The announcement that the U.S. Department of Justice will be conducting a "pattern and practice" investigation of the Minneapolis Police Department gives me hope for future implementation of systemic changes in the MPD ("Justice probe is a critical next step," editorial, April 22). Why isn't this type of review a standard internal procedure at the MPD when unfavorable incidents occur? Police officers hold the life and welfare of the people they serve in their hands, not unlike my practice as a health care provider.
In my profession we have had a mechanism in place for decades to review adverse outcomes. When unfavorable incidents occur, we convene a "morbidity and mortality" conference to review what went wrong. The facts of the incident are carefully reviewed, then we determine if a policy or procedure was violated or failed in some regard. Finally, we decide on next steps to prevent a recurrence of the incident, such as by implementing a new or improved policy or procedure.
The point of the review is not to punish but to provide a mechanism to improve the care we provide to our patients by preventing a similar future occurrence. Unlike a police department, we have no "blue wall of silence."
Law enforcement seems to take the opposite approach by minimizing or even covering up these incidents. Why did it take the death of a citizen under the care and protection of a police officer and a murder conviction to stimulate a "pattern and practice" review? Perhaps if a "morbidity and mortality" type review process had been in place at the MPD, policies and procedure changes would have been implemented long ago, preventing George Floyd's death.
Steve Millikan, Minneapolis
• • •
Some imagine that the conviction, and presumably harsh sentencing, of Derek Chauvin will send a message to Minneapolis cops, and perhaps cops everywhere, but I doubt it. It is too easy for other cops to see themselves as different from Chauvin and to say to themselves, "I would never do what Chauvin did." Some cops probably applauded Chauvin's conviction.
This makes the upcoming trial of Chauvin's alleged accomplices the far more important event. Most Minneapolis cops, and maybe most big-city cops across the country, will be able to recognize themselves in the actions of former officers J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao because many Minneapolis cops have perhaps themselves stood by and passively watched as a colleague used excessive force against a citizen. Perhaps, like Lane, they suggested a more moderate tactic but were ignored and allowed the use of force to continue.
We hear the argument that there are only a few "bad" cops, that the Chauvins are an exception. But there are a lot of cops like Lane, Kueng and Thao, willing, for a variety of reasons, to defer to the bad cops. Significant consequences for these three could send a message that all cops would hear.
John K. Trepp, Minneapolis
• • •
After the Chauvin verdict, several members of Floyd's family thanked protesters for their persistence in calling for justice for their father, brother and cousin. D.J. Tice, in his critique as a "13th juror" of the verdict, proposes that a better result would have emerged from a jury sealed off from the news, or even the influence, of ongoing protests ("The verdict of a '13th juror' on Chauvin — and the trial," Opinion Exchange, April 21). It's curious that a journalist — a professional surely as acquainted with real-world trauma as an emergency room nurse — could call for a courtroom so abstracted from social conditions. Do we really want people who are not moved by past experience of police brutality to sit in judgment of a former officer accused of the same? Do we really want jurors not to notice that standards of justice have historically been applied unfairly to Black citizens, and not to bring that awareness with them into the courtroom?