Militarized Policing Is at the Root of the Minneapolis Mayhem

When I wrote regularly about police use-of-force issues for this newspaper, I encountered two types of officers: those admirable ones who de-escalated situations and those who escalated them. Thanks to a lack of hiring standards, purposeful federal policy, poor training, and a lack of accountability or punishment for bad behavior, ICE is going all in on the second approach. This bodes ill for the safety and liberty of all Americans.

The administration no doubt is doing this because it believes most Americans will instinctively back law and order. Notice all those blue-striped flags and bumper stickers. I have experienced escalation before. I made a minor jaywalking mistake and was non-threatening, but the officer shouted in my face with the apparent goal of prompting me to lose my cool and give her an excuse to pummel me.

It should not surprise any American that some officials like to act aggressively. That’s a defining observation of an American revolution that broke the yokes of a British king who “sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” Those officers had legal standing, by the way, but the colonists—unlike modern conservatives—didn’t argue that we should blindly obey.

I’m not getting into the details of the ICE shootings in Minneapolis of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Everyone who is interested has seen the video footage and the step-by-step analysis by experts and commentators. In my view, both killings were unjustified, but people’s opinions on the specifics are highly dependent on whether they are sympathetic to the administration or the protesters.

But in all the discussions of whether any use of force is legally justified—and they usually are given the rules are tilted heavily in favor of the officer—police/ICE defenders rarely discuss the multiple choices officers made that unnecessarily led to the violent encounter. Then they lecture the public on the importance of simply complying. They never lecture officers and their departments on the importance of following a de-escalation playbook, which prioritizes police behaviors that reduce tensions, calm emotions, and lessen aggression.

A decade ago, Americans were building a bipartisan consensus on police reform. Groups on the left and right recognized that police officers have a tough job—and one that’s crucial to a safe society. However, they also recognized that holding life-and-death authority comes with great responsibility. I saw broad agreement for the conservative group Right on Crime’s observation: “The militarization of our police, whereby their outward appearance and display of weapons, uniforms and equipment (and the accompanying preference for force over other options to solve problems) breaks the necessary bonds between the community and its police officers.”

President Donald Trump made some nods toward criminal justice reform in his first term, but that noteworthy consensus collapsed as he embraced crass culture-war rhetoric after protests over the death of George Floyd turned into riots. It’s been downhill since then, as progressives embraced defund-the-police nonsense and conservatives defended even the most appalling uses of force. The recent federal siege of Minneapolis is the predictable endpoint of a policing strategy that incorporates the opposite of that sensible Right on Crime principle.

As my R Street Institute colleague Jillian Snider, a retired New York City police officer, recently wrote, “Federal officials are correct in describing Minneapolis as a challenging operating environment…But that reality strengthens—not weakens—the arguments for disciplined tactics and specialized training.” Indeed.

In my experience, poorly run police agencies and law-and-order politicians will exaggerate police dangers to justify heavy-handed tactics rather than—yes, that word again—de-escalation techniques. For what it’s worth, the Cato Institute reports that 2025 was the second safest year in history for ICE and Border Patrol agents.

Another key component of good policing: Thorough, even-handed investigations after police force incidents. Agencies that refuse such oversight or complete only pro forma investigations can send an angry public into a rage. That’s why California passed a law a few years ago that requires outside investigations, given the obvious conflict when an agency investigates itself. Yet, the Trump Department of Justice said it will not perform a review of the Good shooting, and a Trump-appointed judge has enjoined the department from destroying evidence in the Pretti case.

The government’s response to the Good killing is far different from what agencies typically do after police-involved shootings, according to Radley Balko, a journalist who has spent his career covering police issues. The administration “made no…concessions. There were no promises of an impartial investigation. There was no regret or remorse.” Its statements were meant to “show you can get away with anything” and were “a projection of power,” he wrote in The New York Times.

In other words, this tinderbox has been ignited by design. If we want to get past this madness, we need a new design that tries to de-escalate such situations.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.