I can see the point of Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman in saying we can't charge the officer who killed Amir Locke as he, in that moment, felt he had no choice but to shoot to kill ("No charges for officer in Amir Locke killing," front page, April 7). I get it. But what about all the pieces that lined up to put him in that untenable position? What about the mindset of some in the Minneapolis Police Department who push for and love these "cowboy" situations where you get to come in guns blazing to "get the bad guy"? Oops — wrong guy. Who is behind this mindset? Can they be held accountable? Because they killed Locke, too. What about the judge who OK'd the warrant? We all know from watching cop shows on TV that the police know which judge to go to for no-knock warrants — the "easy judges." Can we hold their feet to the fire? Because they killed him, too.

There are people in the MPD who likely know where all the pieces went wrong. Will anyone come forward to tell us how this happened? We can't change what we can't see. Even if we can't charge anyone with a crime, an innocent man died for no reason. Can't we at least let his death lead to some truth-telling about how our screwed-up system kills innocent people (Black and white), so we can change it?

Mike Pleasants, St. Paul

•••

I noticed that "the authorities" initiated the no-knock warrant that led to the death of 22-year-old Locke. His name wasn't even on the warrant, yet he paid the ultimate price because the authorities didn't ask the police to execute a thorough investigation into who was in the building.

Instead, like the Wild West that this state can be compared to, they knew they didn't have to use other methods because the Louisville police got away with the killing of Breonna Taylor — an innocent Black medical worker. Canceling this dangerous and obviously deadly no-knock warrant practice must be given top priority.

Ken Sponagle, Clearwater, Minn.

•••

"The problem here is the law and that we trust police more than citizens," said Mitchell Hamline School of Law Prof. T. Anansi Wilson in Thursday's Star Tribune.

No, the problem is that we send police officers into inherently dangerous situations on our behalf, because we don't want to do it, and then we have guns so freely flowing in our society that that danger is exacerbated even more.

Reduce the danger on both sides: Change the no-knock rules, and control guns.

Leonard Freeman, Long Lake

•••

After reading Wednesday's article "No more no-knock warrants in Mpls.," I strongly feel that whoever implemented this policy needs to meet again. This version doesn't change the countdown seconds enough to stop the catastrophic result in the Amir Locke entry. Maybe something along the lines of my following comments or similar could still allow police to accomplish their task and prevent a catastrophe.

Bring the appropriate number of police for each "hard knock" entry to surround the residence, such as other doors, windows, fire escapes, etc., to block escapes. Then use the "hard knock" team to give the loud knock and loud announcement at the main door. This is the point where the time period should be changed from 30 seconds to, I think, at least 4 minutes — especially at late night when suspects and/or residents are asleep. It takes at least that long for anyone to comprehend what's happening. I know there is a possibility that some drugs could go down the toilet but the warrant certainly should include other items of equal interest for the search in the first place.

To the creators of this policy: Please look at the above timeline to see that these steps only add 3.5 minutes to the current method. Think about this related to what we've recently seen in deaths and injuries. Give it a chance.

Donovan Robinson, Elk River

•••

"No more no-knock warrants in Mpls." says that Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has now banned no-knock warrants, except under "exigent circumstances." These might include hot pursuit, preventing imminent harm, imminent removal of evidence or imminent escape of a subject. My question: What in the world is different from the situation resulting in the Amir Locke homicide? Today I read that no charges will be filed in Locke's death, even though he was not a suspect, had no criminal record and was in legal possession of his firearm. Clearly, this situation has not improved and clearly there will be more innocents killed at the hands of the police.

Charles Underwood, Minneapolis

A young man's life has been taken by his father in another tragic story ("Man sentenced to 28 years for role in shooting death," April 7). According to Thursday's article, his drug-dealing parents had him and as he grew, they taught him their family trade and then used him to promote and solicit drug users. The then-16-year-old admitted to connecting the drug buyer with his father in February 2020. The father shot the victim in the head and then died in quarantine awaiting first-degree murder charges, and the mother is currently serving four years for aiding after the fact. With that said, why does this boy deserve a 28-year sentence for doing what his father and mother told him to do (sell marijuana) and running with a purse? What happened to this young man's defense attorney? Something is seriously wrong with this sentence term — or in the lack of detail in the writing of this article.

However, it sure speaks to how we raise our children. Braylen J. Miller deserved better parents!

Kathleen Balaban, Richfield

When a person has "about 15 previous mental health-related police calls," it would seem the normal response would be to remove every gun in the house, with the assumption that the person might eventually raise the level of his agitation to this point. Because the rifle was not confiscated, a policeman was shot ("Roseville officer shot in face; suspect shot, killed," April 7).

Norman Holen, Richfield

I was very pleased to see the commentary by Patrick Hamilton and David Frederickson ("Lessening the urban/rural solar divide," Opinion Exchange, April 7) proposing small-scale, landscape-friendly solar development in rural areas. Warnings about the consequences of continued reliance on fossil fuels become more dire with each passing day, so implementing such proposals is critical. I would like to offer another, similar proposal. There is currently a new home construction boom in the suburban Twin Cities. The rooftops in these developments are ideal for solar panels, and yet one is hard-pressed to find a single panel on these buildings. The available collection area is enormous, the benefits of such installations multiply to many, including homeowners, and the power they produce will help reduce fossil fuel dependence.

Gregory Pratt, Minneapolis

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.