How to Get 4.5 Million Americans to Quit Smoking

You wouldn’t think it would be easy to get nearly 4.5 million Americans—the equivalent of the entire state of Louisiana or Kentucky—to give up smoking. But it can be done in a single, straightforward step: prohibiting the sale of menthol cigarettes. That’s the conclusion of a new study in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

The study is one more piece of evidence in favor of a nationwide menthol ban, the authors say. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed just such a ban in 2022, but in Dec. 2023, the Biden Administration postponed implementation following intense lobbying by tobacco company lobbyists and convenience store owners, who complained that the action could cost untold jobs and billions of dollars in sales.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“The FDA has done its work,” says Sarah Mills, the paper’s lead author and an assistant professor in the department of health behavior at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Public Health. “The White House has decided to put off their decision, which simply delayed what could be an important step in promoting public health.” 

Medical experts have long argued that menthol cigarettes are a particularly pernicious form of tobacco. The flavoring cools the smoke, encouraging users to consume more, and nonsmokers—typically young people—to pick up the habit.

“When added to cigarettes, menthol sweetens the poison of nicotine, making it easier to start smoking and harder to quit,” says Mills. What’s more, the chemical stimulates the activity of so-called nicotinic receptors in the brain, increasing the addictive power of nicotine. 

Read More: What the Science Says About Menthol Cigarette Bans

Black Americans are especially likely to smoke menthols. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 42 million U.S. adults reported using any tobacco product last year. Of those, 18.5 million consume menthol. That represents just 34% of white smokers—but 81% of Black smokers. “A menthol cigarette ban would provide the greatest benefits to Black people who smoke,” said Mills in a statement that accompanied the release of the paper.

The investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 78 previously published studies, principally of populations in the U.S., as well as in Canada and the European Union, both of which have imposed nationwide or continent-wide bans. In the U.S., only two states—Massachusetts and California—prohibit the sale of menthol cigarettes, imposing bans in 2020 and 2022 respectively. An additional 170 cities—including Chicago; Aspen, Colorado; Bangor, Maine; and Duluth, Minnesota—have banned menthols as well.

The most important part of what the authors of the new paper learned concerns the share of menthol smokers who would quit entirely if their preferred product was no longer available. Based on the collective findings of the 78 papers—and what happened in places where menthols were banned—the researchers estimated that 50% of menthol smokers would switch to a non-menthol brand and 24% would continue smoking menthol cigarettes—either buying them online or crossing state or national boundaries to purchase the products where they are still legal. A remaining 24% of menthol smokers would simply give up cigarettes.

If the FDA’s proposed ban were rolled out nationwide, the 24% quit rate would mean 4.44 million American ex-smokers.

The data also provide a granular look at the effects of menthol bans.  Up to 65% of menthol smokers, when asked, said that a ban would get them off cigarettes for good—or 2.7 times the share who actually did quit, a possible sign of how addictive mentholated tobacco is. Switching to a non-menthol brand actually had some salutary effects, with users reporting, on average, that they smoked 2.2 fewer cigarettes a day and experienced fewer nicotine cravings.

Menthol bans are not always comprehensive, and in some cities and countries, menthol e-cigarettes are still available. A study in Massachusetts found that 7% of menthol smokers had switched to menthol e-cigarettes six months after the statewide ban was imposed. In Canada, the number was much higher—29% within just one month of the ban. This could be due to the greater difficulty of traveling out of the country to buy menthol cigarettes as opposed to the ease of crossing a state line. “Compared to a national ban,” says Mills, “individuals under a state or city ban can readily visit places nearby that sell the product.”

Retailers and cigarette manufacturers are not going down without a fight, and their resistance to bans goes beyond lobbying. In the U.S., manufacturers have mounted a public relations campaign, sending mailers to homes, holding community meetings, and arguing that a ban would discriminate against Black Americans. In the European Union, tobacco makers have introduced menthol capsules that can be inserted into cigarettes and cigarillos. Brazilian cigarette makers have gone to court to litigate against bans. Canadian companies have relied more on marketing, conspicuously labeling cigarette packs with the words “smooth taste without menthol.”

