A letter in Friday's paper includes this statement: "We all know from watching cop shows on TV that police know which judge to go to for no-knock warrants — the "easy judges." ... [T]hey killed him, too." As a law professor and lawyer for decades, I cannot say this too forcefully: Do not understand the legal system based on what you see on television. Furthermore, according to the detailed timeline in Thursday's paper, it was Judge Peter Cahill who approved the warrant. Judge Cahill served both as a public defender and as a prosecutor and is so widely respected for his fairness and intelligence that he was tapped to preside over the Derek Chauvin trial.

The death of Amir Locke is a tremendous tragedy, and we should focus our commentary and hopes for reform on what actually happened.

Deborah A. Schmedemann, Mendota Heights

•••

The Star Tribune published five letters on April 8 critical of law enforcement without at least one different view over the Locke incident. As someone who participated in many no-knock warrants, I'd like to offer a different perspective. Search warrants are a court order authorizing an officer to search a person, location or vehicle. The officer must make the case that probable cause exists for the warrant with a narrative of the existing investigation. In the article "No more no-knock warrants for Mpls." (April 6), we see politics overshadow police/public safety. Omitted from the article is that fact that the affiant officer (sworn in by the judge) must make a convincing case that a no-knock is needed. The article misleads the reader into thinking that a no-knock is guaranteed. Request for no-knocks are more frequent in drug cases due to the high probability of the presence of firearms. The purpose is to keep officers and the occupants safe as a quick entry could result in a "startle response" that freezes any reaction. What "research" went into creating the 20-second rule by day and 30-second rule by night? Has this become a game of "fairness"? Officers already have to navigate residences with motion sensitive cameras, doorbells with audio and visual capabilities, and dogs. Forewarning occupants that police are at their door might elicit a "flight or fight" reaction that could increase the threat level for all. Has Mayor Jacob Frey ever seen the preplanning done for a no-knock warrant? Has he observed from a safe distance the entry and aftermath? When was the last time he or any council members did a late-night ride-along in high-crime areas?

As tragic as Locke's death is, he did violate a safe gun-handling practice. By literally sleeping with his handgun, his likely foggy response to the noise of the police entry ensured the deadly response.

Mayor Frey continues to reimagine the Minneapolis Police Department in a fashion that puts everyone at greater risk. It is unfortunate that common sense is so elusive in a city where crime is so rampant.

Joe Polunc, Waconia

•••

Locke's killing and response was a lose-lose catastrophe at every turn. Once again, we're facing the reality that some of our societal structures are just not working. I remember an incident last summer while performing music outdoors in the North Loop: A young Black man who seemed to be intoxicated approached the band wanting to "play" my instruments and join in. As the situation escalated with security guards at the ready, a Black woman who also works security spoke kindly to the young man. She asked, "Are you thirsty? Would you like something to eat?" She put her kind, maternal arm around the man and offered him water and a bag of chips. He sat down with her on a bench nearby and relaxed in her calm presence. Within seconds, a potentially violent scene de-escalated into a moment of care and compassion. As an ambulance arrived, it turns out the young man was AWOL from a residential substance abuse treatment center.

Maybe this is an example of how senior women of color could help to upgrade our conventional approach to urban safety. I believe including this wisdom and compassion into the theme of "To Serve and Protect" would be a step in the right direction.

Don Strong, Minneapolis

JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

Watch who else you're criticizing

I'm fascinated by how many Republican "Evangelicals" claim our new Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is too soft on crime. This rejection comes despite endorsement by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, who appreciate the fact that she has several family members serving in law enforcement.

Want to know who is soft on crime? The Prince of Peace. Consider the following:

• "'Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?'"
• "'You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.'"
• "Then Peter came to Him and said, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.'"
• "Who executes justice for the oppressed, Who gives food to the hungry. The Lord gives freedom to the prisoners."

Charges against this radically compassionate Jesus by religious leaders got him nailed to a cross, where one of his last acts was to pardon a criminal.

I looked for a quote from Jesus about locking them up and throwing away the key, but couldn't find one.

We live in a nation that leads the world in the number of people who are incarcerated. One would hope we could realize simply locking people up isn't working. As we near Holy Week, I believe that the current appeal to be "tough on crime" is worth a bit of soul-searching.

Daniel Johnson, Crystal

•••

"Jackson confirmed as first Black female high court justice." So read the Associated Press headline on StarTribune.com upon the Senate's confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The article went on to report that Jackson's appointment "shatter[ed] a historic barrier." Did she break a barrier for all Black women, or simply a bigoted caricature of Black women whose political and religious worldview fits the expected mold of their race and gender?

To be clear, Justice Jackson supports an abortion industry that disproportionately targets Black mothers and children. Justice Jackson supports sexual ideology that cannot meaningfully identify what it means to be a woman. Justice Jackson supports the "diversity, equity and inclusion" mantra that objectifies minorities as political chattel who owe their diminishing freedoms to politicians looking for votes and corporations looking for higher ESG scores.

The only class that Justice Jackson represents is a ruling elite that stands against the traditional values and virtues of not only Black women, but all Americans of Christian conscience and conservative character.

Jack Wheeler, Hudson, Wis.

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.