Who should be in charge in event of protests? The person trained for the job: Police chief

It may sound silly or even sarcastic to say that not just anyone can run a police department. But I'm being serious now, serious as pepper spray, riot sticks and bullets.

That the Minneapolis City Charter allows the mayor to lead "decision making and operational processes" ("After harsh DOJ report, Hodges takes her lumps," Jon Tevlin column, March 22) during a protest/riot should not frighten the city's citizens if one assumes that the mayor will rely on the expertise of the chief of police for strategy, tactics, operational control and a reasonable sharing of information.

Based on the DOJ report, Tevlin believed the two might have fallen down a bit on cooperation.

I know it's popular at the moment to think of the police as thick-necked Neanderthals with buzz cuts and bulging biceps, toting a club in one hand and a sub gun in the other, with little on their minds. And while this view works for left-leaning political satire, it's far from accurate.

Your typical Minnesota cop has a two- or, more likely, four-year degree in criminal justice. Many have additional degrees in sociology, psychology, forensic science or political science, among other fields. Most police commanders and nearly all big-city chiefs have a master's degree in police administration.

By contrast, a city mayor most likely has little or no education in criminal justice and is even more ignorant in riot/crisis management techniques. (Like health care, these protests can be "complicated.")

Saying you want to keep the peace at all costs sounds good. But is it possible or prudent when a demonstration crosses the line from peaceful protest to rioting?

Though police officers arrive at protests "dressed for success," this appearance serves two functions. First, it lets protesters know that police have come prepared for whatever may come their way. Second, it offers the police officer standing in harm's way the most protection against projectiles, which seem ubiquitous at these events.

Maintaining the peace at protests that turn violent is like managing the number of bee stings you receive when you upset a hive. So the best thing is keeping peaceful protesters and bystanders safe while maintaining some degree of protection for law enforcement. After the police ensure the safety of lawful protesters, an attempt can be made to isolate and arrest those who have resorted to violence — usually imported protesters who want to escalate because they believe the resultant publicity will favor their cause. They know from experience that the media will be sure to get pictures of police arresting them and if they fight the police they know the pictures, or better yet, the video, of police arresting them will look bad for the police.

The police understand this tactic, as well. They also know that no matter how peacefully they make an arrest, it will still look bad. Forcing someone to the ground and placing handcuffs on them behind their back looks bad no matter how "peacefully" you try to do it.

With these realities in mind, along with a plethora of other contingencies one could have never planned for, the idea of the mayor and the chief of police being at odds during a major protest such as this invites all kinds of bad endings.

I guess we should consider our city, its citizens and police lucky to have survived this train wreck relatively unscathed. As Tevlin said, the city's police and the peaceful protesters deserve a lot of credit for keeping this imbroglio from boiling over.

The mayor can formulate a philosophy to follow and certainly bears the authority and responsibility to veto a plan she finds insufficient or ill advised. But the chief must have operational authority; that is her job, the one she trained for, the one she applied for and was hired to perform.

If no one's in charge — the bees win.