Protests got our attention: Now what?

No questioning the outrage. But we've done this before and nothing happened.

We’ve been here before. A killing, live on tape, at the hands (or knee) of a police officer. There is an uproar of justified outrage. And yet, like the aftermath of school shootings, nothing seems to happen.

Which is not to minimize the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of protestors in the last few weeks after the killing of George Floyd. It is one thing to hear speeches, but there is nothing more powerful than street after street in American cities, crowded curb to curb, for blocks and blocks with passionate, committed everyday people.

We’ve got your Trump rally right here.

But here’s where things tend to lose momentum. That “Ok, now what?” moment. What is the path to meaningful change?

And we’ve gotta say, so far the results have not been great. This Washington Post story talks about how, in 2014, we saw a video of the death of Eric Garner on a sidewalk in New York. He died in choke-hold by an officer, pleading “I can’t breathe.”

Amid the outrage, the Post tracked police killings the next year and found that in 2015, police officers shot and killed nearly 1,000 people.

There was outrage. There were meetings. There was increased police training.

And in 2016 police officers fatally shot nearly 1,000 people. And shot nearly 1,000 people in 2017. And for every year after that. As the Post put it:

“The number killed has remained steady despite fluctuating crime rates, changeovers in big-city police leadership and a nationwide push for criminal justice reform.

Which is why I look at the inevitable, grand, sweeping changes for national reform with a squinty eye. First, “abolish the police,” is really just a trigger phrase to scare the suburbs. That’s not going to happen.

There is a very thoughtful debate about “Defund the police.” The idea is to take millions of dollars from police departments and give it to . . . well, people are saying lots of things . . . schools, housing, community support and social services.

And those are all important problems. But they are not police problems. The problem with the police is that they are killing people without cause. That’s what we have to stop. School funding is a different issue.

I’d have to say I’m with Bernie Sanders, who adamantly rejected the “abolish the police” idea. Instead, Sanders said:

“What you need are . . . police departments that have well-educated, well-trained, well-paid professionals.

Because only the most radical hard liner believes everyone in a police uniform is an out-of-control psycho. I thought 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan said it well when asked about the killing of Floyd:

“It takes a really bad person to do something like that. The problem is, percentage-wise, there’s a little too many bad people.

Take the officer, Derek Chauvin, who choked Floyd to death. He was a 20-year veteran. Two of the three who were with him were rookies. Chauvin was giving them a field class — “This is how we do things here.”

Disgraceful.

That’s what has to be changed. And the change has to be very specific, clear and measurable.

Sound difficult to impossible? Nope.

In San Francisco, look at the proposal by District Attorney Chesa Boudin and Supervisor Shamman Walton. They are looking to close the kind of loophole that can perpetuate bad actors in uniform.

Their resolution would ban the city from hiring officers “who quit a law enforcement agency while misconduct investigations against them were pending.”

The dirty little secret is if the misconduct charges — say for excessive force or racism — don’t look good for the officer, he or she can resign and face no charges. AND he or she can then apply for a police job in another city, and get hired, without public scrutiny.

This resolution should be passed immediately if not sooner. And Walton’s promised charter amendment, saying the city should not hire officers with a history of misconduct, should too.

Specific laws like that — the ban on choke holds in the Democratic bill in Washington is another — have real, conclusive effect.

But just one more thing . . .

Last Saturday Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Deputy Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller was sent out on a call. When he arrived, he was ambushed and killed by a gunman. Gutzwiller didn’t know the guy who killed him. No one in Gutzwiller’s family was in danger.

He went up there because it was his job. We’re going to have to find people to volunteer to put themselves in harm’s way like that — knowing what could happen at any time.

Say what you will, it’s a tough job.

I think I have figured it out. Now that we’re headed back to something like normal, our routines have been disrupted. We are going to have to set up new routines. Like reading this newsletter when it hits your inbox. Just click on the button. It’s free.

Why does baseball need the minor leagues? No, seriously.

You’ve probably seen the end-of-baseball-as-we-know-it stories about Major League Baseball cutting some 42 minor league teams.

Forty-two teams? OMG. How many does that leave?

One hundred and twenty.

As I tried to point out in Sunday's column in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat methinks baseball doth protest too much. There are plenty of teams and players. Numbers are a little fluid, but it is safe to say that now, before the 42-team haircut, there are likely 5,000 minor league players.

And the chances of them getting to the Big Leagues? Slim and none. It’s more like a summer camp for the 20-somethings — if you made starvation wages and had to sleep on the floor on an air mattress at summer camp.

A better model would be to trim the minors down to maybe Triple A and Double A. Baseball doesn’t need all these players. Every year NFL teams bring 100 guys to training camp, pick the best 53 and start the season.

It shouldn’t be this complicated.

You know how you give someone something and they are all “Aw, you shouldn’t have,” and you are thinking, “Actually it was free and no trouble at all, but thanks”? This is like that. Send this to a friend. And then act modest if they thank you. If they get mad and say they didn’t want it, hey, that’s on you buddy. You’re the one who clicked this button.

Kyle Shanahan’s remarkable press conference

I honestly don’t think Shanahan’s recent presser got the attention it deserved. He didn’t just talk about racism in America, he was passionate and comprehensive.

I wrote about it in the 49ers blog on the Santa Rosa PD web site.

There are probably lots of opinions about what he said. He definitely didn’t sugar coat it.

“Racism is a big deal in our country now. That’s a fact. It’s not debatable.

Of course, he was ready. He knew he was going to get #blacklivesmatter questions. (In fact, it was the first one.) But instead of reading some boilerplate statement from the media department, Shanahan discussed racism for the first 17 minutes of his 30 minute virtual, on screen interview with 49ers’ beat reporters.

I thought it was remarkable that he put himself out like that. A welcome addition to the conversation.

Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. Suggestions and comments welcome. Criticism not so much. Twitter: @cwnevius