American retailers have been uneven in obeying bans, with compliance ranging from as low as 17% in shops in San Francisco to 100% in some in Minnesota, according to studies the authors cite that took place in those and other cities from 2019 to 2022. Retailers acquire their forbidden menthol products the same way individual consumers do: shopping online or importing from across state or city lines. In a few localities that have partial bans—prohibiting menthol sales only to young people—some retailers have managed a workaround, establishing an enclosed, adults-only space within their stores where menthol products are sold.

The prospects for the FDA’s proposed U.S. ban remain uncertain, with some commentators speculating that President Biden will wait until after the November election before allowing the prohibition to go through, fearing a backlash from Black voters. “This is ultimately coming down to a political decision by the president and his senior advisers,” Erika Sward, assistant vice president at the American Lung Association, told The Hill.

Whatever the reason for the ban’s delay, Mills and her colleagues maintain that the time to act is now. Every year, more than 480,000 Americans die of smoking-related causes, according to the CDC. “Menthol bans,” the authors write in their paper, “promote smoking cessation.”

source https://time.com/6716297/menthol-cigarette-ban-quit-smoking/

Jeff Bezos Nets $8.5 Billion From Amazon Share Sale

Jeff Bezos unloaded 14 million Amazon.com Inc. shares worth about $2.4 billion, finishing in just nine trading days the plan he disclosed earlier this month to sell up to 50 million shares.

The latest transaction, which brings his cash out total to $8.5 billion, took place over three trading days ending Tuesday, according to a regulatory filing. Before his selling spree, the world’s third-richest person hadn’t disposed of company stock since 2021.

Bezos, who founded Amazon and owns space exploration company Blue Origin and the Washington Post, hasn’t disclosed plans for the proceeds. He announced on Nov. 2 he was moving to Miami from the Seattle region. 

Washington state instituted a 7% capital gains tax in 2022 — something Florida doesn’t have — meaning Bezos’s relocation is likely saving him hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

Bezos has a net worth of $191.3 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Spokespeople for Amazon and Bezos didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

source https://time.com/6713332/bezos-amazon-stock-sale/

U.S. Hawks Must Finally Get Real About China

It is now broadly agreed on the right of center that China poses the greatest threat to Americans’ security, freedom, and prosperity—and that the danger is growing. As Beijing continues its vast and historic military buildup, it is widely understood that our own military is not keeping pace and that the U.S. is quickly running out of time to deter war over Taiwan. Worse still, there is growing recognition that the U.S. might actually lose a war over Taiwan if deterrence fails.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Hawks are those who believe in an assertive and expansive U.S. foreign policy, like many on the center-left, but emphasize unlike them that military power and advantage are truly central to underwriting that policy. Accordingly, hawks support increased defense spending and an active U.S. military footprint around the globe. While they trumpet the growing threat of China, however, they argue that the defense of Taiwan runs through Ukraine and are the leading voices on the right for continued military support to Ukraine. Hawks are differentiated on the right from prioritizers, who, guided by realism, recognize the current limits of American power and advocate for a U.S. foreign policy that puts the American people’s interests first. As a result, they call for prioritizing China over all other threats and urge America’s allies to bear a greater share of the burden in supporting our friends and allies in Europe and the Middle East. At the other end of the spectrum on the right are restrainers, who generally oppose U.S. involvement in conflicts or commitments overseas.

Hawks, above all these groups, ought to recognize the urgency and severity of this moment. After all, the definition of a hawk is someone who takes hard power very seriously and know that it can be determinative if unchecked. Thus hawks have for more than a decade been loudly lamenting the chronic underinvestment in our military relative to the demands our traditional strategy has laid upon it. Year after year, prominent defense hawks have said we need to spend much more on defense to uphold this multi-theater national strategy. Today, they emphasize that China is undertaking an historic military buildup and, for instance, has two hundred times our ship-building capacity.

Yet now many hawks are acting as if suddenly our military can still dominate in three theaters, and in particular meet the challenge of a rising China, despite years upon years of relative underinvestment that they themselves have critiqued. Most worryingly, many are rejecting calls to prioritize military aid to Taiwan and strengthen U.S. force posture in the Pacific in favor of a continued heavy engagement in and flow of materiel to Europe and the Middle East. Yet how can this be? If the hawks were right in the past, then our military situation now must be desperate relative to the challenges we face. So why the sudden complacency?

