Kashmir McReynolds and Alvin Watkins, Jr. have been indicted on charges related to a shooting incident in North Minneapolis. The indictment accuses Watkins of being a felon in possession of a firearm and McReynolds of providing a firearm to a convicted felon and possessing a firearm while working for someone prohibited from having one.
Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson expressed his concern about the situation: “The people of north Minneapolis deserve peace,” he said. “McReynolds and Watkins were paid taxpayer money to bring peace to the community. Instead, they brought the very violence they claimed to be interrupting. This is outrageous. These defendants will be held to account.”
Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston Sr. of FBI Minneapolis emphasized the agency's stance against gun violence: “Armed violence will not be tolerated in our communities,” he stated, highlighting that such actions endanger lives and create fear.
According to court documents, on March 10, 2025, after completing their work shifts for the 21 Days of Peace initiative, Watkins and McReynolds fired approximately 43 bullets in a residential area. This initiative is part of Salem Inc., funded by the Minnesota Legislature for social equity and community engagement services.
Court documents reveal that an unknown shooter initially fired at McReynolds and Watkins; however, no further shots followed this initial attack. Despite not seeing anyone fire at them, McReynolds shot back in the presumed direction of the attacker and supplied Watkins with another weapon despite knowing his previous felony convictions barred him from possessing firearms.
Both men appeared today before Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster at U.S. District Court as this case progresses through legal proceedings led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew D. Forbes.
The investigation into this incident involved both the FBI and Minneapolis Police Department efforts; however, it remains important that these allegations are seen as accusations only until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt within judicial processes.
___
