Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Regarding "Metro Transit crime is up, but ridership is up, too" (Aug. 3): Claiming that 2,600 serious crimes on Metro Transit during the first six months of 2023 — that's more than 14 serious crimes every day — is any kind of progress isn't merely laughable spin; it's utter fantasy.

John Allison, St. Paul

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System should be amended to register all those admitted to a mental institution and not just those committed to a mental institution and thus close the so-called "voluntary admit" gun access loophole ("How guns are bought changes Tuesday," July 31).

"Committed persons" is too specific of a demographic to cover all those suffering or having suffered from dangerous mental illness.

In fact, just being admitted to a mental institution, whether voluntary or committed, does necessitate dangerous behavior and dangerous history — i.e., emergency, acute, dangerous mental illness.

Although Minnesota commitment law does include the term "danger to self or others," it also includes the concept of treatment denial in its precursors for commitment decision. In fact, direct quoting of the law shows this very clearly:

Minnesota Statutes 253B.04 Subdivision 1(c): "A person who is voluntarily participating in treatment for a mental illness is not subject to civil commitment ... ."

In my opinion, uneven distribution of civil rights restrictions, and not the severity of the restriction, is what is most unfair about Second Amendment gun rights restrictions poised to take the national scene with the likely implementation of universal background checks with NICS.

More fair would be to restrict the gun rights of all those determined dangerous enough to be admitted to a mental institution.

Minnesota should close the "voluntary admit" loophole by requiring a non-commitment (and thus, unforced treatment) court decision for all mental health hospital admits; this will get the court involved in the mental institution admit process for every patient and provide a fair and uniform legal basis for gun rights restrictions.

When a motorist is stopped by a police officer or state trooper, it can lead to a situation where the driver attempts to flee, which may have happened here ("Answers needed in Ricky Cobb's death," editorial, Aug. 4). As we all know, this can sometimes be deadly, either for that driver or the officer or for some innocent bystander. I have an idea. During each traffic stop, as part of a regular routine, what if an officer were to first grab a tire puncture strip (maybe a foot or two long) from their vehicle's trunk and place it in front of one of the front tires of the stopped vehicle? Seeing an officer do this would be a deterrent to anyone thinking they might want to attempt a getaway. And if the car should happen to take off anyway, while I know it's possible to drive with a flat tire, it's much more difficult, especially if someone is trying to weave around cars or street corners at a high speed in an attempt to flee police. They would be much easier to catch.

Willis Woyke, Columbia Heights

•••

How sad that Ricky Cobb II lost his life in the traffic stop on Interstate 94. Sad of course for Cobb and his family, but also for the three State Patrol troopers. An ordinary traffic stop turned fatal when Cobb, according to video, repeatedly failed to cooperate and then made a sudden movement that resulted in shots being fired. At the risk of being denounced for "blaming the victim," I feel compelled to state what is obvious to any fair-minded observer: Cobb would be alive and well today if he had simply complied with the officer and gotten out of his vehicle when instructed. So sad for all concerned.

Allen Desmond, Minneapolis

I was a lad of 17 who just bought my first muscle car. One night around 3 a.m. on a deserted stretch of four-lane highway, I decided it was safe to open it up. I quickly buried the speed odometer at 150 mph. Then I quickly backed off and proceed to slow down for a red light. When I stopped at the light, three state troopers boxed me in, one in front, one on my side and the other behind me. They came out of their cars with guns pulled, and I could not drive away. In the Minneapolis I-94 shooting, I saw three troopers and two squad cars. If the troopers had boxed Cobb's car in right away, it would not have been able to pull away. Question: Are today's troopers not trained this way for this situation, or did they make a mistake?

Dean Nuszloch, Utica, Minn.

I prefer not being made a fool. I recall when I was a judge trying a criminal case and the prosecuting attorney was making a ridiculous argument to me. Trying to be judge-like I listened patiently — but maybe too patiently. The defense counsel finally could no longer tolerate the silly argument, and he stood and interrupted, saying, "Judge, you are not listening to this, are you?" I was listening, of course, but like the defense counsel, I recognized nonsense for what it was. I was trying to be patient with the nonsense to allow the prosecutor to make his record. But both the prosecutor and I recognized nonsense for what it was.

In the aforementioned situation I felt that I had a duty to listen. I did not have to believe the silliness of what I was being told, but I could listen and I could evaluate the rationale of what I was hearing. I had a duty to listen, but I also had a duty to think. The matter at hand was important.

So when Donald Trump, the then-sitting U.S. president, tells us that he won the 2020 presidential election, but produces no evidence of his claims of fraud, we can listen, but hopefully we have not left our common sense behind ("Let the process unfold on Jan. 6 charges," editorial, Aug. 3). When one of Trump's principal advisers says he has no facts but has theories, when the adviser says he has a list of challenged voter names but never produces the list, and when that adviser admits that he lied about specific election-worker honesty, and when all of Trump's claims in every challenged state were investigated and reported to be untrue, then it seems that we then have enough information to conclude that what we are being told about election fraud is almost certainly not true. We probably should not then join in the effort to support the false claim or the person who is selling the lie. In truth, the fraud is Trump's fraud and we should easily conclude that we want no part of it.

We have brains to be thoughtful. We need not be fools, too.

Thomas W. Wexler, Edina

•••

If this country still exists 100 years from now, the most-asked question by future historians will not be about how we reached a point where a former president was indicted on charges for multiple crimes. The question will be how such a terribly flawed, uniquely unfit man ever managed to get elected in the first place.