Some hawks argue that tradeoffs can be deftly managed by sequencing the dangers in front of us. But it is clear that Russia, Iran, and terrorist groups are not going away. Hawks themselves point out they are potent, dangerous, and aggressive and thus cannot be “parked.” Other hawks contend that such tradeoffs can be avoided entirely, despite the parlous state of our defense industrial base, through “smart” and inexpensive strategies. The most credible of these is to rely primarily on long-range precision-guided missiles, particularly anti-ship missiles, to deter or defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. With a relatively modest price tag of about $10 to $15 billion per year over several years to revamp the munitions industrial base, this strategy would seem to allow us to continue business as usual while handling China.

Read More: Why Taiwan Really Matters to the U.S.

But, while the solution is tempting in its simplicity and affordability, hawks would be profoundly mistaken—and indeed contradict their own core logic—in arguing that it is a prudent course. Hawk logic itself shows why.

First, the strategy assumes that a yearly investment of $10 to $15 billion can actually fix our broken munitions industrial base. Yet as we have seen during the past two years, our defense industry has lagged in simultaneously producing weapons for Taiwan, Ukraine, and other partners, let alone for the U.S. military itself. Stories of delays involving the production of key missiles have become the norm, not the exception. Key stockpiles are now depleted and will take years to replace.

Counting on industry to produce weapons on time that would be needed to fight the People’s Liberation Army, while those supply chains remain vulnerable and indeed systemically dependent on China, would be enormously risky. To be clear, the U.S. absolutely needs to make historic efforts to revitalize our defense industrial base, especially to grow our munitions stockpiles. But those who emphasize military realities above all should be clear-eyed about the constraints—industrial, political, and fiscal.

Second, even if industry did manage to produce these weapons on time, this strategy still relies dangerously on best-casing. Precision-guided missiles would of course play a key role in stopping a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan. But just as we develop such missiles, the PLA will create countermeasures and defenses, just as the Russians are doing in Ukraine. China might, for instance, attack U.S. forces and bases or launch massive cyberattacks on our infrastructure and space assets which enable such long-range strike assets, any of which could reduce our ability to execute our plans in a timely and effective way. Or it might use different operational concepts to assault Taiwan, for instance relying more on air than naval forces in earlier stages. Hawks themselves point out that China is spending almost as much on its defense as we are, which will allow Beijing to leverage the advantages of scale, position, adaptation, and initiative. In this context, hawk logic dictates that we simply cannot prudently rely on what is essentially a single theory of success. Rather, we must have multiple ways and layers of defense.

That is why the U.S. and its partners will need much, much more than long-range missiles to mount an effective defense of Taiwan. Hawk thinking dictates that our strategy and plans must be guided by a healthy respect for our potential adversary, not by some hopeful notion that we can defeat China by threading a needle. We therefore will also need many more attack submarines and torpedoes, robust air and missile defenses, capable logistical assets, and sufficient intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance systems, and ground weapons, among many other capabilities. Yet we don’t have enough of any of these.

A final problem with the hawks’ proposal is a political one. Say we tell the American people today that we can deter China with $10 to $15 billion a year for a few years. Perhaps there is a small chance that is true. But in what world is cutting it close the hawk approach? And does that strategy adequately convey the scale of the challenge China poses that hawks themselves emphasize? How much of a threat is the PLA if it is addressable at such a modest cost? And, if mighty China can be deterred at such a deal, then it stands to reason lesser threats like Russia, Iran, and North Korea can be, too. So American taxpayers, burdened with rocketing debt and high taxes, might justly ask why we are spending close to a trillion dollars per year on defense. So how did hawks get from calling for doubling the defense budget to making an implicit argument for cutting it?

Hawks have been saying for decades that we are living in an incredibly dangerous world. That was an exaggeration twenty years ago but now is actually true. In such a context, our nation needs hawks to follow their convictions where they lead: That hard power is central, that we face scarcity, that it will take years at best to redress, that we can’t “walk and chew gum,” and that the most dangerous threat we face is the one with the most hard power—China. In such a context, it is wildly imprudent to cut it close against our most important threat, banking on a single theory of victory. Hawks must now match their commendable rhetoric on China with real action—and above all, a willingness to prioritize confronting this, our greatest threat.

source https://time.com/6696552/u-s-hawks-china-threat-essay/

AI Writes Scientific Papers That Sound Great—But Aren’t Accurate

First came the students, who wanted help with their homework and essays. Now, ChatGPT is luring scientists, who are under pressure to publish papers in reputable scientific journals.

