Who is to be trusted?

TryingMyBestsquareThe love affair with Mike Freeman on the March 31st Star Tribune editorial pages is based on the belief he’s being truthful.
“Clark’s DNA was found on the grip of the Officer Mark Ringgenberg’s handgun”— you trust this “credible evidence?” The police shoot a man in the head, then the police tell us that his DNA was on the gun and the shooting was justified. You believe the police? You trust this process?
You trust a process that only took into account “evidence” that police witnesses saw and no evidence that non-police witnesses saw? How can only the evidence that the police saw be the credible evidence? Were all the non-police witnesses on drugs, witnesses who never saw a struggle for the gun, who saw a man handcuffed and never heard a statement coming from Clark claiming “I’m ready to die?”
“Justice done” claims the Tribune, which is a shameful headline at this point in time. Justice has not been done when only the police’s version is used as evidence.
Who is telling the truth? Who can be trusted? My gut reaction was to trust the person who yells “he didn’t have to do that,” as police stand over Clark’s body on the ground. This is an honest, in-the-moment assessment of the situation. Schwarze “did not have to do that.”
It is defining the situation without the burden of White supremacy pulling you down. It is an assessment that can be trusted. And there is no history of brutality and lying that comes with it.
It is a statement that can be judged all by itself.

Frank Erickson lives in Minneapolis.