Nearly two years after George Floyd’s murder, still looking for leadership on transforming law enforcement

Say thousands of angry citizens stormed the streets because our drinking water was polluted and the government wasn’t fixing it. Police are called in from multiple jurisdictions to quell the unrest. Citizens report multiple cases of excessive use of force.

When the dust settles, would our most urgent task be to figure out how to fix law enforcement’s crowd control?

No. We’d be rushing to find ways to get clean drinking water.

So when angry citizens take to the streets because of police brutality — such as what happened after George Floyd’s murder — why are we focusing on improving law enforcement practices and slow to act on a law enforcement system that makes many people feel unsafe, and be unsafe?

‘After Action Report’ for Minneapolis’ response to the George Floyd uprising lacks perspective, credibility

Police protect the Third Precinct on the first night of protests over George Floyd’s murder.

The After Action Report on Minneapolis’ response to the George Floyd uprising, released last week, pounds lumps on city leaders for their lack of preparation and leadership, but mostly spares the Minneapolis Police Department from criticism.

The report fails to paint a full picture. It centers voices of police and city officials, not residents. It only looks at the public expression of anger during the short period of the uprising; it ignores police violence over many years that built up that anger.

Most of the blame falls to the city. It didn’t ask the consultants to look at context, and context is everything. It asked the consultants such things as how the city could better prepare “for future civil disturbances” rather than how to prevent them.