AI is already disrupting the archaic world of scientific publishing. When Melissa Kacena, vice chair of orthopaedic surgery at Indiana University School of Medicine, reviews articles submitted for publication in journals, she now knows to look out for ones that might have been written by the AI program. “I have a rule of thumb now that if I pull up 10 random references cited in the paper, and if more than one isn’t accurate, then I reject the paper,” she says.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

But despite the pitfalls, there is also promise. Writing review articles, for example, is a task well suited to AI: it involves sifting through the existing research on a subject, analyzing the results, reaching a conclusion about the state of the science on the topic, and providing some new insight. ChatGPT can do all of those things well.

Kacena decided to see who is better at writing review articles: people or ChatGPT. For her study published in Current Osteoporosis Reports, she sorted nine students and the AI program into three groups and asked each group to write a review article on a different topic. For one group, she asked the students to write review articles on the topics; for another, she instructed ChatGPT to write articles on the same topics; and for the last group, she gave each of the students their own ChatGPT account and told them to work together with the AI program to write articles. That allowed her to compare articles written by people, by AI, and a combination of people and AI. She asked faculty member colleagues and the students to fact check each of the articles, and compared the three types of articles on measures like accuracy, ease of reading, and use of appropriate language.

Read More: To Make a Real Difference in Health Care, AI Will Need to Learn Like We Do

The results were eye-opening. The articles written by ChatGPT were easy to read and were even better written than the students’. But up to 70% of the cited references were inaccurate: they were either incoherently merged from several different studies or completely fictitious. The AI versions were also more likely to be plagiarized.

“ChatGPT was pretty convincing with some of the phony statements it made, to be honest,” says Kacena. “It used the proper syntax and integrated them with proper statements in a paragraph, so sometimes there were no warning bells. It was only because the faculty members had a good understanding of the data, or because the students fact checked everything, that they were detected.”

There were some advantages to the AI-generated articles. The algorithm was faster and more efficient in processing all the required data, and in general, ChatGPT used better grammar than the students. But it couldn’t always read the room: AI tended to use more flowery language that wasn’t always appropriate for scientific journals (unless the students had told ChatGPT to write it from the perspective of a graduate-level science student.)

Read More: The 100 Most Influential People in AI

That reflects a truth about the use of AI: it’s only as good as the information it receives. While ChatGPT isn’t quite ready to author scientific journal articles, with the proper programming and training, it could improve and become a useful tool for researchers. “Right now it’s not great by itself, but it can be made to work,” says Kacena. For example, if queried, the algorithm was good at recommending ways to summarize data in figures and graphical depictions. “The advice it gave on those were spot on, and exactly what I would have done,” she says.

The more feedback the students provided on ChatGPT’s work, the better it learned—and that represents its greatest promise. In the study, some students found that when they worked together with ChatGPT to write the article, the program continued to improve and provide better results if they told it what things it was doing right, and what was less helpful. That means that addressing problems like questionable references and plagiarism could potentially be fixed. ChatGPT could be programmed, for example, to not merge references and to treat each scientific journal article as its own separate reference, and to limit copying consecutive words to avoid plagiarism.

With more input and some fixes, Kacena believes that AI could help researchers smooth out the writing process and even gain scientific insights. “I think ChatGPT is here to stay, and figuring out how to make it better, and how to use it in an ethical and conscientious and scientifically sound manner, is going to be really important,” she says.

source https://time.com/6695917/chatgpt-ai-scientific-study/

What to Know About the U.S. Draft Resolution Calling for a Temporary Gaza Ceasefire

The U.S. has drafted a resolution for the U.N. Security Council that calls for a temporary ceasefire in Gaza and warns against Israel’s planned offensive in Rafah.

The draft resolution calls for a “temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as practicable” but the language falls short of the immediate ceasefire other Security Council members want, CNN reported.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Approximately 1.5 million Gazans are currently taking shelter in Rafah after Israel designated it a safe zone. Most of them were previously displaced from northern parts of Gaza and are now facing the possibility of being displaced again. 

With much of the homes and infrastructure in northern Gaza destroyed, the U.S. is concerned that the Rafah offensive will result in severe harm and loss of life to civilians. At least 29,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel began launching airstrikes and its ground offensive in Gaza following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that killed 1,200 people.

