Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

A recent contributor to the Readers Write suggested that Amir Locke's killing was caused by "guns so freely flowing in our society that the danger [to law enforcement] is exacerbated even more." The writer then says we should "Reduce the danger on both sides: Change the no-knock rules and control guns."

Locke was asleep in a private residence when the police burst in and killed him. He was not a suspect, was not running loose on the street and was in legal possession of his gun. Private citizens have always had the right to possess firearms in their homes. No amount of "gun control" would have saved Locke's life or made it illegal for him to possess a gun in a private home.

No-knock warrants cause needless danger to citizens and police officers. On Feb. 25, the National Tactical Officers Association issued this statement about no-knock warrants:

"We can all agree that there is no easy answer, but there is a correct answer: No-knock search warrants, though well-intended, no longer pass the test of tactical science, risk mitigation practices, and liability-conscious decision-making." The NTOA cites the risk of "misidentification by the occupants of the police as intruders" as one problem caused by no-knock warrants.

Locke's death was not caused by "danger on both sides." He was killed by reckless police using a tactic that has now been condemned by the leading organization that trains tactical officers.

Terrance Newby, Roseville

•••

A 20-second delay in daytime and a 30-second delay at night until breach time! ("No more no-knock warrants in Mpls.," April 6.) Imagine: One or more of the breach team shouts the police warning through the door. The warrant is about to be executed. Seconds are counting down. Which breach team member is tracking the 20 to 30 seconds before entry? What device is measuring the seconds? A digital watch? A coach's stopwatch around the neck? Perhaps counting down verbally? During this countdown the team is primed for violent action, expecting armed resistance. They watch, they listen, they monitor their radios ... Did their bodycams record the seconds?

Frank Victor, Woodbury

•••

I was disappointed to notice the language choices in the front-page story about Amir Locke's killing ("'He's already saving lives,'" April 10). The article states, "They [the police] note that he had a pistol in his hand." Let's break this down:

• "They": The police are not claiming this; the body cameras show that Locke had a gun. The whole point of body cameras is to eliminate the speculation surrounding police assertions, and in this case, the cameras did their job. There is no question that Locke was armed.
• "Note": The word "note" connotes something brief, informal and only slightly worth making mention of. This detail is pretty pivotal to the events that transpired, so picking a word with stronger undertones would be wise.
• "Pistol": This brings up charming images of children's toys or Agatha Christie props, and downplays the seriousness of weapon that Locke had.

There is plenty to criticize in this case, the Minneapolis Police Department and policing in general. However, this sentence was not the place to cast doubt or speculation. Words matter; choose more carefully.

Christina Anderson, Lakeville

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE

Step up for sexual assault victims

I feel that the Minneapolis Police Department must pursue the grants provided under the Abby Honold Act ("For rape victims, police, 'a new beginning,'" March 17). The inception of this piece of federal legislation was in part due to the MPD's incompetence in handling cases of sexual violence. This is symbolic of a larger societal issue, as many victims are fearful of systems that don't engage in trauma-informed care and are discouraged from reporting the crimes they have endured.

Sadly, there is stigma and misunderstanding around sexual violence. Those from marginalized communities often face the most barriers contributing to the lack of trust in our law enforcement system. As a woman of color and a native to Minneapolis, it's concerning to think of the amount of underreporting that occurs within our community. It's of equal concern that survivors must fight to be heard and to find justice due to poor treatment from law enforcement agencies. It's imperative that when citizens are faced with the challenge of reporting these personal and traumatic experiences, they're met with care, compassion and competence.

It's time that the MPD reflects the culture of our community, the culture that supports the survivors of these crimes and empowers them to bring their assailants to justice. I urge everyone to reach out to your City Council members and the MPD's Interim Chief Amelia Huffman to advocate that the department pursue grants to protect our fellow citizens.

Alexis Roberts, Brooklyn Center

EXPERTS

Paradox of expertise, generalization

I agree with the theme of the commentary on experts ("Experts don't always know best," Opinion Exchange, April 14). We have become too reliant on them overall. But I think Cory Franklin's interpretation of experts is a bit cynical, and there's a more charitable angle.

A useful definition of an expert is someone who has learned more and more about less and less, until they knew everything about nothing. Specialization within a field has become more important as the amount of information in the world has increased exponentially. The way professions have dealt with the information explosion is to specialize further and further. This limits what they must know and stay up to date on and still maintain their expertise over time. Makes sense.

Unfortunately, as specialization increases, the expert may lose some sense of how their field fits into the larger world. It's the "to someone with a hammer, the world looks like a nail" effect. And so the charitable interpretation of experts is that they are doing their best, but they just don't understand all the pieces because they've been forced to highly specialize.

So maybe now you've decided not to become an expert. But the generalist, one who wants to figure out how all the pieces (experts) fit together, has the opposite problem. They will learn less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything. Surface knowledge can be useful. But it can also be dangerous.

It's quite a conundrum we face in an increasingly complex world. The only way for the citizenry to keep pace is to be a learning machine. Godspeed.

Spencer J. Kubo, Minneapolis

•••

Franklin mocks the idea of needing a biologist to define a "woman." Despite this, he failed to provide such a definition himself. If it is so simple that we do not require experts, surely Franklin should be able to provide such a definition. Alternately, perhaps some humility is required in order to listen and learn about the complexities involved with both definition construction as well as gender identity. Franklin warned about experts being consulted on subjects outside their expertise. I humbly suggest he consider if lexicography is truly within the domain of an intensive care physician.

Nic Brinza, Minneapolis

TRANSGENDER KIDS

Support and love needed above all

When I saw the image of the trans pride flag on the ground, I knew to dread the commentary by Corinna Cohn ("What I wish I'd known before my transition," Opinion Exchange, April 14).

I feel for Cohn. I wish she had gotten and would get the kind of counseling and affirmation she evinces a lack of in her commentary. But this essay by one person writing vague regrets about a decision she made on her own at 19 is just that: one person's experience and not a particularly insightful account of it. To run something so one-sided without a counter was irresponsible. But to use the image of a trans pride flag on the ground added insult to injury. I'm sickened.

Between the lines, what Cohn begs for, then and now, is support and love. Give gender-questioning kids support and love. Tell them your experience, but show them myriad others, too. Printing that commentary alongside that image was anti-trans propaganda. It's hateful. Badly done, Star Tribune.

Protect trans kids. Love them. Support them. Keep supporting them. If that's hard for you, then perhaps it's you who needs more support.

Kristin Boldon, Minneapolis