Readers Write: Protecting civilians, CEOs speak out, Alex Pretti, gun rights

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Our elected leaders must stop talking and start using the tools only they control to hold Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal immigration agents accountable. Right now, many residents and neighbors are risking their safety in the streets — and while I deeply respect those efforts, community members do not have access to government authority or resources. Our leaders do.

Local government has tools it can use to protect residents from unconstitutional and violent actions by federal agents. More urgently, they must ensure local legal systems are empowered to investigate and prosecute abuses of power.

Brave individuals with cameras can document what happens, but there is a limit to how long unarmed civilians can stand up to armed federal forces. That’s why it matters so much that the Hennepin County attorney and others have said they will pursue legal accountability for federal misconduct. But prosecution can only happen if those responsible are arrested and investigated by authorities with real jurisdiction — namely, state and local law enforcement.

In an ideal world, Minnesota law enforcement would already be actively protecting residents — stepping in to prevent violent clashes, defending peaceful protest and prioritizing community safety over alienating federal deployments.

It’s time for Gov. Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey to make one thing clear: Protecting Minnesota residents from excessive force — whether by ICE, Border Patrol or the Department of Homeland Security — is part of the job of local law enforcement. They have the authority and responsibility to defend constitutional rights and public safety. Now they must act.

The writer is a former member of the Minneapolis City Council.

While it is remarkable that 60 business leaders were able to sign anything together, their letter says worse than nothing (“Minnesota CEOs break silence on ICE surge, killings,” Jan. 25). Individuals and groups have been protesting and pressuring businesses to respond to the harm in our communities. These 60 finally did, but the gaps in their statement say far more than the words.

What does it mean to call a death “tragic”? Just say “tragedy of the victim’s own making” and you have President Donald Trump’s and the Department of Homeland Security’s rhetoric. Of course these signers want “peace” — so that we can continue to shop and do business as usual.

What kind of “progress”? More attacks and detainments? What kind of “bright and prosperous future”? Profitable for a few? I don’t want to be told that we could be a “strong and vibrant” community, but we really need to calm down.

And where have we heard the words “cooperation” and “solution” before? Those of you who wanted a stronger and more specific statement, do you think you’ll be applauded for caving to this one? Oh wait — that could be any of you, of any political opinion. Trump himself could sign off on this letter.

Carolyn Schueller, Golden Valley

•••

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce website issued a letter “on behalf of more than 60 CEOs of Minnesota-based companies.” At first, I thought: Finally, the business community is speaking out. Then I reached this sentence: “With yesterday’s tragic news, we are calling for an immediate deescalation of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions.” Really? That was the most constructive statement they could come up with? Does anyone believe Minnesota officials hadn’t already thought about — or tried — working with the federal government?

It reminded me of the empty statements we hear from politicians after mass shootings: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.” I understand it’s challenging to manage a corporation that serves consumers across the political spectrum, but I was genuinely surprised by the lack of substance in their letter. Why bother issuing one at all?

No doubt they’ve all seen Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at Davos — the one that earned a rare standing ovation for speaking truth to power and stating the reality of the current geopolitical moment, even at serious economic risk to his own country. I urge those 60 CEOs to review Carney’s remarks again and consider what real leadership looks like during a time of crisis. I also urge them to develop a backbone, because history will remember what they chose not to say.

•••

I read the CEOs’ open letter five times looking for the words “immigrant” and “ICE” but they were nowhere to be found. Instead of working “behind the scenes,” they could get in front of the scenes to make a real noise in support of the community where they earn their profits. Stop the committee-fueled word salad and take a stand.

Kelly O’Brien, Minneapolis

I grew up in Beaufort, S.C., during the end of the century-long era of legal segregation in the South. The year I entered the sixth grade was the year the schools of Beaufort County finally began to integrate. Before that separate schools for Black and white children were fully legal, as were the actions of sheriff’s deputies and deputized posses that put down resistance to segregation and tried to prevent any advocation of civil rights.

That experience makes me wince when I read letters in the Star Tribune explaining how Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities in this region are “legal.” The concept of legality has always been a questionable issue for me when it comes to a government’s treatment of its citizens. Even if one accepts that deployment of mercenaries to enforce immigration law is appropriate, the behavior of these over-armed, undertrained and inexperienced people can never produce ethical, moral or even strictly legal consequences.

Chester Wilson, Minneapolis

The gun lobby groups seem taken aback that President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino claim Border Control had every right to kill Alex Pretti because he was legally carrying a handgun when he was tackled by the agents. The available videos show Pretti made no effort to touch or use his handgun, and an agent removed it from his waistband while he was pinned to the ground by other agents. Only seconds later, unarmed and still restrained on the pavement, Pretti was shot.

Noem and Bovino have backed off their initial fantasy about Pretti being a terrorist intent on gunning down the agents, but his legal firearm continues to be the justification for his killing. Now you don’t need to use your gun to be targeted by federal agents, it just needs to be somewhere nearby.

This administration’s focus on Pretti having a legal firearm should surprise no one. Severe restrictions on gun ownership are a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, including that of Trump’s greatest hero, Vladimir Putin. Use your vote wisely. Do not expect the party currently attacking your constitutional rights to stop with the First Amendment. The second is next in line.

Ken Pearson, Golden Valley

Help me make sense of this: The Second Amendment grants you the absolute right to carry firearms around defenseless and unsuspecting schoolchildren, but your rights under the Second Amendment don’t apply when you’re in the presence of a large group of heavily armed and trained federal agents?