Read More: The Limits of American Power in Gaza

“Under current circumstances a major ground offensive into Rafah would result in further harm to civilians and their further displacement including potentially into neighboring countries,” the proposed U.S. resolution states.

The draft resolution, which also calls for the release of Israeli hostages, will be privately discussed on Tuesday. It comes after the U.S. said it would veto a different resolution from Algeria calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. The U.N. Security Council will vote on the Algerian draft Tuesday morning.

“This draft resolution could put sensitive negotiations in jeopardy—derailing the exhaustive, ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure the release of hostages, and secure an extended pause that Palestinian civilians and aid workers so desperately need,” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters.

The Arab Group in New York, a coalition of Arab states at the U.N., said in a statement that it backs the draft resolution by Algeria. “Regrettably, the UN Security Council remains inert, unable to denounce the daily atrocities perpetrated by the occupying authorities. The Security Council must take immediate action.”

The new U.S. draft resolution marks the first time Washington has called for a ceasefire at the U.N. since the war began.

The U.S. has repeatedly emphasized what it says is Israel’s right to defend itself following Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack. It has voted against at least two U.N. Security Council resolutions on the war.

source https://time.com/6696636/us-backs-gaza-ceasefire-at-un/

The Peril of Ukraine’s Ammo Shortage

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, one type of weapon has loomed large over every other. Artillery has accounted for about 80% of casualties on both sides. Yet political deadlock in the U.S. Congress over military assistance to Ukraine, combined with a lack of production capacity in Europe, is leading to a critical shortage in artillery ammunition that could spell disaster for Ukraine’s war effort.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The shortage of ammunition is already being felt across the front, and contributed to Ukraine’s recent withdrawal from the town of Avdiivka.

Artillery is both versatile and devastating. A Ukrainian battery of M109 howitzers, for example, can theoretically land around 530 lbs. of high explosive anywhere within 15 miles with a latency of about 3-5 minutes. Depending on the fuzing, these rounds can fill the air with shrapnel, or bury into the ground and collapse fortifications. The effect is not just the physical damage inflicted, but the psychological fear artillery instills in soldiers and the constraints it imposes on an opposing force that must plan to deal with this threat.

Ukraine today is facing around 470,000 Russian troops who every day attack Ukrainian positions using assault groups of infantry. If Ukraine had sufficient artillery, these attacks can be easily repelled because a few rounds of 155 mm caliber fire would kill the attackers as soon as they began to advance from their covered positions. But Ukraine is having to ration its units to fire only 2,000 rounds a day across a 750 mi. front. Ukraine fields around 350 artillery pieces, so that in many areas of the front Ukraine has no artillery at all.

Read More: Inside Ukraine’s Plan to Arm Itself

The shortage of guns and shells not only reduces Ukraine’s ability to blunt Russian attacks, but also makes Ukrainian artillery more vulnerable to Russian Lancet-3M drones and counter battery fire. Russia has more than 4,000 artillery pieces in Ukraine, and is firing around 10,000 rounds a day across the front. So when a Ukrainian howitzer opens fire, it must either keep out of range of the Russian guns, limiting how much of the line it can protect, or move quickly to avoid being destroyed by the Russians firing back.

Moving the guns also reduces the number of rounds that can be fired for a given mission. By contrast, the Russians can move one gun and start firing with another. This constant artillery threat makes it extremely dangerous for Ukrainian units to go on the attack, giving Russian forces more freedom to plan and concentrate units in preparation for assaults.

Ukrainian forces are trying to make up for their critical deficiency in equipment through the use of novel tactics and First Person View drones. The advantage of FPVs is that they are highly accurate and can be manoeuvred to hit moving targets. They can also be flown from relative safety. In this way, the Ukrainians have inflicted a significant number of vehicle losses on Russian forces.

But FPVs are not a substitute for artillery. If the enemy has set up a strong electronic warfare baseline, then the FPVs cannot fly. If the weather is bad, they will struggle to find their targets. Because they rely on batteries, their range is significantly reduced in cold weather. Fundamentally, they are unreliable and lack a large enough charge to deliver many of the effects that artillery can. FPVs are most effective when used in combination with artillery, with the latter destroying or suppressing electronic warfare systems, allowing the FPVs to precisely target enemy vehicles.

