2) The incidents seemed to be based upon gang-related conflicts. (3) Many of the people were unintended victims caught in crossfire. (4) Most of the victims of the crossfires were women or children. (5) I only read of one husband/father involved, and, again, it was a gang-initiated shooting. (6) Most important, to me at least, the writer appealed to the members of the Fourth Precinct community to own up to those who were involved.
My questions from this are: (1) Why were the parents involved in all but one of these shootings women/mothers/a grandmother? (2) Why were the survivors listed just children, not husbands/fathers? (3) What are the reasons community members do not engage the police in these shootings? Is it because of fear and distrust of the police? Is it because of fear of reprisals from the perpetrators? (4) Are these gangs white extremists from other parts of the city intent on exterminating blacks? (5) Since the responses from outside the community have not been satisfactory to the writer, what exactly is he/she asking for? It appears that someone is desiring to talk about the elephant in the room. It is interesting that most of these incidents occurred during the administration of a Democratic, minority president, a Democratic governor and a Democratic-majority state Legislature. Perhaps politics and social legislation do not provide the answers to the issues.