We all agree that the George Floyd scene should not have played out as it did ("Kueng: Floyd call routine, then chaotic," Feb. 17). It is easy to say that the other officers should have intervened, but on what other job site or at what place of employment is it even remotely a reality that a guy in his first week on the job overrules or takes command from a senior 19-year veteran? What form would that take? Was he supposed to grapple with or engage in fisticuffs with Derek Chauvin in front of an agitated crowd? Was he supposed to try to slip the cuffs on his fellow officer? Was he supposed to arrest him and hold him at gunpoint until backup arrived? One thing is for sure, nobody is given specific training on exactly what to do in this situation beyond the generic directive that you are supposed to intervene.

It's very easy to throw the "should've" grenade and run away. I want someone to stand and itemize precisely what they would have done.

Pat Flynn, St. Paul

•••

I take issue with a recent letter to the editor supporting Interim Minneapolis Police Chief Amelia Huffman by saying Huffman convinced then-Chief Medaria Arradondo, with over 30 years at the department, to implement a racial equity training program. The letter writer mentions Huffman's over 27 years on the force and Huffman's newly appointed head of training, David Garman, who has 24 years on the force.

Contrast this with J. Alexander Kueng, a Black officer, on trial on charges of depriving Floyd of his civil rights during the fatal encounter. Kueng joined the Minneapolis Police Department believing, according to New York Times reporting, that "diversity could force change" and this was the best way to "fix a broken system." Chauvin was Kueng's field training officer. Kueng was working his third shift when he assisted Chauvin by holding the Floyd's back as Floyd struggled under Chauvin's knee. Reportedly, Kueng heard Floyd's pleas for help and did nothing to intervene.

Changing the culture at the MPD will not come from within. Nor will the culture change with training.

I can't take a leap of faith. I need to see the details before action is taken.

Chris Bray, Minneapolis

Monday's "Stop tech giants from destroying local news" editorial opens with a profound description of journalism as "fundamental to the workings of a democracy." That's true of course. Since the emergence of Donald Trump, and particularly after his ascendancy to the presidency, his every word and deed was called "a threat to democracy," especially in covering the so-called Trump-Russia collusion charge from Democrats and their adoring media. If the Star Tribune truly believes journalism is "fundamental to the workings of a democracy" how can it explain its failure to even mention last Friday's filing from special counsel John Durham until Feb. 17, a filing which after a lengthy investigation concluded that attorneys affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign worked with cyber researchers to infiltrate the computers at Trump Towers and later at the White House to "mine Internet data to establish 'an inference' and 'narrative' tying then-candidate Trump to Russia"? Aside from national security concerns, isn't such conduct from those connected with a rival political candidate for the purpose of interfering with the election process, and then to damage the presidency of the duly-elected president, a real "threat to democracy"? And isn't that threat exacerbated by the failure of the media, including this paper, to remain silent in the face of that threat?

Ronald Haskvitz, Golden Valley

•••

Multiple news sources have questioned John Durham's investigation and lack of evidence for assertions made ("Durham filing doesn't match right-wing claims," Feb. 17). The 12th paragraph of the commentary begins, "If true." That would seem to be a warning. In light of many questions, Durham's lack of evidence and former Attorney General Bill Barr's appointment of Durham in the first place, the Star Tribune would have been wise to publish a rebuttal on the same day as this column.

There are way too many people who will be all too happy to have another tool to attack Clinton. At the very least, after all that has been thrown at her, she (and we) deserve caution about another charge until more details are known.

Corinne Robinson, Minneapolis

As a taxpayer, the story of alleged fraud with the Feeding Our Future program ("Millions given without question," front page, Feb. 17) is infuriating. The statements and behavior of Feeding Our Future Director Aimee Bock and her affiliates, using societal racism to excuse their own irresponsibility and greed, are reprehensible. She implies, without evidence, that criminality among Black and Hispanic people is so widespread that she had no choice but to select vendors with criminal records of fraud, theft and forgery. That is simply unbelievable. That the Minnesota Department of Education, according to her lawyer, doesn't "provide any guidance or information regarding this topic" is also irresponsible, but it does not excuse Bock's behavior.

Finally, I'm grateful to the Star Tribune for yet another example of its excellent journalism. This is exactly why I am committed to support local journalists and newspapers. It is exactly why they are critical to functioning democracies.

•••

I read with alarm and disgust the article about local nonprofits stealing tens of millions of dollars from the Department of Education's program to feed poor children.

I understand that progressive voters believe that the best way to achieve a more equitable society is to invest generously in government programs. And, typically, the more the better!

But when tens of millions of dollars are wasted on mismanaging a relatively small food program and hundreds of millions of dollars (billions?) are wasted on mismanaging a large light-rail construction project, do progressives ever get mad? Where is the outrage and insistence that those you have elected be held accountable? Do you ever lose confidence in the effectiveness of government?

We desperately need our ever-expanding governments to efficiently manage the financial resources that the taxpayers have entrusted to them!

It was curious that bike lane advocates' recent response to the argument that bike lanes are not used in the winter was to proclaim they bravely ride in the winter. That's irrelevant, as bike lanes are still seldom used in the winter. However, it's also true that Minneapolis parks, beaches, outdoor pools and golf courses are also seldom used in the winter. Just as outdoor skating rinks, warming houses and snowplows are not used in the summer.

Minnesota is a land dominated by its seasons, and what makes it a great place to live aren't the things you don't do during a particular season — it's things you can do. The skating rinks, warming houses and plowed streets make Minnesota winters better. And it's the beaches, outdoor pools, golf courses and bike lanes, among many other things, that make Minnesota summers great.

Ronald Hobson, St. Louis Park