Without sufficient ammunition, the Ukrainian military will have to physically occupy more positions along the front to defeat Russian attacks with small arms. This will both increase Ukrainian casualties and reduce the number of personnel who can be kept away from the frontline to train and prepare for future offensive operations. In short, without artillery ammunition, the Ukrainians risk being fixed in permanent defense, slowly ceding ground as most recently seen in Avdiika.

Read More: Inside Volodymyr Zelensky’s Struggle to Keep Ukraine in the Fight

If the U.S. approves funding for Ukraine—the Senate passed $60 billion in aid last week but it faces steep hurdles in the House—it should be possible to get around 1.3 million rounds of ammunition to the country in 2024, which would allow Ukraine to hold the line. With European investment to expand production, significantly more can be provided in 2025, meeting a level that would enable Ukrainian offensive operations. But with Europe still expanding production capacity, Ukraine will face critical shortages in the next few months unless the U.S. steps in.

Russia understands the importance of artillery in a war of attrition. While Russian artillery use has been crude and has underperformed, the sheer volume of shells it is expending has given Moscow a decisive battlefield edge today. The country is set to produce another 1.3 million rounds of 152 mm caliber ammunition in 2024, along with around 800,000 rounds of 122 mm caliber ammunition. Alongside a remaining stockpile of around 3 million rounds, the delivery of over 1 million rounds from North Korea, and production contracts signed with North Korea, Belarus, Iran, and Syria, Russia will continue to have firepower dominance throughout the year.

In spite of these advantages, Russia’s firepower dominance will potentially diminish over time. Although its shell production can increase, Russia has so far relied heavily on taking barrels from old Soviet systems it held in storage. By 2025, these stocks will be running low and Russia’s capacity to forge barrels is insufficient to meet its future needs.

The result is that through 2025 the accuracy of Russian guns, and the number that are available at any given time, may diminish. That may give Ukraine and its backers some hope in the longer run. But the critical question is whether the U.S. is willing to sustain the fight for the next year, before the tide begins to turn once again in Ukraine’s favor.

source https://time.com/6694885/ukraine-russia-ammunition/

2 Police Officers, 1 First Responder Killed at the Scene of a Domestic Call in Minnesota

BURNSVILLE, Minn. — A desperate call for help from a home in suburban Minneapolis early Sunday turned deadly for two police officers and a first responder who were shot and killed at the scene, according to officials.

The suburban neighborhood in Burnsville, Minnesota, was ringed with police cars that kept the press and public away from the scene where the shootings took place. The deaths of the two Burnsville police officers and the first responder were confirmed by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“We are heartbroken. Our law enforcement community is heartbroken. We’re just devastated at the horrific loss,” Brian Peters, executive director of the association that represents public safety professionals in the state, said in a statement.

No other details were immediately released about what led up to the shooting in a tree-lined neighborhood with two-story homes. A police armored vehicle parked nearby had bullet damage to its windshield, but there was no confirmation on whether that was the result of the incident. The street was lined with SWAT vehicles, police cars, firefighters and ambulances.

Burnsville police, fire and city officials, including the mayor, didn’t immediately return phone or email messages from The Associated Press seeking comment.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said in a post on Facebook that in addition to those killed, other officers were injured.

“We must never take for granted the bravery and sacrifices our police officers and first responders make every day,” Walz said. “My heart is with their families today and the entire State of Minnesota stands with Burnsville.”

Other law enforcement agencies immediately began posting messages of condolence on social media, including images of badges with blue bars through them. It is a mark of solidarity in mourning.

The Law Enforcement Labor Services represents rank-and-file officers and the supervisors of the Burnsville Police Department.

The organization’s executive director, Jim Mortenson, said in a statement that “thoughts and prayers are with the family of the officers and first responder” who responded.

“These officers were struck down while answering the call of duty to serve and protect. We mourn alongside the Burnsville community and the families of those killed,” the statement said.

In neighboring Goodhue County, Sheriff Marty Kelly wrote that it was closely monitoring the situation as it unfolds.

“In times like these,” Kelly said, “it is essential to come together as a community and support one another through the uncertainty and grief.”

Democratic Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota said in a statement that she had been in touch with the mayor, police chief and state officials to offer any federal resources needed.

“Today,” she said, “serves as another solemn reminder that those who protect our communities do so at great personal risk.”

Burnsville, a city of around 64,000, is located about 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of downtown Minneapolis.

source https://time.com/6696316/minnesota-domestic-incident-police-officers-responder-death-toll/