Every acquittal of a killer cop grievously wounds our common life ("Trial was 'very difficult,' juror says," June 17). No case is a matter of only the letter of the law, and even that you got wrong in the acquittal of officer Jeronimo Yanez in the shooting death of Philando Castile. Ramsey County Attorney John Choi rightly said: "No reasonable cop would have acted as this officer acted."
What you and other juries and prosecutors have done is create a class of people, police officers, whose actions are treated in a radically different way than those of other offenders. You have colluded in giving them a license to kill. You have made harder our work to hold incompetent and murderous cops accountable.
One of you was quoted as saying that the jurors felt sympathy for the Castile family. They don't need your sympathy; they, and all of us, needed your decision for justice, and you failed us.
Helen Hunter, St. Paul
• • •
In theory, our system of justice, with trial by jury, sounds fair, but how can that be when people with an active interest in the news are systematically excluded from the jury? In their search for impartial jurors — those who know little to nothing about the case or who have had no similar experiences — attorneys obstruct justice by keeping educated, informed people off the jury. We can only expect decisions like the one in the Castile case when juries are stacked with people who don't think it's worth their time to learn more about what's going on in society, and stacked against those who are, dare I say, more intellectual? We have to change the way our jurors are selected.
Esther Benenson, Minneapolis
• • •
We should all remember that being found "not guilty" in a court of law is not the same as being not guilty. Only Yanez knows if he is truly guilty or not guilty. The jury's verdict cannot absolve him from the truth.
Cathy Nelson, St. Paul
• • •