While I applaud Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman's decision not to charge the Minneapolis police officers who had no choice other than to use deadly force during their life-or-death struggle with Jamar Clark, there remain issues that are disturbing to this retired police officer.

First, Freeman's decision not to charge has been treated as a tragedy by nearly everyone, including Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges, who said the decision was a tragedy for everyone in Minnesota. Isn't saying that synonymous to saying that Freeman made a mistake? While I view the violent death of anyone to be tragic, the mayor should have offered her Police Department some credit for surviving what could have ended with her officers being shot and killed. Hodges had nothing to say about her department and said she still had not examined the evidence in the case. Really? What is she waiting for?

Second, while I give Freeman credit for having the patience of Job while being interrupted nearly every time he spoke during his news conference, there should have been consequences for Minneapolis NAACP communications director Raeisha Williams who said " … and let me tell you, if the city burns, it's on your hands." Peaceful supporters of the NAACP should be demanding her resignation. Luckily, her riot-inciting rhetoric did not have the intended effect.

Third, now comes the micro-examination of the officers before the shooting. The time span of 61 seconds from the time the officers arrived on scene until the shooting is being questioned. Any police officer can tell you that deadly force can happen much more quickly than that. It could have taken 5 seconds and would have been equally justified.

Some, including Freeman, have wondered why the responding officers were not equipped with stun guns. In the April 1 article "Freeman defends Clark decision," state Rep. Tony Cornish, a former police officer, wisely uses as an example an incident last summer in Plymouth in which an officer attempted to subdue a suspect with a Taser and subsequently ended up in a wrestling match for her weapon that luckily she won. Though I have no information on the circumstances of the Clark case other than what has been printed in the Star Tribune, the apparent reason the altercation escalated was because Clark would not show officers his hands, even after multiple requests. Any savvy officer would consider this refusal to be very suspicious. Officers are taught to ask people they are dealing with to show them their hands. Obviously, a gun or other weapon could be secreted in a pocket, drawn and used quickly.

Much has also been said about the officers taking Clark to the ground for handcuffing. Again, this is standard practice among most police departments. Officers are trained to take suspects to the ground and use their body weight to assist them in handcuffing, resulting in as little injury to suspect and officers as possible. Consider the ability of a suspect to resist arrest while standing as opposed to lying on the ground. A standing suspect who resists is probably going to be tased, Maced or struck with a police baton. A suspect taken to the ground is, in most cases, simply going to be handcuffed. When Clark attempted to gain possession of Mark Ringgenberg's gun, that changed everything.

Then there's the manner in which Clark was taken to the ground — the lateral vascular neck restraint (LVNR) commonly, though incorrectly, referred to as a chokehold. While some departments have moved away from the LVNR, many departments still use it as an indispensable tactic on the use-of-force continuum. When applied appropriately, the LVNR does not choke but rather restricts blood flow to the brain, thus rendering the suspect noncombative in a matter of seconds. When applied correctly, it results in no injury to the suspect. Needless to say, the Taser, Mace and baton are less friendly. It's also worth mentioning that none of these methods looks nice when viewed by people nearby. When someone resists arrest, they are inviting the police to subdue them. Being subdued by police always has the appearance of brutality, because there is an element of brutality in combat.

Finally, while there is a great deal of evidence that exonerates the officers, the media continue to interview people who bring up elements of the case that have been proven to be untrue. Clark was not handcuffed when he was shot. Clark's DNA was on Ringgenberg's gun and gun belt. Though Clark's family and friends say he would never be assaultive toward police, this has proved to be false. Perhaps the alcohol and marijuana in his system had something to do with that. Clark's girlfriend has been backing down from the original report of domestic assault to telling reporters recently that they were just friends and that he didn't really assault her.

It is understandable that protesters, who have invested months of their time protesting different aspects of this case, will not just walk away and forget about this case now that the officers have been cleared. I give credit to those who have steered supporters of Clark to nonviolent protest. With Williams implying that the city would burn, the restraint used by protesters is commendable. Protesters might consider whether their demand that Freeman rather than a grand jury make the determination to charge was logical or beneficial to anyone. While a grand jury would no doubt have come to the same conclusion, I believe Freeman did an exemplary job, and the transparency he has offered the public is unprecedented.

Richard Greelis, an author living in Bloomington, is a retired police detective and teacher.